Not doing quarantine properly.

[irishheartenglishblood]

DH spoke to a friend earlier who arrived back from France at 4pm on Sat, so 12hrs after quarantine started.
Said friend and family are going to WFH, but are planning on daily trips to the park, a once weekly trip to the supermarket, and to meet up with family next week.
DF firmly believes their behaviour is within keeping of the quarantine rules.

I'm quite torn. On the one hand, it seems quite arbitrary. On the other hand, if everyone who is supposed to be quarantining does this then it probably increases risk. But then they may have been staying in areas where the infection rate was lower than here. I think that was the case for DH's friend.

Thoughts?

@ListeningQuietly

How do you reduce your risk factors from say drug induced immunosuppression? Weight management Cardio fitness Inflammation reduction Healthy balance of micronutrients all the things that stage 4 cancer patients are told to do

And if you are a healthy weight but can't do cardio fitness due to your illness? And do tell the secret of inflammation reduction - I'm sure many people currently taking immunosuppressants for auto immune and inflammatory illnesses would love to know.

Maybe you could share the secret with people with cystic fibrosis or who have had organ transplants too. How do they reduce their risk factors so they don't have to shield in the future?

How do they reduce their risk factors so they don't have to shield in the future?
Nobody HAS to shield.
People need to assess their own risk and decide what they want from life.

@ListeningQuietly

How do they reduce their risk factors so they don't have to shield in the future? Nobody HAS to shield. People need to assess their own risk and decide what they want from life.

That wasn't what you said. You listed how people can remove their risk factors, apparently as stage four cancer patients are already told.

I'm wondering how? And it's easy to say "no one has to shield". If you aren't ready to risk dying yet because you've got many years of life left yet then maybe you aren't willing to risk your life just to enable Dave and Sandra to go to Benidorm without quarantining. or Tom and Barbara to go to the pub with 20 of their close friends every weekend.

My over 70 ill friends have chosen that life is for living
its their choice
they know how low the risk factors are

But what is everyone meant to do? I agree that life can't return to full normality yet and we need to do what we can to protect the vulnerable, but you can't shut down the whole of society forever because some things may be quite risky for the vulnerable group.

And also, bringing it back round to the topic of the thread - if you support quarantine for 14 days from abroad because it apparently protects the vulnerable, do you think it should be in place for UK holiday destinations too? And if so -then we are back into full lockdown arent we?

Genuine question - what things do you think should/shouldnt be allowed?

@Juststopswimming

People would rather those of us who were shielding be locked away permanently if it means that they could go to the pub and on holiday without constraint.

Not at all - but at what point do we have to try and open society back up for the majority? Quarantining from many holiday destinations which have fewer cases than many UK locations is absurd.

Well quarantining is not absurd if it allows those who would be shielding to go out and about.

I think 'opening society up for the majority' sounds a lot like you'd rather those with underlying conditions stayed home while you travel and then don't get asked to quarantine.

I think that would be ethically wrong. I'm not shielding but think that would be awful. I was taught as a young person to think of the needs of others, I think that is incredibly important in public health crises such as our current situation.

@ListeningQuietly

My over 70 ill friends have chosen that life is for living its their choice they know how low the risk factors are

But not all vulnerable people are over 70 or have stage 4 cancer.

Lots of vulnerable people are children or in their teens, twenties, thirties, forties, fifties with normal life expectancy (even older people or the terminally ill might not be ready to risk their life). Someone on immunosuppressants in their 20s might, understandably, not think it's worth risking their life now when they could have 70 years left. People might have young children that they need to stay alive for.

It's very chilling to expect everyone to be ready and willing to.pop their clogs tomorrow just so that the healthy amongst us can holiday and party.

Why does walking a dog in the fresh air put a vulnerable or shielded person at risk?

It's very chilling to expect everyone to be ready and willing to.pop their clogs tomorrow just so that the healthy amongst us can holiday and party.

