Should we all lockdown again, infection rate is rising or should we shield the elderly and vunerable and support them financially while everyone else goes back to normality to save our economy.

[947EliseChalotte]

Covid is not going to disappear, we will be waiting years for a vaccine. How on earth are we / the economy suppose to carry on like this ?
Yabu I'm being unreasonable
Yanbu I'm being reasonable

I'm counted as very vunerable but I've told my DH I really don't think I could cope mentally if I had to go into full lockdown again,I went into lockdown about 2 weeks before most other people(because my DH and our 5DC were all worrying about me)and for a while I was doing alright but I just don't think I could cope with going through it all again,it has effected me so badly.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

I know 6 people who were on the shielding list. Only 1 of them is over 50, none are over 65

This is a highly unusual sample.

There are only 2.2 million on the shielding list, so the fact that you personally know 6 of them is pretty unusual in itself.

The overwhelming majority of people shielding are over 65 with additional health issues. There may be edge cases, but they are precisely that - a tiny minority and as we all are aware (or should be) we cannot make policy based on edge cases.

Well I know 5 people on the shielding list and we have a very small family and few friends (introverts). All are(were) working, all mid 50s and all in senior positions.

Of course we shouldn't go into national lockdown again at the moment. It's ludicrous suggestion.

Have a read of this. It's nice and balanced.

Well I know 5 people on the shielding list and we have a very small family and few friends (introverts). All are(were) working, all mid 50s and all in senior positions

There are only 2.2m on the list though (according to Public Health England). You must be able to see that you are in a highly unusual situation?

I think a much more likely scenario is that you know 5 people who have told you that they are own the shielding list, when in fact they would just prefer not to catch the virus and are therefore being extra careful.

We cannot allow hypochondria to dictate public policy.

Are you in the UK @NikeDeLaSwoosh?
Our policy here in the UK is based on the opposite of hypocrondria. Far from an excessive anxiety about health our policy has so far been based on an excessive downplaying of a very real and serious risk. To life, health, and the economy.

It's rational to fear a deadly disease. A disease that might not kill you if you have the privilege of youth and good health but could still leave you with permanent heart or lung damage. It's particularly rational to fear it here, in the country with the highest death rate in the world. Only the US and Brazil have more deaths than us - and they both have massive populations, much larger than ours.

Many of the most vulnerable to serious illness or death were left off the shielding lists. Diabetics, for example. One in four of the deaths but not given the protection of shielding. It's quite normal for people to not want to catch it, officially shielded or not.

It's quite normal for people to not want to catch it, officially shielded or not

I have no issue at all with this.

Its the idea that the entire world needs to grind to a halt, with pretty much every freedom curtailed, in order to buy these people an additional few months/years of poor health that I have an issue with.

I just cannot imagine ever expecting my DC (and future GDC) to pay such an extraordinarily high price for me to have a few extra years. Its just such a selfish thing to do.

Our policy here in the UK is based on the opposite of hypocrondria

I'm actually laughing at this - how on earth are you justifying this statement?

The vast majority of people have nothing at all to fear from Covid, but to speak to them about it, you'd think they were about to go over the top or something. I really don't know how so many people have just lapped up this nonsense.

The vast majority? Where are your figures? What information do you have? It's obviously different than the information scientific experts have access to. They've very clearly explained we don't yet know how many of us are at risk...of suffering potentially lifelong conditions including permanent heart or lung damage. At this stage it's a Russian roulette approach to ignore that.

If that is how you feel, then you need to stay at home.

The rest of us will carry on as normal.

You can't impose your own paranoia onto the rest of us. Surely you must see how selfish that is?

@SheepandCow

List is spot on although I'd be less stringent re quarantine for persons from places with low infection rates (and good testing!) or, possibly, admission with a test done in past 72 hours plus testing/checks at airport.

residents who test positive ASAP to a Nightingale Hospital or something, testing everyone in the home and again, removing anyone with a positive test

^Not sure I agree with this. I worked in a care home with a massive outbreak-for all residents the symptoms were mild (and easily manageable in the home) and, although, many died, it was better for them to die in a comfortable environment around staff they knew and accessible to family (permissable at EOL for short periods) then in a hospital where they didn't know anyone. Hospitals are only needed for severe symptomatic cases, anyway. Better to stay in the residential home rather than spread it outside (as its already there if a resident has it), conduct testing and more testing, ensure isolation (where possible), have proper PPE and maintain strict infection control-although this is not foolproof.

Overall, the govt needs to make masks mandatory (unless exempt) and keep banging on and on and on about hand hygiene and social distancing.

Full lockdown can be prevented.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

If that is how you feel, then you need to stay at home.

The rest of us will carry on as normal.

You can't impose your own paranoia onto the rest of us. Surely you must see how selfish that is?

The great majority of people don't want to "carry on as normal" if it means 100,000s of people will die and many more will have long term illness.

