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.

Although... wouldn't it be marvelous if BoJo had to resign in order to follow these new rules. Since he is > 50 yrs old. Does that mean we could get Anne Widdecombe & Claire Fox out of politics, too?

HeyHo, maybe I'm suddenly a supporter of the daft ideas MNers come up with, after all.

Done on personal assessment? Who assesses whether somebody over 50 should be shielding or not?

It's a garble, I think.

There are no age categories for the shielding list.

Those on it are all to be reviewed idc by their consultants, to see if they need to be on it. They are pressing ahead with reviewing children, and will get round to the adults.

If you are not under regular consultant care, you are quite likely to be taken off the list.

Also it implies that the government would have to pay the wage of anyone over 50 who can no longer go out to work

Unfortunately it implies no such thing. Those who have already been shielded did not get this (thoughemployers were ncouraged to furlough them). That has now ended, as shielding has been paused. Charities have been quite active on the need to continue to protect the newly deshielded, if their place of employment is not Covid-secure, and there has been some coverage in the MSM.

But be under no illusion that any vulnerable groups will get their income supported, when it's being cut for the most vulnerable

Lockdown over 50s after a 'screening process', that will be fraught with problems as pp have said.

There will be a lot of fifty somethings with health conditions who work full time as the main wage earner, have primary/secondary/young adult children who they care for and support financially and practically. Who also care for elderly parents.

*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*

It wasn’t when there was all the frothing about over 70s going out when asked to stay at home before lockdown. MN hit peak ageism as fit and healthy 75 year olds refused to do as they were told.

For everyone that shouting ageism, whether we like it or not Covid discriminates by age.

@Oblomov20

"Plus everyone with diabetes"

Yeah. I never even got a letter!

They sent one to my mum. She’s been dead 4 years.

I’m in my 50’s. If l could work from home, if have no problem with locking down

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

I'm under 50 so this would affect me. But as pp's have said, no point telling someone over 50 to stay at home when they've got school-aged kids (or indeed working age kids who have to work).

Yes it would only be guidance but we already know how many nosey neighbours there are around and they'd be shouting at their obviously older neighbours if they went out. Shop staff would be saying "should you be here"? It happens with pregnant women already if they dare to buy a bottle of wine in the supermarket.

I'm under 50 so this would affect me (and have a DH over 50 - forgot to say that bit!)

If/when they restart shielding advice I doubt I'll be reshielding (have been since March and back to work tomorrow) as I can't see my employer willing to pay me in full again to stay home.
I can imagine a lot of employers will change how they treat those shielding which will affect who can actually afford to shield. I can't afford to stay home on SSP so if shielding is advised and I'm not going to be paid then I'll be continuing to work 50hrs a wk in a supermarket.
If shielding advice is called for every few months then surely no employer will be paying full wages, it would be more cost effective to only offer SSP which for most is unaffordable so it will affect how many can actually take up the advice anyway

Give me strength! Have people totally lost the ability to understand the words 'asked' or 'advised'? Are you totally incapable of being given relevant advice and then doing your own risk assessment? If so, we have a lot more to worry about than a bloody virus!

The plan isn't to ask everyone over 50, just those with vulnerabilities. Probably more than half the over 50's though. It's agist, impractical and probably wouldn't be as effective as they would like due to all the obvious mixing

Advised ....but unless a large majority comply, we would be back to square 1

Why is it ageist? The death rate goes up in the 50 year old age group

It is ageist to design a solution that disadvantages older people , especially when alternative solutions are possible

Disabled people who can't walk are disadvantaged by stairs. It's no one fault, just things are, yet you would not expect no accommodation to be made for them so they can be part of society. You would not design them out even though it's harder and more expensive to include them

@Requinblanc

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...

So having done the risk assessment the fit and healthy 50+ year olds would be deemed to be low risk and therefore shielding advice would not apply to them

It's wouldn't be all over 50s, or even most over 50s. It will be those people who have conditions that make them vulnerable. I'd guess you be looking at overweight men with heart conditions, people with diabetes, maybe people with asthma. If you're a fit, healthy woman over 50 your risk of becoming seriously ill is still comparatively low.

People over 50 make up 1 in 4 of the workforce; the government aren't going to risk the damage it would do the economy to force millions of people to give up work and live on benefits. And they certainly aren't going to cover 80% of their salaries.

Shielding is just advice anyway, people don't have to follow it, though it would probably be quite sensible to if you fall into a high risk group!

This is quite possibly a return to to 'vulnerable groups stay safe, everyone else, deal' which I think was Boris' original plan before the pressure for lockdown started mounting.

Give me strength! Have people totally lost the ability to understand the words 'asked' or 'advised'? Are you totally incapable of being given relevant advice and then doing your own risk assessment? If so, we have a lot more to worry about than a bloody virus!

Have you forgotten all the idiots on MN wanting to report their neighbours for doing things that they deemed against their purely made up rules? Don’t you think the same idiots will be frothing at the mouth if someone over 50 dares to set foot outside whether they are vulnerable or not?

@PinkSparklyPussyCat

Give me strength! Have people totally lost the ability to understand the words 'asked' or 'advised'? Are you totally incapable of being given relevant advice and then doing your own risk assessment? If so, we have a lot more to worry about than a bloody virus!

Have you forgotten all the idiots on MN wanting to report their neighbours for doing things that they deemed against their purely made up rules? Don’t you think the same idiots will be frothing at the mouth if someone over 50 dares to set foot outside whether they are vulnerable or not?

Of course they will but screw 'em. My comment was aimed at the people who seem to think they're going to be locked in their houses because they're over 50 with an underlying health condition. Nothing of the kind has even been suggested but the hysteria is ridiculous.

It’s completely pandering to the Okay Boomer agenda as well as giving employers an excuse to sack anyone over 50.

every stats in every country struggling or having a peak say those spreading and testing positive are the 15- 30 year olds.so this will not stop the spread it just give them more excuse to go on and do what the fuck they like.they arent following the rules punsihing everyone else would be fucking wrong.it might be the 50 plus when they get it are coming off worse,but they arent safe bvecause of the younger dickheads spreading it.
shall we then say lets keep the young in so the older and vulnerable can go and be safe?no,i wonder why that is boris?

Not sure if London is next?

Ministers dismiss reports of draconian lockdown measures for London in event of second wave

Published on Aug 2, 2020
Ministers have distanced themselves from reports that the Government is considering imposing draconian new lockdown measures on London - calling it "speculation".

Reports claim the Prime Minister has been running through a range of drastic options if there's another wave of coronavirus infections.

London is low isn’t it? Some boroughs very low.

Hackney / Tower Hamlets is a bit higher iirc

There would be a massive childcare crisis if age restrictions were to be brought in. Most children in my (primary) school are dropped off/collected by grandparents more than three days a week. Grandparent childcare - whether you agree with it or not - helps keep women in work and mortgages paid.

The plan isn't to ask everyone over 50, just those with vulnerabilities.

However, I wonder how some employers will feel if their over-50s elect not to self-isolate, to travel into work etc. and the employers didn't want to absorb the risks of paying out death in service benefits (for workplaces that still offer them).