This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Shield the vulnerable. Back to normal for everyone else.(109 Posts)
I keep seeing this literally everywhere.
I don't understand how it works!
Vulnerable people are through all walks of life and in all essential services. By virtue of them shielding means things can't run as normal as there isn't enough staff.
Do vulnerable people never leave home and never let anyone in if it's rife everywhere ripping through communities? Ever? What if they need hospital treatment? What if they have a heart attack or need cancer treatment? What if their central heating broke and needed fixing or there was a fire or a leak. What if their children go to school? Or have shared custody?
I feel like I must be missing something really obvious for the amount of people suggesting it. How does it work practically?
It’s a load of old shit. People don’t realise that lots of clinically vulnerable people - like me- are young / have families / husbands or wives who work, often outside of the home - etc etc. People seem to think the vulnerable are all little old people that live alone and can get their emergency food boxes delivered and never leave their homes (and why should they be made to do that too anyway?!)
It’s just another “I’m alright Jack” approach.
It's something no one really thinks about just a throw away comment because they don't want to have restrictions on their lives!
It's so heartless that even the Tories aren't going near it as a policy
The issue with everyone else getting back to normal is that some of these fit and healthy people will get seriously ill and some may die. If the virus runs through the population there will be people who need ventilation in hospital but they won’t get it if cases are swamped. Perhaps hospitals will have yo have an age cut off point for treatment in this scenario if they are overrun. I doubt people would be happy about that.
The other issue is the huge grey area between catching Covid and dying and catching Covid and being left with heart and lung problems. There are people with none of the risk factors on paper who have experienced this. We are need to follow sensible precautions. Unfortunately this does mean that restrictions are in place. The selfishness of some people in society saddens me.
‘It's so heartless that even the Tories aren't going near it as a policy‘
I am stealing this line the next time someone suggests it to me, sums it up perfectly I think!
My 10 year old was on the shielding list. His physical and mental health have already suffered massively because of the lockdown and delays in treatment.
Being back at school now although tough is giving him a bit of normality back. He has already missed a week since going back due to an outbreak in his bubble.
Completely agree its ableist shite. People see 'vulnerable people' as elderly/disabled and living alone, not a part of a family with children and partners and jobs.
Also, would love people to list what conditions fall in to 'vulnerable' rather than saying it as if its a subscriptive term that we can see from glancing at a person! Just blue badge holders? What about asthma? Pregnant? Over 50s?
It is such a selfish attitude. I don't know if it comes from a place of selfishness or its just pure ignorance and not understanding
I'm sure they would all be buzzing when it meant their schools would need to close again because lots of the teachers fall into the vunerable categories and would be locked up at home.
People saying they need to get back to their normal life for the sake of their 'mental health' so let the elderly and vunerable be shielded so the rest of us can carry on. Does these peoples mental health trump that of the vunerable as well then ?
I'm all for the vunerable shielding if they feel its neccessary themselves and i really wish the government would have protections in place for these people if thats what they want to do so they don't loose their jobs etc. We are avoiding as much contact outside our house as physically possible due to a vunerable person and have had no indoor visitors or seen anyone indoors since March apart from when we have had to access medical treatment but we are very fortunate to be able to do this and i'm sure other people would like their jobs to be protected so they could do the same. However there is lots of people who are ECV or elderly out there who do not want to shield they want to have some normality in their lives as well the same as everyone else and they have the right to do that as well. We can't just be forcing people to sheild so everyone else can 'get on with their lives' !
Glad lots of these other people are also so confident that they aren't vunerable given that there is a very wide range in the categories including high BMI, and a lot of people may have as of yet undiagnosed underlying conditions. A lot don't seem to realise that they are just one virus or car accident away from being on that vunerable list for the rest of their lives themselves
@gallbladderpain 'A lot don't seem to realise that they are just one virus or car accident away from being on that vunerable list for the rest of their lives themselves'
This is a really important quote!! Needs shouting from the high heavens. I completely agree.
Of course it's as impractical as it is unkind. Vulnerable people live with, are cared for, even care themselves for others who are not vulnerable. Adding up everyone over 60, pregnant, BAME, diabetic, premature babies, any respiratory condition, any heart condition, anyone obese, anyone with cancer... plus everyone that whole list of people live with, plus all their families, it becomes a huge proportion of society including vast numbers of seemingly otherwise healthy working adults and schoolchildren. Those vulnerable to covid in society can't be fully isolated while the world continues, because there isn't enough "world" left. That's before any concerns about healthcare systems breaking down from excessive cases, long covid health issues, herd immunity overshoot. And before we decide how to split hospitals, dentists, all required carers and all hospital and community healthcare workers between the vulnerable and "non-vulnerable".
People saying this just mean that they don't like pandemic restrictions and can't be bothered to show compassion. If they're usually a decent person then you might gently challenge their viewpoint, but some people are just dickheads and best ignored. Your call really.
It's the same principle as "Covid only kill the old, fat and vulnerable people"
You know,so fuck them cos I'm alright jack!
I'm glad there's agreement about how impractical it is.
I assumed people supporting this view would come and give their reasons for how it would work - interesting that no one has!
So you shield the "vulnerable" and let the virus rip through everybody else.
1. Their carers get COVID and pass it on to those shielding anyway
2. The vulnerable need routine healthcare and catch it in hospitals anyway
3. The delivery drivers etc get it and the vulnerable can't get supplies anyway.
@treebarking I also expected to see opinions of why this would be such a good idea, maybe people are coming on and reading the messages and having a second think. I hope!
It’s foolish. Lots of people won’t know they are vulnerable until they are vulnerable.
Unless everyone has a thorough health check today, and a blood test, and a dna test for markets which might make them susceptible, potentially everyone is vulnerable.
This was my stance I'll be honest. Reading this thread as made me think a lot differently!
I hear this constantly at the moment !!! The issue is they do not understand they are not all 88 years old
My daughter is 7 and is CV, she needs hospital treatment regularly so has to attend hospital. We shielded for 4 months but still needed to go to hospital 4 times in those 4 months. If we let it run wild there is no way to keep them completely safe.
Another thing is that people don’t want to any restrictions because of mental health / money reasons
The vulnerable are not immune to those problems and will be much worse than the restrictions for everyone as wouldn’t be allowed to leave house at all apart from medical treatment.
I mean how many people know they are going to have a stroke on the day they have one. This is potentially the same. Anyone with any susceptibility is hidden vulnerable.
I agree OP. Also, a lot of people may have underlying conditions they are unaware with or be vulnerable to this virus without even knowing. There have been young, healthy people get really ill from it and elderly with underlying conditions be completely fine.
I also think the "non-vulnerable" population would resent being made to go out to work whilst the "vulnerable" are safely tucked away at home.
(When I say vulnerable I mean the wider 'flu jab' group, not just the extremely clinically vulnerable).
I think vulnerable (diabetes, obese etc) corresponds to about 20 million people (extremely clinically vulnerable is 2.2 million).
And guess what, these 20 million people don’t all live alone. Many will live with non-vulnerable people who would also have to shield if they are shielding.
You’d end up with at least half the population shielding while the others tried to go out and cover all the jobs. Can’t see how this would work.
I hate hearing the phrase too. Very pleased not to have argue with people that it’s a load of rubbish. Whatever happened to compassion in our society
I hate hearing this too. People are so adamant it’s the way to go though you will never convince them otherwise. I avoid talking Covid to people irl cos they say stuff like this and it drives me mad.
I was glad hear boris try to explain yesterday why it’s not an option.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Please login first.