Talk

Advanced search

For shielders..

(26 Posts)
sunseekin Wed 09-Sep-20 22:11:44

What Boris mumbled tonight re shielding came up in conversation on another thread, so thought I’d put this screenshot here in case it’s useful for anybody.

OP’s posts: |
sunseekin Wed 09-Sep-20 22:15:08

I’m hoping it might mean shielding is on its way back and also thought it might help with discussions with schools.

OP’s posts: |
Littlemiss74 Wed 09-Sep-20 22:24:26

@sunseekin thank you for this, I didn’t quite catch his answer to this question. I was shielding and would like it if they could say, if you were shielding and you are able to work from home then you should again now. My boss has been fine with me wfh but since they said ‘get back to work’ now wants me to go in one or two days a week. With cases rising and the briefing today I am nervous about going back but feel I will have to unless the government say otherwise. I am able to do my job fine wfh. I can feel the anxiety I had at the start of all this returning.

sunseekin Wed 09-Sep-20 22:30:43

It’s so wrong, I think the tide must be about to turn on shielding again. Do you think your boss would agree to watching and waiting for a couple more weeks given the uncertain, noncommittal tone of tonight’s briefing? I think if you can get him to agree to a couple more weeks you will have a strong case and/or he would probably realise it wasn’t appropriate. If indeed shielding isn’t reinstated by then.

OP’s posts: |
BatSegundo Wed 09-Sep-20 22:31:04

Thanks OP though if anyone manages to make enough sense of that waffly piffle for it to be useful, I'll be impressed. grin

sunseekin Wed 09-Sep-20 22:32:33

Sending lots of 💐 it really feels like unnecessary stress has been piled onto vulnerable groups unnecessarily to say the least. I hope your mind will be out at rest soon.

OP’s posts: |
noblegiraffe Wed 09-Sep-20 22:33:56

I’m not sure what is meant here because it’s about kids in school who have vulnerable parents. Does it mean the kids should be pulled out of school when it’s risky, or that parents should shield from their own kids?

sunseekin Wed 09-Sep-20 22:34:08

BatSegundo

Thanks OP though if anyone manages to make enough sense of that waffly piffle for it to be useful, I'll be impressed. grin

You make a good point, how is this about as concrete at it gets at the moment. I do think it’s a sign though and perhaps enough to make employers think / agree to operate with a bit of caution for a couple more weeks.

OP’s posts: |
Pause Wed 09-Sep-20 22:35:49

Littlemiss, the govt are saying that if you are on the shielding list you should carry on working from home wherever possible, if that is any help, so if you can do your job from home, your employer should enable it:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19

The key bit is:
“you can go to work as long as the workplace is Covid-secure, but should carry on working from home wherever possible”

I am also on the shielding list and trying to make arrangements with work.

sunseekin Wed 09-Sep-20 22:37:13

noblegiraffe

I’m not sure what is meant here because it’s about kids in school who have vulnerable parents. Does it mean the kids should be pulled out of school when it’s risky, or that parents should shield from their own kids?

It must mean kids should be pulled out? Surely even our government isn’t that bonkers to suggest you can shield from your own kids.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the frog in the boiling pan of water today though. If the water is boiling it jumps straight out, of it slowly gets hot it cooks. It feels like they’re slowly getting a large proportion of the population to believe anything...so who knows!

It was about schools but I took it as a good sign. Maybe I’m deluded!

OP’s posts: |
iVampire Wed 09-Sep-20 22:39:49

I heard him speaking and thought it was fluent bollocks

- schools should be safe so DC from families where someone is exceptionally vulnerable should be OK. But it might go wrong and we’ll change the guidance when it does

So people might die before guidance update

Hope it’s not me

It really is shitty to watch him continue as Farquad - OK, this time he didn’t say ‘some will die’ but it amounts to much the same

Lancet Oncology publishes recently that if I get it badly enough to require admission to hospital (and with my co-morbidity, we get admitted readily and rapidly), there’s a 36% death rate

Didkdt Wed 09-Sep-20 23:08:22

My child's school, when I queried said childs concerns about not being allowed to have SD in bubbles and the tweaks they've made to guidelines did actually suggest I move out of the family home.... at least Boris is encouraging dialogue

QueenPaws Wed 09-Sep-20 23:16:18

I'm still WFH. I think my boss is terrified I will get Covid and then sue him or something grin
My consultant has advised me to stay home pretty much after a conversation with him this week. He sounded a bit concerned about how it's going to go over the coming weeks/months

Bupkis Wed 09-Sep-20 23:19:05

It's interesting isn't it.
We had an email from school yesterday, reminding us that ALL children must attend school, and that this includes previously shielded children with medical vulnerabilities. It reiterates that procedures will be implemented with regards to non attendance, including fines.
I know Johnson was referring to shielding adults on this bit of waffly shite, but it does seem strange to me that children who had to shield for 5 months, are largely now off the list, ok to go into busy schools with no social distancing, heading into Winter.
My son's vulnerabilities are exactly the same....but now it's all fine, oh and if you decide to keep him off Mrs Bupkis, we'll slap a fine on you!
Fucking arseholes.

