We have to find a way..

[TheNumbersDontAddUp]

.. To allow those who need or want to shield to do so safely, and with support, and allow those who wish to accept the inherent risk to do so, and continue to work, go out etc because quite simply the economy cannot afford for us to do anything else?

£300 million a month it is mooted that Richie Sunaks new measures will cost.

How can we possibly afford this without irretrievably imploding the entire economy, which will ultimately destroy us all, shielding and non shielding.

I say this as a vulnerable person, at risk.

[Waxonwaxoff0]

It's an unpopular opinion but I agree. I'm just not sure how.

[ssd]

Sadly I agree

[RancidOldHag]

I couid not disagree more

A two tier society is pretty heartless anyhow, but it would be impossible to achieve.

The only way we get through this OK is to keep transmission low for everyone through the winter flu season. Because if we get through thus one, we will know so much more about effective interventions (not just UK, from round the world), and a vaccine will be that much closer.

[TheNumbersDontAddUp]

It's not about fostering a two tier society, or about being heartless. It's about making sure there is a society left for anyone, vulnerable or otherwise, to inherit.

If schools, the NHS, councils businesses, livelihoods etc etc collapse economically the fallout will be much more damaging in the long run, and for far longer.

It's not a good, or nice, or enviable position to be in, but I believe its where we are at. And it's where most people see us, if not most people on Mumsnet.

[Jrobhatch29]

www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3702/rr-2

I was reading this this morning about how divisive this issue is.
I agree too.

[Racoonworld]

I agree too. If these measures are going to go on for 6 months, why can’t the vulnerable shield and others get back to normal during this time? It’s either 6 months of misery for everyone with a ruined economy, or 6 months protection for shielders and when they come out there is an economy to get back too.

[QueenStromba]

It's impossible to avoid people completely, particularly if you have health problems. In the last week I've needed to go out for a chest x-ray, two trips to the bank that couldn't be dealt with on the phone and I had to take the cat to the vet. The cat needs to go back to the vet for a tooth extraction, I need a lymph node biopsy, I need lung function testing, I need regular blood tests etc. How am I meant to do that stuff safely if the virus is raging?

[quarentini]

I totally agree op. I know people who were shielding who are now back at work and don't want to be there as they don't feel safe.
I think we do need to protect people by the majority going for heard immunity now. Although I understand why this is not a popular option.
It's all just a mess

[lughnasadh]

You can't have 'need or want to shield' as a starting point.

You'd end up paying for the healthy but super anxious to just sit at home.

If a child is extremely vulnerable, who do you pay to stay off work? What if one parent was already a carer? What about siblings and school?

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

I agree. The 'measures' that are currently being taken are not actually doing anything meaningful beyond creating misery and poverty - covid is still going around and will continue to go around for well into the future. No matter when restrictions are lifted, now, two months time, six months time, a year, the risk will still be there. The difference is, the sooner you lift restrictions the sooner the economy can start to recover. So what's the point of destroying everyone's lives, if it doesn't actually protect anybody?

[Racoonworld]

@QueenStromba

It's impossible to avoid people completely, particularly if you have health problems. In the last week I've needed to go out for a chest x-ray, two trips to the bank that couldn't be dealt with on the phone and I had to take the cat to the vet. The cat needs to go back to the vet for a tooth extraction, I need a lymph node biopsy, I need lung function testing, I need regular blood tests etc. How am I meant to do that stuff safely if the virus is raging?

You do realise though that the virus isn’t going away, we won’t eradicate it. At some point restrictions will be scrapped and the virus will be in general circulation. Yes hopefully there will be a vaccine but maybe not, and it may not be suitable for everyone with health conditions anyway. Surely it’s better to shield those who need it properly, and let everyone else get on with life rather than locking everyone down only for the virus to still be there in 6 months anyway?

[amusedtodeath1]

Have you not seen, heard, read the information put out by the Govt. recently?

If the majority of non vulnerable people "carry on as normal" the likelihood is that too many people become sick at once and the NHS, food services, education, etc, etc, don't have enough healthy staff to operate and people who would normally have survived Covid will die because they cannot access medical services.

How many times does this have to be explained before people understand that "carrying on as normal" is not an option?

[foxyroxyyy]

@RancidOldHag

I couid not disagree more

A two tier society is pretty heartless anyhow, but it would be impossible to achieve.

The only way we get through this OK is to keep transmission low for everyone through the winter flu season. Because if we get through thus one, we will know so much more about effective interventions (not just UK, from round the world), and a vaccine will be that much closer.

It isn't about matters of the heart. It's about logic. Personally my fat arse will be staying away from danger - but fitter and healthier people shouldn't have to. This is beyond stupidity now!!!

[SheepandCow]

The cheaper way is the island advantage way. Australia and New Zealand realised this.

Instead of six months (probably more like a year) of this very expensive way, we could do two-three months proper lockdown now. WITH closed borders (proper quarantine for essential travel like freight and asylum). Keep borders shut when we ease lockdown.

We could be starting our economic recovery and return to normality by Christmas/the New Year if we did this. Protecting the economy and lives (and avoiding potential long-term Long Covid disability).

[Mamamia456]

The problem with that is our NHS system wouldn't cope. The NHS struggles to cope in the winter without the addition of covid.

[foxyroxyyy]

@QueenStromba

It's impossible to avoid people completely, particularly if you have health problems. In the last week I've needed to go out for a chest x-ray, two trips to the bank that couldn't be dealt with on the phone and I had to take the cat to the vet. The cat needs to go back to the vet for a tooth extraction, I need a lymph node biopsy, I need lung function testing, I need regular blood tests etc. How am I meant to do that stuff safely if the virus is raging?

