Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

141 replies

abreviation · 06/06/2020 11:00

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.

OP posts:
MintyMabel · 06/06/2020 16:59

No we didn't.

Yes we did. Visitors and trips out have been cancelled from day one.

EnlightenedOwl · 06/06/2020 17:01

@highmarkingsnowbile

No, Enlightened, they don't. It's all some nebulous planet that churns out money so everyone can stay at home.
I don't understand how people fundamentally are so dense
NowImLivinInExeter · 06/06/2020 17:02

Yes we did. Visitors and trips out have been cancelled from day one.

What a fat load of good that was when people with covid were discharged from hospitals straight into care homes.

NeedingCoffee · 06/06/2020 17:06

In my family and friends circle every story of a family with a horrible Covid experience is set against 5 stories of broken arms not operated on, breast lumps not followed up, parents at breaking point with home schooling, mental health issues, children missing out and lost jobs. I completely agree that we need to get going again much, much faster than is currently the case.

NoHardSell · 06/06/2020 17:07

@MintyMabel

No we didn't.

Yes we did. Visitors and trips out have been cancelled from day one.

Shame the care workers were

Not given ppe and not properly trained

Moving between carehomes on casual contracts

It took until 14th May for the UK govt to recommend care workers stick to one carehome. Duh. Not a great lockdown is it, if staff are wandering around between homes.

NoHardSell · 06/06/2020 17:09

And as pointed out above, what kind of shitty 'lockdown' moves people from hospital with covid into the 'locked down' carehome.

MintyMabel · 06/06/2020 17:10

It's all some nebulous planet that churns out money so everyone can stay at home.

Yes, how dare the government actually support the people during a global pandemic the likes of which we have never seen before.

mistake extending furlough

Said nobody who has benefitted from furlough ever.

The number of businesses which would have gone bust would have been way higher than it is so far. People would have been pushed on to UC. The house market would have crashed hundreds of thousand in negative equity and facing repossession. Furlough will cost the country in the long run but don’t be foolish and suggest that not having it is the better option.

MrsFogi · 06/06/2020 17:15

I don't think there is much we can do about what has already happened however I do think it is now time for our government to actually show some leadership, fully open schools so that people can get back to work and lift the "lockdown" whilst making provision for vulnerable to stay at home whilst being provided with support (and this includes setting up an excellent online school for the children that will need to stay in).

AlternativePerspective · 06/06/2020 17:16

The fan fiction of bodies piling up in the streets aside, I take great issue with this suggestion that we should have “locked down the vulnerable”.

Shielding has become the new institutionalisation. We used to keep the disabled out of the way, shut them up so they didn’t go out and other people weren’t impacted by them, for their own good it was said.

Now that role has been filled by “the vulnerable”. If only they could be locked away then the rest of society could get on with their lives.... Hmm

Except vulnerable doesn’t mean incapable. It doesn’t mean don’t have a life that is also being put on hold. Plenty of people have serious, life limiting illnesses, and to look at them you would never know. But let’s lock them up eh?

MintyMabel · 06/06/2020 17:23

Now that role has been filled by “the vulnerable”. If only they could be locked away then the rest of society could get on with their lives...

Exactly. Awful way to treat people. But not surprising, they just love to treat anyone not fully able to contribute as second class citizens.

AlternativePerspective · 06/06/2020 17:27

And they dress it up as being “for their own good.” Hmm

amijustparanoidorjuststoned · 06/06/2020 17:40

@AlternativePerspective and @MintyMabel, whilst I agree with what you're saying to an extent, surely those with health conditions were advised to shield so that they don't die? Also this is surely a temporary measure...

amijustparanoidorjuststoned · 06/06/2020 17:41

Sorry pressed too soon Grin

I agree that the government were probably more than happy to advise they be the first to shield. Out of sight, out of mind Sad

NowImLivinInExeter · 06/06/2020 17:43

I don't understand this "treating people who are shielding as second class citizens" thing. They're being advised to shield because covid is more dangerous for them. They can take their chances if they would prefer to.

What is the alternative, everyone just has to lock down?

NoHardSell · 06/06/2020 17:44

@NowImLivinInExeter

I don't understand this "treating people who are shielding as second class citizens" thing. They're being advised to shield because covid is more dangerous for them. They can take their chances if they would prefer to.

What is the alternative, everyone just has to lock down?

Apparently
Thingybob · 06/06/2020 17:52

The statistics don't back up the argument that the NHS would not having coped had we only had a targeted lockdown.
Hospital admission stats show that very few younger, fitter people require hospitalisation if they catch Covid.

AlternativePerspective · 06/06/2020 17:52

People need to be responsible for themselves though. There’s a difference between advising people that perhaps they should shield (and in truth this is what happened,) and the media talking of the shielded being “allowed” out etc.

Of course people will take their own precautions at this stage in line with what they personally feel, but at the moment there’s far too much talk of people being locked away until a vaccine is found. And what if it isn’t? What then?