StatisticalSense Thu 10-Sep-20 00:05:00

@Bupkis
The reality is the original shielding list was an imprecise science and the evidence is now that a lot of those on it aren't actually anywhere near as vulnerable as it was first thought (and unfortunately some who weren't originally on the list appear to be more vulnerable than first thought). This includes the vast majority of children as it is now thought that even with pre-existing conditions children are extremely unlikely to get severely ill from the virus/

Someoneontheweb Thu 10-Sep-20 04:04:19

@StatisticalSense, everything at the moment is an imprecise science. Saying "extremely unlikely" doesn't help the parent who will lose their child. Lots of parents/children have "extremely unlikely", imprecisely studied illnesses and they are all being told it's fine as only a few of them will get it bad/die. My family members are not numbers, every single one of them matters.

Racoonworld Thu 10-Sep-20 04:57:14

Is there a solution though? Yes shielding kids can be kept at home but who is going to educate them? Certainly not teachers who already have an increased work load tracing in school. They can be homeschooled but that can already happen If people want to.

Racoonworld Thu 10-Sep-20 04:57:45

Teaching in school*

Bupkis Thu 10-Sep-20 06:20:19

It is an imprecise science, and it is rare for children to get very ill...but ds is rare, his condition is very rare, he has scarring on his lungs, heart problems, chronic gastric issues he has had unusual reactions to illness before, his learning disabilities and complex needs make medical treatment very much more tricky.
It is a gamble, and I don't want to gamble with my 10 year old child's life.

And yes we could homeschool, but we then run the risk of losing support that we have fought long and hard for with his EHCP, and jeopardizing any future special school place. Another gamble.

In lockdown, school provided the bare minimum of support, I organised work, and arranged meetings.

We should not be in this position.

tootyfruitypickle Thu 10-Sep-20 07:02:21

I'm not in the shielding group but facing a scare that may mean I would be. It's put this into stark relief for me as I try and plan ahead and prepare for bad news, while hoping for good. I immediately thought "well I'd have to pull dd out of school", and then I read some threads on here and realised that that's not allowed! And some people are having to shield from their own children.
I'm so sorry for everyone in this situation, I don't know what the solution is but it must be so awful to be feeling so exposed and at risk. I agree the govt needs to give some very clear advice and not leave it up to families to try and work out what the risk to them is. Even some really targetted virus figures to shielding families would be helpful, so that you know in your school catchment area, if there are any cases. I think it is possible to find that information but you have to go searching, and it should just be given to people whose lives can quite literally depend on that level of knowledge.

Also schools should be made to consider all shielding families, not just shielding children - and be made responsible to give information if ANY child in the school tests positive, not just if they're in your child's bubble.

sunseekin Thu 10-Sep-20 07:04:46

Someoneontheweb

**@StatisticalSense**, everything at the moment is an imprecise science. Saying "extremely unlikely" doesn't help the parent who will lose their child. Lots of parents/children have "extremely unlikely", imprecisely studied illnesses and they are all being told it's fine as only a few of them will get it bad/die. My family members are not numbers, every single one of them matters.

Couldn’t agree more, people deserve choice.

OP’s posts: |
ChanceChanceChance Thu 10-Sep-20 07:05:37

I’ve been thinking a lot about the frog in the boiling pan of water today though. If the water is boiling it jumps straight out, of it slowly gets hot it cooks. This is exactly how I feel today. We're slowly slowly going in the wrong direction again I fear sad

sunseekin Thu 10-Sep-20 07:07:09

Bupkis

It is an imprecise science, and it is rare for children to get very ill...but ds is rare, his condition is very rare, he has scarring on his lungs, heart problems, chronic gastric issues he has had unusual reactions to illness before, his learning disabilities and complex needs make medical treatment very much more tricky.
It is a gamble, and I don't want to gamble with my 10 year old child's life.

And yes we could homeschool, but we then run the risk of losing support that we have fought long and hard for with his EHCP, and jeopardizing any future special school place. Another gamble.

In lockdown, school provided the bare minimum of support, I organised work, and arranged meetings.

We should not be in this position.

You really shouldn’t. I think everyone who empathises needs to write a letter to their school and mp. In normal times they wouldn’t get away with this - it’s discrimination. We will look back and wonder how they got away with it for so long. Everybody is having a hard time but the injustices facing vulnerable groups at the moment shouldn’t be allowed to happen. I can’t believe they are happening.

OP’s posts: |
iVampire Thu 10-Sep-20 07:08:35

We’ve been saying all along that there needs to be additional consideration for the truly vulnerable in education

But we’re ‘other’ and are expected to just live with the risks - any age can be a vector, and can transmit to the much more vulnerable parts of the population - which might be a sibling or parent

Schools are going to need some sort of off-site learning provision (what to do with pupils who need repeated 14 day isolations from confirmed contacts?) so that could be used for those exceptionally vulnerable too

If that’s too much work, then at least there needs to be an honest conversation that the most vulnerable DC (or those with an exceptionally vulnerable household member) don’t get state school education and there will be no catch up for those missing 14 days (no matter how often)

ChanceChanceChance Thu 10-Sep-20 07:10:26

I also agree the statistical approach only works at policy level. Down at individual family level, it doesn't work. There needs to be human compassion and understanding as well as sweeping statements about '0.04 of this'.

Been arguing with my dad about this, he thinks everyone is worrying about nothing because the death rate is low. But my view is it's not that low for the people who die from it wink. But seriously, statistics get you so far but not all the way to a good personal decision.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in