Shielded Groups should stay home and we should all get back out there?

[moreginplease81]

Aibu to think shielded groups should stay home and we should all just get back out there and carry on?

The economy is going to be on its knees!

If you can work, you should be allowed to.

I’ve reported a large number of these posts for personally attacking the OP rather than addressing the issue she raised.

You can disagree without being nasty and insulting.

Any sensible person understands that there are tradeoffs, and different ways of handling a pandemic. It is perfectly valid to raise the question of whether the “cure” is worse than the disease.

This kind of reaction stifles debate rather than helping people to understand the tradeoffs.

Even if we do the developing world has shit down completely. It produces a lot of our food. We'll have nothing to get out to if they don't all come back to their senses. Reports in the times today of farmers in Africa, Asia and India being denied access to seeds they need to plant.

Come to their senses?
Jesus wept. Some people really are thick as fuck.

This would be a great solution if all elderly and vulnerable people lived alone and were fully self sufficient. Also if you could ensure that all young healthy people wouldn't be ill enough to need hospital treatment all at once. It would also be essential that once people had the virus they would be immune. None of these are the case so no, op, your suggestion, which isn't a new one, wouldn't work.

YABU. People who are not classed as vulnerable are becoming seriously ill and even dying of this virus!

If so called non-vulnerable people start mixing normally again, the virus will spread even more. So more people then become seriously ill and more people die.

Households where there is one vulnerable person put that person at increased risk if they are going out as normal.

I honestly can't believe the number of people not taking it seriously and wittering on about 'getting back to normal'

Absolutely agree with you OP, people who don't care about anyone else should be allowed to go about their business. They should also sign a disclaimer agreeing that they won't seek any medical assistance from the NHS when they catch the virus. Jobs a goodun.

How are going to know who has had it and who hasn't though? Unless you have been swabbed and confirmed positive, because if you haven't been swabbed then you can't know you have had it. The symptoms are to broad for self diagnosis!

Maybe if the antibody test they keep talking about comes out and can be rolled out on a wide enough scale a system like yours could work but until then you can't possibly know so no everyone needs to stay inside!

And as for those that don't care if they get brilliant for them! but what about all the shop workers, delivery guys, health care staff ect ect that they are going to risk infecting that don't want it and of course their families who may have vulnerable people in them don't matter either?

Part of the problem is that healthy-looking and -feeling people are silent carriers of the disease. So NO.

Isn't this exactly what they're doing in Sweden?

Only time will tell...

jasjas1973
I totally agree!

It would be good if we could have anti-body tests and then resume as normal for those who have had it.

Will the cure be more destructive?

In March usually, 600 people die a day from the flu!

@st and how's Sweden getting on?

Using maths and epidemiology can seem cold and hard as each death is someone's tragedy, but also the 50,000 that die every month normally are also someone's relative or friend

the mathematical chances of people with no underlying conditions dying are very low, the overall death rate is about 1-2% of people infected, ( not 1% of population) most are untested and have mild symptoms or are asymptomatic and some don't get it at all.

In Italy less than 1%(0.8% to be precise) of those dying had no underlying problems so the chance of someone healthy dying is 1% of 1% ie 0.0001 ie about 1 in 10,000 over all age groups with no health issues; this is not 1 in 10,000 of population but 1 in 10,000 of those infected, for the young it is much less than 1 in 10,000 for those over 70 it is greater than 1 in 10,000;

Er...600 people a day do not usually die from the flu in March. There are highly,highly dubious statistics doing the rounds from previous years. IIRC it was somewhere between 200 and 300 for the entire 2018-19 flu season.

@joan12 fake news

Fake news? Is that you Donald?

I think it may turn out to be a good strategy for Sweden but they only have 10m people and superb infrastructure, paid for by far higher taxes than UK voters will accept.

In March usually, 600 people die a day from the flu!

Is this really true?

It is very much starting to worry me now that seemingly healthy people are dying too. Of course, I am also very much worried for the vulnerable as well but having to face one’s own mortality isn’t conducive to good mental health.

Can some of you write a sentence without swearing, throwing personal insults at the OP ? It's absolutely correct to disagree as to why we cannot only shield vulnerable groups, but don't use it as an excuse to verbally abuse someone asking a question, it's out of order.

You can't just choose to ignore statistics because they don't fit with your theory.

50,000 people die every month. Every month. We don't lockdown then.

It's sad but we will have a far greater crisis on our hands if we continue this lockdown I fear.

I think it’s a nice idea but a bit too simplistic unfortunately - as ‘healthy’ people are getting very ill too. I’ve seen people in Beijing are able to start going to restaurants/bars again if they do a temperature check before they enter. I wonder if something like that would work, but down the line as I think we need more time social distancing.

In March usually, 600 people die a day from the flu!

Maybe worldwide. Certainly not in uk.... No wonder people think covid is not an issue since they somehow get wrong numbers like this

I attended a small rural primary school and one of my classmates from then is critically ill. He's a non smoking, teetotal 50yr old with no underlying health issues. The extreme rurality of where he lives and his small social circle has shocked us all.
Never in a million years would I have thought he would be at risk.
Cases are increasing quickly in our local hospital and his ventilator will soon be required, he's showing no signs of improvement. We still don't know enough about this virus, please don't be complacent.

In March usually, 600 people die a day from the flu!

You think over 18,000 people died from the flu last March...? Is this worldwide or just the U.K.?

Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19. However, the yearly deaths vary widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19. Public Health England does not publish a mortality rate for the flu.