Then there should be systems put in place to allow you to do all that safely. It's selfish to want the whole country to stay at home so you can sort your cat out. Think it through ffs.

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

@amusedtodeath1

Have you not seen, heard, read the information put out by the Govt. recently?

If the majority of non vulnerable people "carry on as normal" the likelihood is that too many people become sick at once and the NHS, food services, education, etc, etc, don't have enough healthy staff to operate and people who would normally have survived Covid will die because they cannot access medical services.

How many times does this have to be explained before people understand that "carrying on as normal" is not an option?

I don't think anyone would advocate 'carrying on as normal' - it makes sense to restrict large gatherings, encourage social distancing and good hygiene and make sure testing is available. There is an assumption that if restrictions aren't in place then too many people will become sick at once, but there's no evidence for that, it's just a guess. So because of a fear of something that might happen, we all have guaranteed suffering, which IMO makes no sense. There is no doubt that continuing to restrict lives, continuing to destroy businesses will have a massive and long-lasting effect on everyone. And yet people seem willing to accept it- maybe because they don't realise what the impact will be?

The thing is, at some point these restrictions will just not be sustainable, they will absolutely have to stop because they simply can't be maintained, what happens then? The virus will still be there, except that now you'll have to face the threat of it in a destroyed economy with no money for healthcare. How is that an improvement?

[tobee]

Don't forget about the many people shielded people live with. Will they get support too? Emotional and material support? We've been shielding in this household since March for Dh. That includes my 25 year old unemployed dd. That includes my 21 year old unemployed ds who just left university. That includes me who is self employed. And dh who is self employed.

We are but one example.

[foxyroxyyy]

@lughnasadh

You can't have 'need or want to shield' as a starting point.

You'd end up paying for the healthy but super anxious to just sit at home.

If a child is extremely vulnerable, who do you pay to stay off work? What if one parent was already a carer? What about siblings and school?

That isn't university students problem tho is it??

That isn't for example a healthy family of fours problem either. This is ridiculous. I say this as someone who will stay home with my family. Doesn't mean every family should just because some do. Let people live there lives!

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

@SheepandCow

The cheaper way is the island advantage way. Australia and New Zealand realised this.

Instead of six months (probably more like a year) of this very expensive way, we could do two-three months proper lockdown now. WITH closed borders (proper quarantine for essential travel like freight and asylum). Keep borders shut when we ease lockdown.

We could be starting our economic recovery and return to normality by Christmas/the New Year if we did this. Protecting the economy and lives (and avoiding potential long-term Long Covid disability).

This is just total nonsense. New Zealand locked down and closed their borders when they had a tiny number of cases. Australia still has ongoing cases - they haven't eliminated covid at all. We are way way beyond where New Zealand is - to eliminate covid we'd have to literally nail people into their houses for weeks, not allow any contact at all, close every service, including the hospitals. It's just not possible.

Also, because covid is present in the entire world, 'elimination' is a pointless waste of time. At some point NZ will have to open its borders, it can't stay closed for all time. So what do they do then? They could still be battling this virus in two years time when every other country in the world has gone through it and has accepted that it's another virus going around.

[RoseTintedAtuin]

I don’t think “normal” is a realistic goal for 99% of people for quite a while to come. People’s perception rightly or wrongly have been changed. Going out of the house and mixing with people now comes with a level of risk and is not the simple pleasure it used to be. Even once this is over, this mentality won’t disappear as quickly.

[TheNumbersDontAddUp]

Of course, by carrying on as normal I would mean mask wearing, sanitising, social distancing etc.

You can speculate that it's not an option (but please remember that not all experts agree on that) because xyz may happen, but if the economy collapses then it becomes a moot point. With no work, no money (or money that is completely devalued and worthless), there will be no food, no hospital treatment etc anyway, and we are irretrievably fucked.

So what do we do? Take a path that will absolutely destroy an economy already on it's knees, or take a chance that we can protect the most vulnerable, and ride out the storm with some, but not overwhelming social and economic losses?

Outwith the hallowed confines of Mumsnet most people want the second, not the first.

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

@tobee

Don't forget about the many people shielded people live with. Will they get support too? Emotional and material support? We've been shielding in this household since March for Dh. That includes my 25 year old unemployed dd. That includes my 21 year old unemployed ds who just left university. That includes me who is self employed. And dh who is self employed.

We are but one example.

I genuinely don't understand the point you're making. If you're vulnerable, surely you're vulnerable regardless of what everyone else does? Are you saying everyone has to be restricted because you're vulnerable?

[RepeatSwan]

The trouble is, this is a 'common sense' solution, but is scientifically illiterate. It won't work.

Ask the chief medical officer.

I know people want a way out, but magic isn't real.

[Redolent]

@Mamamia456

The problem with that is our NHS system wouldn't cope. The NHS struggles to cope in the winter without the addition of covid.

Yes everyone seems to have forgotten the customary NHS winter flu crisis, with people waiting for hours on trolleys. If the flu vaccine is especially ineffective, it’s even worse, and a huge risk to take for the healthcare system.

I wish there was a way to properly isolate and support the vulnerable but it’s simply not possible. More virus in circulation means things like more carers etc getting it, and it’ll eventually find its ways to places like care homes.

Some people also want everything. Their want their dear DC back home for Christmas and they also want to include their elderly parents, to ensure that they’re not lonely. Bringing together the most vulnerable with the riskiest subset of our population will only bode badly (not just for them individually, but for hospital admissions, which then impacts on other routine work, surgeries etc).