Anyone get the Sunday telegraph. I would like to know about leaked "enhanced shielding"

[2beesornot2beesthatisthehoney]

There is an article which starts on the front page and continues on page 4 . Would love it if someone could cut and paste or photo page 4 continue of the article on here.
I can't access without actually paying up and having to watch the pennies.

The problem is there are quite a few over 50's who will potentially be parents and single parents of children under 12 who have to be taken to school (hopefully!) and all the other parenting things that cannot be done of you are locked down. That is not to mention all the over 50's who have jobs, hobbies and any other thing they want to do as 50 is too young to be on -housearrest- lockdown

It is in the Times also and can access 4 free articles I think

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/millions-more-could-be-told-to-stay-at-home-and-shield-5w76wxlhs

Also mentions locking down London, quarantining all flight arrivals even from 'green' countries, and secondary schools doing a rota system..

My DH is over 50, and self employed so no idea how could work for him. He's had to go back to work even though being on original list, by dropping a medicine to get off it....

I read about this wondering who is going to do the screening I am 61 go to the doctors around every 10 years the last time for a water infection
Bloody daft idea

Well if your looking at risk groups, gender is a big one, men between 50 and 70 are far more vulnerable than women

And why not lock down the South Asians while we’re at it?

Jingling your post is helpful.

The point of this possible new guidance in event of another spike, is that each person between 50-70 would do a risk assessment (and presumably online not through a GP!). So anyone overweight/ obese, or with heart problems, or taking certain drugs etc etc etc, would be asked to manage their risk by avoiding certain situations.

I assume there’s been talk of money around this. Ie you just avoid situations but since you won’t be funded to avoid work that would still happen

Just what the over 50s need, another reason to be discriminated against when looking for new jobs.

tbh, this discussion reminds me when there was road pricing proposal -- paying road tax by how many miles you drove but adjusted by where you went, pay more for the most congested roads, more in city.

DH & I figured out that living in countryside, our road tax would plummet to near zero. Because we never drive into the city and rural roads would be mostly zero cost to drive on. This was clear in the proposal details. Meanwhile, there was national outcry by rural drivers saying "This will bankrupt me because I depend so much on my car!" They hadn't read the details, they just heard "pay by the mile" and didn't understand that most people living rurally, unless they chose to drive into crowded cities, would save money on VED. So frustrating.

Another time I was on a preschool committee and tried to explain fair hiring policy we must follow, with regard to CRB checks. I had barely begun, when "So now we have to hire pedophiles!" someone exclaimed! I got testy, "NO, we have to be fair and document why someone's criminal history is relevant to not hiring them. Something like a caution for trespassing when they were 12 might not be relevant. By the way, it's a specific offence if someone with sex crimes history merely applied for a job here."

OMG, people just love to jump to conclusions. Arrrrggghhh.,

@PastMyBestBeforeDate

LG it is a return to the confusion in March when they used 'vulnerable' to describe a big group of people and then used 'clinically extremely vulnerable' for a subset of that group. Eventually 'shielding' became the term everyone understood.

They seem to have changed it to 'people most likely to get very poorly' which sounds pretty bloody patronising - how many adults don't understand 'unwell' but do understand 'poorly'?

As for getting a letter for diabetes - my DH has diabetes, Parkinson's and a recent heart op, and he didn't get a letter.

I can't understand all the objections as this is what should have happened initially i.e. isolating those households most at risk. The sooner Covid works it's way through the younger, healthy population, the sooner life will return to normal for everyone else too.

@Thingybob

I can't understand all the objections as this is what should have happened initially i.e. isolating those households most at risk. The sooner Covid works it's way through the younger, healthy population, the sooner life will return to normal for everyone else too.

So how will it work if one member of the household is over 50 and the other isn't? Will both have to isolate? If that's the case it's not going to work for us and a lot of other people.