If you want to throw around MH labels.
It's slightly psychopathic and very selfish to pretend everything's normal when it's not. Dismissing the risk of serious illness or death for the millions of vulnerable people, and ignoring the risk to us all of lifelong heart or lung damage.

There's a balance between complete self isolation and doing absolutely nothing. Following the advice from 'paranoid' scientific experts to take mitigating precautions seems sensible. As does nipping the problem in the bud. Short-term pain for long-term gain.

It's not possible to carry on as normal. Because things aren't normal. They could be but that relies on us dealing with the issue.

The great majority of people don't want to "carry on as normal" if it means 100,000s of people will die and many more will have long term illness

You do realise that literally every person currently alive will die? Perhaps not of Covid, but definitely of something.

Long term illness is just something that happens to people. We have become far too used to the idea that we can continue to increase average life expectancy when this simply isn't a viable long term strategy.

The colossal cost (in all senses of the word) involved in wringing a few more life years out of people who are already on borrowed time just cannot be justified.

We are far better off directing our efforts at reducing the risk factors for further zoonotic transmissions in the future.

We need to have far greater respect for wild animals' habitats - if we carry on as we are, people will be living in closer and closer proximity to wildlife that we should never be anywhere near, hence there will be more and more zoonotic leaps.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

The great majority of people don't want to "carry on as normal" if it means 100,000s of people will die and many more will have long term illness

You do realise that literally every person currently alive will die? Perhaps not of Covid, but definitely of something.

Long term illness is just something that happens to people. We have become far too used to the idea that we can continue to increase average life expectancy when this simply isn't a viable long term strategy.

The colossal cost (in all senses of the word) involved in wringing a few more life years out of people who are already on borrowed time just cannot be justified.

We are far better off directing our efforts at reducing the risk factors for further zoonotic transmissions in the future.

We need to have far greater respect for wild animals' habitats - if we carry on as we are, people will be living in closer and closer proximity to wildlife that we should never be anywhere near, hence there will be more and more zoonotic leaps.

Obviously I meant that most people don't want to carry on as normal if it means that 100,000s will die in the near future. The same with long term illness. I'm sure you know that though and are just trying to be clever. Not everyone who is at risk is elderly and their lives are no less important than yours. To describe them as living on borrowed time and not worth the cost demonstrates that you are a unpleasant person who probably only cares about themselves. I don't think the majority of people are like that though.

If you are comfortable carrying on as normal @NikeDeLaSwoosh no one can stop you. But you cant insist others join you.

When I hear hoards of medical staff telling me COVID is nothing to fear I'll relax.

I really hope the vulnerable aren't asked to shield indefinitely. I am 'vulnerable', also young, an NHS worker, above the threshold furlough salary. I don't that my freedom, sanity and finances are massively sacrificed for who knows how long when everyone taking sensible measures is an alternative to preventing a second wave.

I get that I probably technically benefit more from a cautious approach (being more likely to die), but I like to think I would feel similar if I wasn't in this category.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

The great majority of people don't want to "carry on as normal" if it means 100,000s of people will die and many more will have long term illness

You do realise that literally every person currently alive will die? Perhaps not of Covid, but definitely of something.

Long term illness is just something that happens to people. We have become far too used to the idea that we can continue to increase average life expectancy when this simply isn't a viable long term strategy.

The colossal cost (in all senses of the word) involved in wringing a few more life years out of people who are already on borrowed time just cannot be justified.

We are far better off directing our efforts at reducing the risk factors for further zoonotic transmissions in the future.

We need to have far greater respect for wild animals' habitats - if we carry on as we are, people will be living in closer and closer proximity to wildlife that we should never be anywhere near, hence there will be more and more zoonotic leaps.

Dear, me, I am thirty one.

There are many thousands of vulnerable people who worked every day during shielding - it really bugs me that the general view is we need financial help and are reliant on benefits etc

According to news night it would seem that although the virus is still about people are not getting so sick. So good news for the future.

Why do we need to support them financially? Most of them are drawing their pensions and that wasn't effected during lockdown

Well my extremely clinically vulnerable dh has worked from home throughout. As a net contributor he neither got or needed handouts.
I was extremely cautious but was unable to shield completely as getting supermarket delivery was a nightmare especially eith a child with ARFID.
So many misconceptions about extremely clinically vulnerable. Many have normal life expectancy and have young children.

O and funnily enough I know two other extremely clinically vulnerable and they are both working age too. Small sample granted.

Lock up the young and let the oldies out. They have way more money to be spending in shops and restaurants.

@Pixxie7

According to news night it would seem that although the virus is still about people are not getting so sick. So good news for the future.

Yes, because it is currently affecting mostly the young

Hence why they don't need protecting from it

@notangelinajolie

Lock up the young and let the oldies out. They have way more money to be spending in shops and restaurants.

If my mother is anything to go by, it would be all 'a nice homemade flask of coffee' and 'wait til we get home to eat'

I got had a post deleted a month ago suggesting the vulnerable should stay at home and everyone else gets back to it - glad to see general thinking is moving on this issue