The truth is that we’re all going to die of something. Sometimes some risks are greater than others, but in truth those who are vulnerable are already vulnerable to other conditions as well, and yet we don’t advise them to stay at home lest they catch any number of those conditions...

This time last year I was in hospital having almost died, twice, (and we’re talking cardiac arrests and such so having been clinically dead.) I need a heart transplant to have a long-term future, if I don’t get one of those when the time comes I will die.

I could catch COVID and die.

I could walk out tomorrow and be hit by a bus and ... die.

Or I could come through all this and die at the ripe old age of 100.

You can’t spend so much of life waiting to die that you’re not living.

I’m currently shielding at home. I haven’t seen my family or my DP, or anyone other than my seventeen year old since the 19th of March, and that doesn’t look to be about to change.

I am doing what I have to to mitigate my risk at the moment. But you know what? I didn’t come through last year to spend what healthy (relatively speaking) bit of my life I have sitting at home dreading the next thing that might kill me.

We have to stop categorising people into the “should and shouldn’t be allowed” out categories.

abreviation · 06/06/2020 17:54

Except vulnerable doesn’t mean incapable. It doesn’t mean don’t have a life that is also being put on hold. Plenty of people have serious, life limiting illnesses, and to look at them you would never know. But let’s lock them up eh?

What do you suggest they do? It's totally up to them if they want to take the risk and carry on as normal.

OP posts:
EnlightenedOwl · 06/06/2020 18:00

@MintyMabel

It's all some nebulous planet that churns out money so everyone can stay at home.

Yes, how dare the government actually support the people during a global pandemic the likes of which we have never seen before.

mistake extending furlough

Said nobody who has benefitted from furlough ever.

The number of businesses which would have gone bust would have been way higher than it is so far. People would have been pushed on to UC. The house market would have crashed hundreds of thousand in negative equity and facing repossession. Furlough will cost the country in the long run but don’t be foolish and suggest that not having it is the better option.

And as business reopens they are finding it very hard to get furloughed staff back in....
AlternativePerspective · 06/06/2020 18:03

What do you suggest they do? It's totally up to them if they want to take the risk and carry on as normal. really? Because I’ve seen several examples of people saying that their parent/sibling/friend/ shouldn’t be going out because they’re supposed to be shielding and they’re being irresponsible.

Do you think that if someone applied for a job and stated that they’ve been shielded they won’t be discriminated against? Maybe not directly but trust me there are ways to make it happen.

There was a thread last week from someone saying they couldn’t believe that “the shielded were going to be allowed to see people.”

The shielded have been infantilised by society, and have been deemed incapable of independent thought. “For their own good,” apparently.

MintyMabel · 06/06/2020 18:05

surely those with health conditions were advised to shield so that they don't die? Also this is surely a temporary measure...

It’s only a temporary measure for everyone else. How you getting on with not being able to go out 2 months in? Fancy doing another 3?

I don't understand this "treating people who are shielding as second class citizens" thing. They're being advised to shield because covid is more dangerous for them. They can take their chances if they would prefer to.

I’m all right Jack, eh? They are being treated as second class citizens with comments like “oh it’s only vulnerable people who die” and “They can take their chances” and the suggestion we should just lock them down for however long it takes because we need to be able to get back out to the coffee shop.

What is the alternative, everyone just has to lock down?

Yes. Reduce the number of cases in the community so they are less at risk if they go out. If everyone just goes on their merry little mildish Covid way, vulnerable people can’t go out at all. If we get the R number more manageable there is less of a chance they catch it. But for some that’s just not worth the trouble.

Aposterhasnoname · 06/06/2020 18:06

Infections would have been so high. There would be people lying dead in the streets. Decaying corpses at home unable to be buried. How long do you think you'd hold your job down for with people dropping dead around you?

Just like Sweden who haven’t locked down then.

Oh. Wait!

attackedbycritters · 06/06/2020 18:08

4% of people in their 40s need hospital treatment and 8% of people in their 50's

So we can guess that around 1 million people under 60 would need treatment for on average 4 days
Spread over a period of say 3 months if it's uncontrolled spread

I get therefore roughly 30 to 40,000 people at a time in hospital for covid in the case that you expect most younger people to live their lives "normally"

Is that really practical ?

Or are you locking up anyone who might have a vulnerability? Obese? BAME? Asthmatic?

MintyMabel · 06/06/2020 18:09

And as business reopens they are finding it very hard to get furloughed staff back in....

More anecdata, how useful for the debate. I’ll counter it with the fact I have clients and contractors who have had no problem getting people off furlough.

Going all out on that “people are lazy bludgers” stereotype I see.

attackedbycritters · 06/06/2020 18:10

Sweden ... a large part has locked down voluntarily , has a less densely populated country which makes that easier, their economy is no healthier, and they have said publicly that they made a mistake ....yeah

Swipe left for the next trending thread