Given immunity is believe to possibly last for only 3 months, you can't let the virus work through the young population and then think it's all over, it will be back to the start by then

Pink Sparkle, I believe those between 50 and 70 are to be given an individualised risk rating so it wouldn't mean maybe a quartet or a half in that age group being advised to shield. It would obviously make sense for others in that household to shield or to take extra precautions.

*would mean, not wouldn't

Thanks @Thingybob. It would be hard for us, DH is 65 and I'm 45 and would have to carry on going to work. We can't isolate from each other at home so I think it would be a case of carry on as normal and hope for the best if he was in the shielding category. TBH I'm not sure if he'd shield anyway!

"The problem is there are quite a few over 50's who will potentially be parents and single parents of children under 12 who have to be taken to school (hopefully!)"

There are also all the over 50's who are carers for relatives. The social care system would fall apart if lots of over 50's didn't go out including lots of teenagers, adults and elderly people having to move into care or residential provision.

DH is a self employed handyman. He's started getting work again as lockdown has lifted but a lot of his customers are regulars who would have to go elsewhere if he couldn't work indefinitely meaning his business would most likely be finished. He'll start getting his state pension next month, but he wants to carry on working as long as possible.

The following is a post from Climbdad back in May. Does this sound like an expert on coronaviruses?

"Thanks for the answers. Looks like it’s too early to say whether it’s long infections or another bout. Wish we had more information on this thing."

@midgebabe

And create. 2 tier society? Where we lock away those awkward people?

Because that would then have to be until,vaccine or rebellion?

Why not Make them pay extra for the required services like food delivery to claw back the cash they won't be spending at large?

Force their partners out of work, to free up jobs for others , because otherwise the lack of physical contact for possibly years would be utterly dehumanising for the pesky vulnerable , and the in house transmission risk would probably be too high?

Perhaps they could all kill themselves with the resultant depression at the exclusion from society, that would reduce the costs for pensions and the NHS

I can see why the idea appeals to sociopaths

What @midgebabe says is pretty much where I stand on it.

We are acrewed than. Both over 50. Dh is already extremely clinically vulnerable and I have asthma although mild and obese but not morbidly.
I will still have to take youngest to school or be fined.

@Thingybob

I can't understand all the objections as this is what should have happened initially i.e. isolating those households most at risk. The sooner Covid works it's way through the younger, healthy population, the sooner life will return to normal for everyone else too.

Doing what you suggest, particularly during flu season gives the virus millions of opportunities for reassortment or recombining to occur to create a new recombinant virus as the dominant strain.

We don't want that.

The new recombinant virus may have a higher fatality rate or more common crippling after effects.

And it may not respond to the vaccines being developed for the old virus.

Other countries are able to get Covid largely under control, They're still going to night clubs and Farmers markets. I am constantly perplexed as to why so many people don't seem to think England can? Why do people have so little faith in this country?

Done on personal assessment? Who assesses whether somebody over 50 should be shielding or not? Would that mean then that us over 50's will be judged for being out and about unless we can prove that it's ok for us to be.

I can just see MN if that goes ahead...." I've seen my neighbour who is over 50 going to the shops, should I report her?".

Does anyone seriously think that it would be possible to ask everyone over 50 to stay at home?

First of all this would immediately be challenged in court as it is pure ageism.

People over 50 can be fitter than an overweight younger person who smokes, drink and has a poor diet.

Plus it is completely unenforceable has we don't carry idea card for a start and there is no way to check someone's age nor do we have the manpower for the police to start following and checking everyone who look like they might have committed the crime of simply being middle-aged.

Also it implies that the government would have to pay the wage of anyone over 50 who can no longer go out to work (as many jobs can't be done from home) or that we would have to have enough capacity for food delivery to every over 50 household which we don't.

This government is going from one disaster to another and we the media seem to be relishing adding to the chaos.

Although I was cautiously optimistic until recently I cannot help thinking we are heading for mass unrest and even riots...

Sorry Typo! my post should read 'ID cards' not 'idea cards...'

Does anyone seriously think that it would be possible to ask everyone over 50 to stay at home?

No -- so good thing that absolutely no one in govt is considering such a daft idea.