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.

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

My husband was in the shielded group - before the government decided his lung disease would be magically cured on 1 August. Like you say we have found that most people expect this group to be old or sick, and therefore can't believe my husband was asked to shield. He's mainly fit and healthy, just he would be very unlikely to survive if he caught coronavirus. We have therefore been shielding as a family since mid March.

I have believed from the beginning that the shielded group are not really considered, all cloaked in words of it being about protecting them. And I worry when there is a vaccine, the shielded group will become guinea pigs. And it won't really matter if there are serious side effects, because most people (as you said) think it is only the old and sick, who would die soon anyway.

I am dreading the children returning to school - all in bubbles of at least 120 others, and different bubbles mixing on transport. Obviously there will be additional risk to my husband now, and I just don't want next week to come. My own children can be withdrawn from school and home schooled, but we also have long term foster children and of course the local authority would never agree to that for them.

And worrying about this is why I am still wide awake at 4.19am!!

I'll give you a sample of people I know...

The older adults with carers (who aren't old). The carers have families.

The young man with Learning Disabilities and other disabilities who is suicidal because his day activities have suspended.

The woman at work whose DH is dying of cancer. We work in housing so loads of contact.

The 10 yo friend of DD whose parents are a cleaner and a fast food worker. He has a serious genetic condition.

How do we lock these people away from everyone else? And why on earth would we choose to?

Apart from forcing the shielding group to lock themselves away, including from their families, you seem to be thinking that the high risk group should just be going about getting on with it in a situation where you are guaranteeing high levels of circulating virus that we aren’t going to deal with.

I highly doubt that high levels of circulating virus is going to encourage people back into the shops. It’s more likely to have the opposite effect.

I agree OP, all this fuckery for a virus that’s killing less than 10 people a day

So we'd have to lock away 30% of the population since they are vulnerable. Plus their families. Plus their carers. Plus the hospital workers of the hospital they go to. Plus their childrens teachers. Plus their cleaners. Plus the public transport they use to get to the hospital for their medical appointments (because they're vulnerable they cant skip that). Plus any plumber that they need. Et cetera.

Do you not see that wearing a mask and taking two steps away from people is much easier and better for the economy?

The OP is, ahem new to MN.

Welcome on board.

And have a

Because even though it's 'only' 3% of the population, it's utterly heartless to shut people away indefinitely

Out of sight, out of mind - isolated, MH suffering - all those things that were utterly intolerable for the population as a while during lockdown (which had a much less onerous regime than shielding)

Then if you add the vulnerable (and perhaps the over 50s as mooted a little while ago) you're removing over 1/3 of the workforce. Surefire economic collapse. Plus NHS very vulnerable as it takes out the practitioners with the most experience. Horrible scenario.

@SleepingStandingUp
Your comment about allowing ' the nice normal people '
My dh was / is in the shielding group. FYI he is nice, and normal. Let's hope everyone in your family stays ' normal ' shall we ?

@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.

I'm allegedly clinically extremely vulnerable and didn't completely shield during this effort anyway.

Why am I not doing it now? Because I want a life and for my family to have a life. We've had a guts full of this crap to be honest and it's time to move on.

There is more to life than covid-19, it just isn't that important.

Our society does not work without the varied and vital contributions of the “vulnerable” and they are just as important as you OP.

If we work together we can all get out of this sooner, so stop being so damn selfish.

This argument MAY have been valid at the height of the virus transmission, when we couldn’t test. I think shutting the whole country down for all those months was a mistake and the price paid will have been too high. Now there are so few cases In the community and most things can go back to normal there is no argument for people to do this.

Why aren't vulnerable groups being told to continue to shield

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

So which is it? The vulnerable or the shielded? Cos they’re not the same. Thousands of people died, lots of whom weren’t the ‘shielded’, because they were, well, ‘shielded’. Both me and my husband are vulnerable, him extremely, but didn’t fall into the narrow ‘shielded’ category. We’ve got teenagers going back to school, not primary age but probably would quite like to have us both around for a bit longer. So everyone should go back to no mitigating safety measures and we should just take our chances then?

We can re-assess who is vulnerable given the scientific information we have..... and let them decide what to do for themselves BUT have support in place to ensure it is viable. Not sure why so many of you are missing this point.

Not new- been here for years.

The steps taken re social distancing/masks etc slow down the rate of transmission- that's all.

I think children have had enough disruption to both their education and social needs. They are going to be paying this debt for years.

For the majority of the population Covid is not a threat- we need to collectively get on with living and support the few who need and want to self-isolate.