I agree with this. There have been some very disturbing views about the people who were shielding. I think some people have stopped valuing people properly. I have some wonderful colleagues, only young middle-aged, who are at serious risk. But they are talented, clever, experienced, and also loved. They are not replaceable.

@cantdothisnow1

Why does walking a dog in the fresh air put a vulnerable or shielded person at risk?

I suspect it was 'quarantine' to make it legally clear cut.

I don't massively get the issue really. It's two weeks, this single year, if we are fortunate.

I do very much think of the needs of others, I locked down like the rest of the country. But what is the tipping point? Covid aside there is always a risk for vulnerable groups. I have a family member in a very vulnerable group before you start any fresh personal attacks.

And the question remains - do you think its ok for Dave and Jenny to go on holiday to St Ives with eleventy billion other people and then mix as "normal" when they get home; but if they went to remote France then they have to stay indoors for 2 weeks?!

@Juststopswimming

I do very much think of the needs of others, I locked down like the rest of the country. But what is the tipping point? Covid aside there is always a risk for vulnerable groups. I have a family member in a very vulnerable group before you start any fresh personal attacks.

And the question remains - do you think its ok for Dave and Jenny to go on holiday to St Ives with eleventy billion other people and then mix as "normal" when they get home; but if they went to remote France then they have to stay indoors for 2 weeks?!

I'd say that's up to the public health scientists to determine the risks, just as they've implemented local lockdowns. So, if they look at rates in St Ives and decide there's a high risk of infection then yes, why shouldn't they insist that people travelling from there need to quarantine? The problem lies with policing this. How would the authorities know where anyone has been within the UK in order to enforce quarantine? Personally, I think travelling anywhere at the moment risks spreading the virus and re seeding it in a potentially low risk area.

@cantdothisnow1

Why does walking a dog in the fresh air put a vulnerable or shielded person at risk?

I don't know. Why was it considered too high a risk for the shielded to go.oytside for exercise during lockdown? Presumably the same concerns apply now to those quarantining as they did then for those shielding.

There was no personal attack, my post was pretty tepid. I'm just saying I don't agree, I would prefer to prioritise the safety of the whole community over my own non-essential activities.

But shielded people are as much/ if not more at risk from dog walkers in Leicester and other high rate areas in the UK as those returning from holiday. It is the inconsistency.

@cantdothisnow1

But shielded people are as much/ if not more at risk from dog walkers in Leicester and other high rate areas in the UK as those returning from holiday. It is the inconsistency.

Precisely.

Dog walkers coming from Leicester = acceptable
Dog walkers who have been in remote France = unacceptable

God forbid anyone should take a risk and try to enjoy their life

@cantdothisnow1

But shielded people are as much/ if not more at risk from dog walkers in Leicester and other high rate areas in the UK as those returning from holiday. It is the inconsistency.

But shielding was reinstated in Leicester - or rather shielding wasn't paused in Leicester because the re lockdown came about before shielding paused so people shielding shouldn't be coming into contact with dog walkers (unless they've decided not to shield)

Leicester was an example - pick another location in the UK with a rising covid rate and no local lockdown/continuation of the shielding programme

@Juststopswimming

Leicester was an example - pick another location in the UK with a rising covid rate and no local lockdown/continuation of the shielding programme

But that's what many of us de shielders have been saying - opening up, business as usual, with us expected to return to work and school with no additional protection is putting us at risk, especially as numbers are rising. I'm.not sure how your argument of not implementing quarantine makes our situation safer? It's already bad so why would you want to make it worse?

No my point is that why do you make someone coming in from rural France quarantine if you dont make someone coming in from [insert high covid rate in the UK location]? It isnt logical. Its punishing people who had the (shock!) audacity to go abroad, rather than stay here.

