Would you be willing to be put under house arrest in order to save lives?

[Treesofwood]

Just that really. Would you be willing to go to prison to save lives? Would you be willing to give up your children's right to an education to save lives? This whole situation brings up many philosophical questions for me, and my theoretical response is not actually the sane as my response when faced with the reality.

who are the lockdown enthusiasts?

@whereorwhere

I think it's pretty obvious isn't it. If you are a doctor and you have one bed you make a choice. You would make the same choice as anyone else - you would protect the most likely to survive.

But according to people on here the least likely to survive are the over 80s, not younger people in the shielded category. So why would the shielded not get hospital or intensive care? Other than they are likely to be sicker and need longer care, thus blocking beds?

@chickenyhead. I have never criticised you and I wouldn’t. The quote about “you’re literally and figuratively wanting to kill my children” was someone else I think. Of course you need to advocate for your own kids. I’m just pointing out that at a population level children and even adults younger than 65 regardless of their health issues are mercifully relatively untouched by this. Which is good news for you and your children.

Whilst every death is sad for the family involved, no one is going to convince me that crashing the economy is worth doing to sustain a few extra years for the over 80s. I simply don’t believe that any death in that age bracket is a tragedy. Sad sure, slightly premature yeah, but never worth jeopardising a whole generations chances for.

I'm a little annoyed by people telling me how terrible lockdown has been as they can't browse the shops! I've every sympathy with people who have lost jobs, businesses and homes over this disease. We've been lucky, remained healthy, working from home and the kids have been ok though I worry about the impact on my older sons education. It boils my blood when people moan that the pubs are shut or that shopping in a mask is " just not the same", that not browsing tat shops is damaging their mental health! I'm probably being unreasonable but that felt cathartic!

@HepzibahGreen exactly what I said on another thread. Where is the outrage when hundreds of thousands die from seasonal flu because people carry on going to work or school with early symptoms and spread it to others who spread it to the most vulnerable? No, covid isn't flu I understand that, but the facts remain the same. Vulnerable people die of flu every damn year, my dad was one of them. No one gives a shit enough to close schools down or furlough people or force lockdown til flu season is over, no one gave a shit about the vulnerable in society until they were TOLD to care. Beggars belief.

@chickenyhead

there were 2 categories, highly vulnerable, who shielded and vulnerable, who didn't shield and made up most of the dead.

Just a fact that I thought people knew.

Actually it was

High risk - clinically extremely vulnerable.

Moderate risk - clinically vulnerable

well I agree with that fully and I am hoping that the government can think a bit more pragmatically than locking down the entire country for the few. Especially when the few are happy to stay in and avoid xyz, because they always have anyway.

@Treesofwood

Thank you x

that was meant for @PhilCornwall1

I would have house arrest to save lives

I wouldn't voluntarily have house arrest for Covid.

If I have Covid symptoms I will either get tested or just voluntarily stay at home.

If I am asked to quarantine for 14 days, either after a holiday or by T&T I will do so willingly.

House arrest - no fucking way.

• Shielding people were not allowed daily exercise.

They've only just been allowed to see people. Stop socially distancing from their own families in their own houses. *

Shielded people were allowed daily exercise if they wished to do so. Shielded people could choose to do exactly the same things as everyone else.

It seems to me reading some of the previous posts, the fact that shielding was advice and not enforced has been lost. The shielded were not forced to do anything.

It feels to me some shielded on here are playing the sympathy card.

I know I will be torn a new one for saying that, but come on, it wasn't a concentration camp.

So really people should smoke and eat as much junk food as they like. Then they won't live to past 65 or 80 so won't be the inconvenient worthless burden many view them as.

@NailsNeedDoing

What vulnerable people want, is to know that if they do start dying off in droves again, people might eventually be willing to accept REASONABLE adjustments, like masks (where not exempt) in enclosed spaces, to protect their children etc as much as possible.

But the vast majority of people ARE ALREADY accepting reasonable adjustments and wearing masks, and vulnerable people aren’t dying off in droves again.

The vast majority are accepting unreasonable adjustments.

We may or may not have an issue in the late autumn/winter. This will happen whatever we do now I think.

We don't have an issue now. If more people are going to catch it anyway, it makes sense that it happens now. If, as seems likely based on Leicester et al, more cases without increased deaths or hospital admissions then we are building herd immunity. If we do get increased admissions, then better now when the hospitals are empty rather than later when the hospitals are full with 'normal' winter ailments.

So why has my friend with a several vulnerable child been denied all of his lifesaving treatments?! He is very likely to die from any infections including a cold! Yet they have been denied things that would keep him alive! Disgusting! Luckily she understands how to protect her child and manage risks and doesn't expect the rest of the world to do her job for her!!

@PhilCornwall1

* Shielding people were not allowed daily exercise.

