Why aren't vulnerable groups being told to continue to shield whilst the rest of us crack on with getting back to normal?

[IVORNOIDEA]

It just doesn't make any logical sense given what is known about this virus.

If you are in a high risk group- shield.

Why isn't the government being more explicit about who is actually at risk and putting practical things into place to support them over the winter?

All this hysteria about children going back to school- they have had enough disruption in order to protect the elderly and sick members of society. Enough already.

Errr, most shielded don’t live in an isolation pod by themselves for one? They have partners who work, kids who go to school...

Of they open everything up and it spirals upwards again, it won't just be the vulnerable who die.

People who have been shielding who are at massive risk of mental health deterioration can have something of a taste of freedom for the sake of a few concessions by other people. Is queuing apart and wearing a mask really such a huge sacrifice so people like my son aren't locked in the house for best part of a year? And at least he's not in the category if people at risk of taking their own life because they're totally isolated and see no way forward.

I'm in the extremely high risk category. I'm neither elderly nor sick.

My child will be returning to school for Y8 next week. Please don't assume that the all of the 'vulnerable' can be neatly boxed away.

How long are you going to ask this group to hide away from society for?

We've only been out of shielding a few weeks!

@NervousInYorkshire

We've only been out of shielding a few weeks!

But they're rooming everyone's fun Nervous. Surely we could just kick away while families from sight and pay them to stay away from all the nice normal people??

@IVORNOIDEA

It just doesn't make any logical sense given what is known about this virus.

If you are in a high risk group- shield.

Why isn't the government being more explicit about who is actually at risk and putting practical things into place to support them over the winter?

All this hysteria about children going back to school- they have had enough disruption in order to protect the elderly and sick members of society. Enough already.

And some of those people who have needed to shield are children. Don't they deserve a chance at getting back to school (safely)? Or should they just be locked away too? FFS We all need to work together to give everyone a fair chance. Some people are so fucking selfish.

FFS, this again?

Many children are vulnerable. Many teachers are vulnerable. Many parents are vulnerable. Many in our society are vulnerable, including the old and sick but not just limited to those groups. Many shielding and vulnerable people lived full, healthy lives before lockdown. They can't just put life on hold indefinitely while everyone else gets on as normal. As a society, we have a collective responsibility to protect each other.

For the very few children who have needed to shield- school is not going to be a 'safe' place for them given the numbers of people involved and time-lag around testing.

I think this Covid reaction is disproportionate to the level of threat to most people.

Plenty of people with other conditions are not getting the medical input they need- why should their needs matter less?

The NHS has to be paid for too.

If you are in a household with a person who is high risk then provision should be made accordingly. This broad brush approach isn't going to work.

If DS has to go back shielding because he's ruining the lives of his peers, so too do we. You can't shield a 5 yo whilst going out and doing all the usual stuff, he can't raise himself locked in the cellar away from the "normal" people. Which means his baby brothers aren't allowed out for however long either, nor DH for work. Fortunately he can work from home but given he's not shielding himself, he'd surely be at increased risk of getting the sack for refusing to go in. Can all the signing on for job seekers etc be done online? Or would we just be sanctioned as he couldn't attend appts? And how exactly does he job search when he needs to be inside with us?
Or perhaps he could move out and I'll stay locked inside with 3 kids 5 and under and he can buy or for and get it delivered. I'm sure that would be amazing for my mental health as well as the kids now not seeing their Dad for another 6? months?

For the very few children who have needed to shield- school is not going to be a 'safe' place for them given the numbers of people involved and time-lag around testing. It would be a damn sight safer of their parents bothered to wear a mask, queue properly, not sure on packed bars or go to big house parties and taught their kids how to wash their hands properly

Far, far, far more children and teachers are not vulnerable with respect to Covid than those that are.

Collectively we would be better putting our energies into supporting the most vulnerable to enable them to choose to shield.

There needs to be more transparency around identifying who is actually at risk.

There needs to be more transparency around identifying who is actually at risk.

They could always wear a black arm band, star or a tracking device. 😒

15 million adults are eligible for the flu jab due to their age or conditions. Add the 5-10 million who live with them and you have 1/3 of the country shut away, which isn’t really sustainable

Also, how would you operate care homes or provide home care services if Covid is rampant amongst the population?