As for those shielding - genuine question but what additional protection would you like? Do you think schools/pubs/offices should remain shut? And until what levels? 16 deaths today, 10x more deaths from flu/pneumonia over the past few weeks, c. 1000 infections daily but with hugely increased testing and 75% are asymptomatic, dramatic drop in hospital admissions - I'm genuinely interested in what more needs to be satisfied/happening for society to feel 'safe' for you? (I am trying to phrase this in a non-aggressive way as I'm genuinely interested in what more needs to happen in your eyes)

So what should be done then? I tend to walk my dog at 6am, over fields, tends to be no one around. Transmission in such circumstances is highly unlikely if not impossible.

Most people walking dogs naturally keep more than 2 meters distance. The WHO suggest that this is safe, even to vulnerable people. There is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

I am more than happy to take measures that actually promote public health, I see no evidence that this is harmful to anyone. Yet my movements are restricted.

@Juststopswimming

No my point is that why do you make someone coming in from rural France quarantine if you dont make someone coming in from [insert high covid rate in the UK location]? It isnt logical. Its punishing people who had the (shock!) audacity to go abroad, rather than stay here.

As for those shielding - genuine question but what additional protection would you like? Do you think schools/pubs/offices should remain shut? And until what levels? 16 deaths today, 10x more deaths from flu/pneumonia over the past few weeks, c. 1000 infections daily but with hugely increased testing and 75% are asymptomatic, dramatic drop in hospital admissions - I'm genuinely interested in what more needs to be satisfied/happening for society to feel 'safe' for you? (I am trying to phrase this in a non-aggressive way as I'm genuinely interested in what more needs to happen in your eyes)

Totally agree.

cantdothisnow1 I can't believe more people are NOT objecting to Q14. Especially the fact that you cannot exercise in the fresh air. That's draconian and even at the height of the pandemic we were urged to exercise.
Where is the evidence that healthy people locking themselves indoors for 14 days is NECESSARY to protect public health

Quite. I am observing it but I do feel imprisoned not being allowed to go for a walk or walk my dog, even at 6am when no-one is around. We're all healthy and my teens should be enjoying physical activity and time outdoors for the last 2 weeks of the school holidays. Perhaps 7 days quarantine followed by 7 days of lockdown rules would have been better. We knew the risks before we went to France but I hadn't realised it would mean I couldn't go for a walk or walk my dog.

@Juststopswimming

No my point is that why do you make someone coming in from rural France quarantine if you dont make someone coming in from [insert high covid rate in the UK location]? It isnt logical. Its punishing people who had the (shock!) audacity to go abroad, rather than stay here.

As for those shielding - genuine question but what additional protection would you like? Do you think schools/pubs/offices should remain shut? And until what levels? 16 deaths today, 10x more deaths from flu/pneumonia over the past few weeks, c. 1000 infections daily but with hugely increased testing and 75% are asymptomatic, dramatic drop in hospital admissions - I'm genuinely interested in what more needs to be satisfied/happening for society to feel 'safe' for you? (I am trying to phrase this in a non-aggressive way as I'm genuinely interested in what more needs to happen in your eyes)

What protection is in place in schools for de shielded staff and students?

As for general society is like to see proper enforcement of masks and social distancing, of quarantine and a proper track and trace system. As it is, when shielding paused government said we could return to work if our workplace was Covid safe - meaning what? Schools definitely aren't Covid safe, what about other places open to the public? I wont know if someone I come into contact with at work tests positive tomorrow, lots of customers aren't wearing masks, people are coughing and sneezing and then handing me money - none of that is Covid safe. People on various threads on here talking about restaurants taking bookings for large parties - 14 in one case, 22 in another, details not taken for test and trace, other posters boasting that they give false details in order to avoid isolation. In short, I'd like government to be enforcing the rules that they've put in place. You say 1000 people a day testing positive and many are asymptomatic, well yay for them but others that they've been in contact with might not be so fortunate. That's 1000 people per day who could have infected an extremely vulnerable person currently driving a bus or working in a shop.or soon, working in a school.

So you're basically saying as things stand (social distancing being patchy, track and trace being a bit dodgy and mask wearing variable) - you think schools, shops, restaurants and pubs shouldnt be open??

And that these things should only be open if all of the measures you mention below are in place?