They've only just been allowed to see people. Stop socially distancing from their own families in their own houses. *

Shielded people were allowed daily exercise if they wished to do so. Shielded people could choose to do exactly the same things as everyone else.

It seems to me reading some of the previous posts, the fact that shielding was advice and not enforced has been lost. The shielded were not forced to do anything.

It feels to me some shielded on here are playing the sympathy card.

I know I will be torn a new one for saying that, but come on, it wasn't a concentration camp.

There are an awful lot of people who weren't/aren't aware there is a difference between what is/was 'advised' and what is/was law.

It's funny how many of those complaining about people not following their version of the law though don't want to follow the guidance when it doesn't suit them - 'No-one other than the police should challenge someone not wearing a mask' 'Anyone who is exempt does NOT have to carry proof'

@SheepandCow

So really people should smoke and eat as much junk food as they like. Then they won't live to past 65 or 80 so won't be the inconvenient worthless burden many view them as.

As I said, no one will convince me that death beyond 75 is a tragedy. It’s sad and it would be great if people lived longer in full health but they don’t. It is not worth jeopardising the life prospects of the young.

@PhilCornwall1

* Shielding people were not allowed daily exercise.

They've only just been allowed to see people. Stop socially distancing from their own families in their own houses. *

Shielded people were allowed daily exercise if they wished to do so. Shielded people could choose to do exactly the same things as everyone else.

It seems to me reading some of the previous posts, the fact that shielding was advice and not enforced has been lost. The shielded were not forced to do anything.

It feels to me some shielded on here are playing the sympathy card.

I know I will be torn a new one for saying that, but come on, it wasn't a concentration camp.

Exactly!

Shielding was advice and guidance it was not law and regulation.

Advice and guidance is also to eat 5 fruit and veg a day, not to smoke and consume no more than 14 units of alcohol a week, its not law yet theres plenty (including the vulnerable) that choose not to follow these guidelines either.
At no point were people advised to shield "not allowed" do anything the rest of society were allowed to do.

The problem with the shielding list is the government got it the wrong way round. Lots of extremely clinically vulnerable (i.e. diabetics, many heart patients) were put on the moderately vulnerable list, and some lower risk were classed as extremely vulnerable, i.e. people taking certain immunosuppressants.

We know diabetes and heart issues are extremely clinically vulnerable because the death rate in these patients is globally very high. We also know that most autoimmune conditions are lower risk, or at least not the most extremely clinically vulnerable, because we're the only country that had shielding. If shielding was the only reason for lower death rates in this group, we'd see a lot of deaths in the group in other countries. We haven't.

Hopefully this time round, if there's a need for shielding to be reintroduced, all the most extremely clinically vulnerable will be included.

To save lives? Of course yes.

@YewHedge

To save lives? Of course yes.

"Saving lives" is such a non specific term though isn't it?

I'm inclined to believe that by being able to run my business and pay my tax I will save more lives than staying in my house doing nothing

Shielding people not ‘forced’ to do anything, but some were sent grim letters like the one attached, and told to sign DNR forms. Others, who weren’t sent the letters, were still conscious of being low-priority for ICU. When you’ve got messages like that being drummed into you, no wonder people felt their hands were tied.

'No-one other than the police should challenge someone not wearing a mask' 'Anyone who is exempt does NOT have to carry proof'

God, don't get me started on that one. I almost had a punch up last week at the local co-op when the local mask police decided to have a go.

I swear, one more smart arsed comment and I'm going to lamp someone.

@Holyrivolli I wish more people like you would come on the How Awful Obese People Are, How Dare They Shorten Their Lives threads. People have the right to choose a shorter life in return for indulging in something they enjoy or that gives them stress relief. If it's smoking or eating lots of cake, that's their choice and they shouldn't be berated for it.

I don't personally agree with you about older people. I value older lives and it's always a tragedy in my view. I love hearing older people's stories and experience. However I respect your honesty. We can't all agree all of the time.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras because if it was widespread it would be a choice of health v less likely to survive. Someone taking up a bed for a long time could prevent 3 healthy people from being treated so choices would have been made. Do you really believe it was otherwise? Kids and healthy adults were not kept inside for their own protection they were kept inside to keep the vulnerable and shielded from getting it. I'm not expecting you to be thankful (why should you be) but I do expect you to face reality

@Redolent

Shielding people not ‘forced’ to do anything, but some were sent grim letters like the one attached, and told to sign DNR forms. Others, who weren’t sent the letters, were still conscious of being low-priority for ICU. When you’ve got messages like that being drummed into you, no wonder people felt their hands were tied.

I've kept mine for the grandkids to take in for their history lessons at school.

Oh and the one from Robert Jenrick and "Matt", telling me to get up off my arse and go out on the 1st July.