To worry the impact of our lockdown will be worse long term than if we’d just lockdowned the vulnerable

[abreviation]

I think the proverbial is just about to hit the fan regarding redundancies. We have just started to receive hundreds of cvs from people who have lost their job.
It’s common knowledge how cancers are going undiagnosed and treatments delayed. God knows how many will die now needlessly.
Most other medical appointments cancelled or delayed. How many years will it take to catch up? Brain tumours missed, lazy eyes, hip displacements etc etc undiagnosed.
Education broken for loads of dc. How may dc just hanging on in there will be lost to education now. This will impact thousands of dc long term.
Struggling today with the way CV has been prioritised with no thought to anything else and the long term consequences of this.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/architect-of-sweden-coronavirus-strategy-admits-too-many-died-anders-tegnell

How many hospital beds and medical staff will be available to those people you have raised concerns about in your plan when the all the vulnerable have to endure the full force of the virus while the shielded remain indoors? Hint, fuck all.

How do you explain the fact it isn't a pandemic?

Aren't people tired of rehashing this....

OP do you know what is the proportion of people that are "vulnerable"?
Vulnerable include diabetics, obese, ashmatic, etc.... It would be a huge proportion of the population and the economy, school, etc would still be broken.

I know several NHS doctors who think lockdown is a crock of shit.

For example at the minute someone whos say diabetic and with copd can ring their GP

The GP waiting room is empty so they can go in.

The GP sees they have a suspicious lump. Refers them on 2WW pathway

The hospital receives the referal, we call the patient. We book them in at a time when we know we have very little other patients in. They can social distance in the waiting room. We can get them in quickly as we arent busy.

They need it removed, we have theatres in a private hospital, beds in a covid free icu. Aneasthetists free, theatre staff available. Surgeons available.

Now imagine the hospital is busy. All ICU beds taken up with covid patients, half the staff off self isolating. Waiting rooms full of people. That vunerable person has no hope of coming in safely.

We cant do their operation anyway as all our ICU beds are full, and half the staff are off. This was what our hopsital was like in mid march, our operations would be cancelled regardless as their wouldnt be enough beds. Every year in flu season our operations are cancelled.

Sweden, from that article ..
the basic strategy has worked well. I do not see what we would have done completely differently … Based on the knowledge we had then, we feel we made the appropriate decisions

Everyone essentially can see the major fuck up everwhere has been carehomes

Which brings us back to the op

Only the other day, when I was speaking to my friend who is a world famous statistician, it turns out they think the exact same way as I do - how fortuitous.

@NoHardSell, that scenario you draw is precisely what is happening in several countries as we speak, so slightly distasteful to be laughing about, to be honest.

No one is laughing. It's not a reality for this country and never would have been from coronavirus.

ChubbyPigeon

People aren't being seen. Referrals aren't happening. One of my friends is a consultant dermatologist and isn't able to see patients who could have melanoma. Smears are not happening. Mammograms are not happening.

Sweden now finds itself in a position where the countries around it are opening to each other, but not to Sweden. Whilst they appear to be over their first wave, Sweden's is ongoing. It will soon be the case that Sweden will have more, not less, restrictions than its neighbours. Sweden and the UK may both be "world beating" but this is not the kind of chart I am proud to be on.

Vulnerable include diabetics, obese, ashmatic

Actually it doesn't. The biggest risk factor is age. Deaths have overwhelmingly been in the over 70s. If you're 30 and obese your risk of death is slightly more than someone of the same age who is not obese, but given that the risk of dying in that age group is around 0.05%, your risk is still tiny.

YANBU. For example, Northern Ireland, where I live, locked down AFTER the peak. Already know of several people who’ve had cancer- related operations deferred, and have heard of a number taking their own lives. A&E has been next to empty. Very worrying. With everything, though, we’ll only know the true answer in retrospect, by doing post mortems on differing country policies while factoring in demographics, international “hub” status, date virus entered, etc etc

People aren't being seen. Referrals aren't happening. One of my friends is a consultant dermatologist and isn't able to see patients who could have melanoma.

That’s odd, my husband saw a dermatologist yesterday for a suspicious mole (thankfully all fine).

Sexnotgender

It will not be the same across all trusts, but all the evidence shows that people are either not seeking medical attention or are having medical attention denied. When smears and mammograms are being cancelled, it is serious.

@NowImLivininExeter

My point is that only locking down the vunerable doesnt solve that problem.

I know that people arent being seen but only locking down the vunerable doesnt change that. It still means the majority of people who need to access healthcare cant. People will still be scared to go to hospital, and I think it would have been even harder to get the care they need.

Operations would still have been cancelled because there wouldnt have been the staff/beds.

I can only speak for my hospital. 2WW referrals are still happening for us, and they are still being treated. There are probably less than normal, and that is very worrying. But I dont think that only lcoking down the vunerable would have solved that.

Perhaps not the same across all trusts but you made a sweeping statement of people aren’t being seen when that’s demonstrably untrue. Some people aren’t being seen and that’s a failing but in my husband’s case he got a GP appointment the same day he phoned and a referral to dermatology within 2 weeks.

People will still be scared to go to hospital

They wouldn't be if the media hadn't scared people silly and misled the general public over the risk of covid 19 at an individual level.

I see no evidence whatsoever that the NHS would have been overwhelmed had we not locked down. Simple hygiene and working from home being encouraged would have done an awful lot.

You do realise that not everyone who is vulnerable is old and useless, as many on MN seem to believe?

We are young (ish), otherwise fit, active members of society. We have jobs, lives, families. Many are front line workers. What would happen if we all isolated? No teachers, nurses, etc. Would the rest of you 'healthy' people be able to carry on as normal?

Also, as a 'vulnerable' person, I, as another poster said, do not want to lose my job, home, etc. Why should I?

No, we needed to find a sensible way through this. Don't discount us. We matter too, we contribute to the society YOU live in.

I hate the throwaway MN comment 'oh just stay indoors if you are vulnerable '.

@NowImLivinInExeter

People will still be scared to go to hospital

They wouldn't be if the media hadn't scared people silly and misled the general public over the risk of covid 19 at an individual level.

I see no evidence whatsoever that the NHS would have been overwhelmed had we not locked down. Simple hygiene and working from home being encouraged would have done an awful lot.

If only you were on SAGE, you could have told them you saw no evidence.

Many hospitals were at breaking point over the peak.

Silverstar2

Age is in fact the major vulnerability with covid.

If you are 35 with asthma it is almost certainly not going to kill you.

Jingstohang

What is the evidence?

Many hospitals were at breaking point over the peak.

Mine wasn't, we were empty.

@NowImLivinInExeter

Vulnerable include diabetics, obese, ashmatic

Actually it doesn't. The biggest risk factor is age. Deaths have overwhelmingly been in the over 70s. If you're 30 and obese your risk of death is slightly more than someone of the same age who is not obese, but given that the risk of dying in that age group is around 0.05%, your risk is still tiny.

Great, we know that now. But we still categorise highly vulnerable in a completely different way.

Great, we know that now.

Evidently not, given plenty of people on this site consider themselves vulnerable because they have asthma or diabetes, or are obese.

I think the 2 and a half million or so shielding should have locked down

We are. Trouble is we are also being forgotten about.