Having said that, if we don’t get a vaccine next year, we’ll have to manage it.

Collectively we would be better putting our energies into supporting the most vulnerable to enable them to choose to shield.

We are getting more back to normal, and will continue to do so once schools go back next week... We’re not really using our energies to support the vulnerable by letting Covid run amok in the less vulnerable part of the population.

It just doesn't make any logical sense given what is known about this virus.

Said by someone who clearly doesn't understand how society works! The 'vulnerable' live and work and go to school with us all.

Also not sure you do understand the virus that well given approx. 10% of those who get 'mild' vivid experience long term symptoms. This is not being widely talked about but is a big worry.

So even as someone who is not vulnerable, I'll not be rushing around catching it, thank you.

I'm assuming that you've had a full health screen recently and know with absolute certainty that you don't have an underlying health issue?
I'm not sure I'm so certain.

I think we all must agree that as a society we didn't adequately protect the most vulnerable first time round. Equally I'm sure we don't want to make the same mistake again.
Sorry OP but your argument, and many before you, seems so confident that it won't happen again.
I feel sick to my stomach for all those people who lost loved ones first time around because we didn't protect them enough.
I don't want to be, as a society, responsible for the same again.
If that means that my life and that of my family has to be disrupted then so be it. If we have to make adjustments then that's what we will do.
If one person dies because my need for normality trumps their right to live another minute or month or year or many many years it's not a price I want to pay. Nor do I wish to live in a society which doesn't do everything to protect its weakest.
I honestly fear for a society that desires individual dreams and that says 'sod you' if you're not up to the job.

Washing our hands, wearing masks and socially distancing to save vulnerable people's lives sound like far more reasonable measures to take than getting vulnerable people to lock themselves up at home all over again for what could literally be years to come.

In order to realistically protect others should they been contact with Covid -our social distancing needs to be 8 metres.

At 2 metres businesses have collapsed.

People are choosing to shop online in droves owing to the rules currently in place. Unemployment in linked industries follows.

Young people starting out in their careers are going to suffer because working from home in these early years means they miss out on networking. Not every young person has an environment conducive to working from home.

The amount of people who were in the shielded group is not comparable to those needing a flu shot.

I think a sensible approach would be for those who are genuinely in the highest risk groups to be alerted (from the evidence we have now) and given choice and support if they want to shield. I think that is where our energies should be focussed.

The masks/hand gel etc I believe was brought in to reassure people it is safe to come out after lockdown in order to stimulate the economy. However, it has had the reverse effect as people still perceive a high risk threat even though the evidence is otherwise....

Sometimes, reading threads on here, I do wonder if people are enjoying the process around this and are reluctant to return to working around others. Much easier to have things on your own terms in some respects. The impact on others is not being considered.

I do wonder if people are enjoying the process around this and are reluctant to return to working around others. Much easier to have things on your own terms in some respects. The impact on others is not being considered. Yeah, those shielding are just loving how special they are with their increased risk of serious illness/ death. It's such jolly good fun

Obviously not those who need to shield ...

So you think it’s ok for a large number of people should essentially have no life?

Sometimes, reading threads on here, I do wonder if people are enjoying the process around this and are reluctant to return to working around others. Much easier to have things on your own terms in some respects. The impact on others is not being considered.

Yeah, that must be it. I'm just loving all the disruption, the change, missing friends and having to zoom all the time instead of just chatting face to face

Or maybe, just maybe, it is that i believe chief scientific officer and chief medical officer when they say this virus is a risk and we need to take sensible precautions.

There needs to be more transparency around identifying who is actually at risk.

The problem is, we don't know this - the situation is evolving & we are learning more about the virus as time goes by (just look at our understanding of symptoms now, compared to at the start of Covid).

Currently most vulnerable people are shielding as best they can.

Those catching Covid are predominantly in the 19 - 45 age group. (This is the situation in Ireland, I assume it's the same in the UK).

Many people recover quickly. Some however, don't. It's a mistake to assume that otherwise young & healthy people won't be impacted by Covid - much more is being known about post-viral symptoms now.

The rate of death is low - that's because older & vulnerable people are being protected / protecting themselves at the moment. (I've noticed I rarely see older people out at the moment, where I live)