I think children have had enough disruption to both their education and social needs. They are going to be paying this debt for years.

How would that debt work?

Tough

the vulnerable may be a minority but they are not as small as you might think, they are still significant as people and deserve to live as much as anyone else, not be assigned to a virtual prison just because you are unusually selfish.

Luckily most people are not that selfish, or perhaps they just realise that the economy won't recover if you exclude so many people, the diabetics , the obese, the grandparents doing the school run...

For the majority of the population Covid is not a threat- we need to collectively get on with living and support the few who need and want to self-isolate.

You seem to have missed a great deal of information about how 'mild' COVID is actually not that mild. Plus, your approach would create a two-tiered (or more) society and you seem fine with that.

@TheClaws

For the majority of the population Covid is not a threat- we need to collectively get on with living and support the few who need and want to self-isolate.

You seem to have missed a great deal of information about how 'mild' COVID is actually not that mild. Plus, your approach would create a two-tiered (or more) society and you seem fine with that.

Yes quite, 10% have non-mild covid, many are not back at work.

The NHS still has very high level of sickness absence from all those not yet recovered from their 'mild' covid.

BUT have support in place to ensure it is viable. Not sure why so many of you are missing this point.

So how then? What's your plan? Because that support will have to be corona safe too. I think you are the one that's missing how big the group is and how difficult it is to shoeld them. But if you're right then please tell us how.

So how to shield the vulnerable while they still have oartners, children, carers, hospital appointments and need transport to said appointments.

"Yes quite, 10% have non-mild covid, many are not back at work.

The NHS still has very high level of sickness absence from all those not yet recovered from their 'mild' covid."

Do you have a source for that? Not being goady, genuingly interested. Just on our local news just yesterday they reported that our trust had 6% absense during the peak compared to normal 4.5% and is now back to normal levels.

Totally agree OP. It is clear that the original shielding group was drawn far too wide and the vast majority are now known to have no higher risk than anyone else of their own age. So asthma, immune suppressing medication etc do not increase risk. In fact, the one drug that is really successful in treating covid is an immunosuppressant.

Almost all that matters is age. In the US, two-thirds of deaths are in the over 85s. That is, the very elderly. In most countries the majority of deaths are in care homes residents - those already - and sadly - coming to the end of a long life.

The school age population are not at risk and neither - with very few exceptions - are their parents or teachers. Yes, grandparents may be at risk but it is surely massively more proportionate to ask children not to see their grandparents before a vaccine than to mess up children’s prospects by keeping them at home - when they should avoid their elderly relatives anyway. Or in the case of many elderly take the attitude that you only have one life so be damned if it is to be spent behind closed doors.

The alternative is for this to drag on for years

@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.

So your logic in dealing with this virus is to end all social distancing and just return to normal whilst those classed as vulnerable remain shielded and shut away?

I can't believe you actually think this is the logical answer.

The alternative is for this to drag on for years

But they think yhat there will be a vaccine within 6ish months for the vulnerable so that might not be true. They do expect that it will take longer to vaccinate everyone but vaccinating the health care workers and vulnerable will take care of the problem.

You're absolutely right OP. Why should "normal" people be in any way inconvenienced in order that the vulnerable can do the things that other people do? Come to that, why should we have to put ourselves out, shopkeepers and so on put in disabled access just for the minority of wheelchair users, have a disabled toilet when instead we could put in two much-needed extra cubicles, etc.

But there is no guarantee whatsoever that there will be a vaccine. Or it may we’ll take years.

Take a look at Sweden. They have had 1/10 of the deaths forecast by Neil Ferguson with no lockdown. They managed with sensible restrictions - no mass gatherings, social distancing - a steady level of transmission among low risk groups and now their cases are falling steadily and deaths are in single figures. There is a level of resistance among the population which means the vulnerable can also now start to lead normal lives again rather than here where even with the restrictions people are still jumpy.

Like the U.K., Sweden had a care home issue. Over half the deaths were in care homes but these are now better shielded. It is much more proportionate to put special measures around care homes than to stop children’s education and shut down the economy for those who have no risk of the disease.

The outbreak seems to be almost over in Sweden without a lockdown. And their under 16s were in school throughout as normal.

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

Sweden is a very different country to the uk in terms of population density , and people generally obeying the guidelines , and has had significantly more deaths than any of its neighbours which is a fairer comparison tan to the uk and a fairly similar economic hit and is no where near any kind of immunity.

Yes this virus sucks but it's here and no amount of wishful thinking for an easy solution will help