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.

@latticechaos current rate of sickness with covid symptoms or shielding is 1% where I work - London nhs trust.

[quote Pomegranatepompom]@latticechaos current rate of sickness with covid symptoms or shielding is 1% where I work - London nhs trust.[/quote]
That's good. It was some national figures released, the core message was MH absence down, absence for physical reasons highest % ever? I can never find again, will have read about it in the 'biased MSM media'

The highest level we had covid related sickness, shielding or symptoms was 13%. Given hospitals are high risk, I was surprised that some posters said half staff were off. We also didn’t have ppe for some weeks.

@Pomegranatepompom

The highest level we had covid related sickness, shielding or symptoms was 13%. Given hospitals are high risk, I was surprised that some posters said half staff were off. We also didn’t have ppe for some weeks.

I sense the government is quietly concerned about covid rehab/recovery costs?

The complete absence of discussion about long covid makes me more suspicious than if it were being talked about factually.

A doctor off for six months is seriously expensive.

Lots of vulnerable people need to work.

We had 2 staff deaths in my unit 😢, most people recovered well and returned to work in 3-6 weeks. I person off for 3 months, now phased return.

@Pomegranatepompom

We had 2 staff deaths in my unit 😢, most people recovered well and returned to work in 3-6 weeks. I person off for 3 months, now phased return.

Sorry about your colleagues

Will be hard for hospitals to go through it again so I wish you the best winter possible.

It's 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

You do know that only the subset of those with asthma - those most seriously affected and on certain drugs - were asked to shield and the vast majority were classed as moderate risk and not?

And that only some immne suppressant medicines are being studied for effects on Covid? And not every immune suppressant drug led to the patient needing to shield?

My df shielded on his own for 5 months. If he is expected to spend another 5 months on his own, as an elderly man, he may as well contract the virus and die - having no contact with the outside world for prolonged periods on the off chance you don't become unwell... he wants to live, but spending 5 months alone isn't living.

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

No guarantees, no. But with so much testing it is much more probable that there either will be a vaccine OR better treatment options than needing to wear masks for years. Even in the last few months treatment options and survival rates of those hospitalised are getting much better.

When you say expend our energies in supporting the most vulnerable, how does this differ from telling them to look out for themselves and then pretending they don't exist and getting on with your own life as normal?

For me it's because I want to work for the sake of my mental health. Lockdown nearly tipped me over the edge so if you don't mind then just follow the rules so I can continue to work without worrying about becoming seriously ill. Ta.

Almost all that matters is age. In the US, two-thirds of deaths are in the over 85s.

Link please.

Almost all that matters is age. In the US, two-thirds of deaths are in the over 85s

covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html#demographics

It’s the other way round 2/3s of deaths are under 85

It’s the other way round 2/3s of deaths are under 85

Thank you for setting the record straight, Derbygerbil. I do wish that people would stop spreading misinformation over the internet.

OK I checked and the two-thirds over 85 was incorrect. But is still true that any other risk factor pales in comparison to age.

These are the relative risk factors from the US CDC. No risk factor - diabetes, obesity, BAME which give anything approaching the risk of being old. Even a doubling of risk for a child is still basically zero risk.

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html

@AlexaShutUp

Me too. The Internet is awash with distorted and out-of-context figures used to support a particular position - usually a position whose basis has nothing to do with the facts and figures but one based on personal feelings, anger or political persuasion. And it’s usually, but not exclusively, from the “Covid’s just the flu” people.

They don’t see that their disregard for correct and contextualised figures harms their argument. I’d have more time for their position if they just admitted: “Covid is shit, but our response is disproportionate and excessive, and does not justify restrictions on personal freedom”, rather than attempt to justify their position with distorted facts and figures.

@IVORNOIDEA

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.

I can assure you thousands upon thousands of children have needed to shield. I am not sure where you're getting this small number from.

For the very few children who have needed to shield

It was 90,000

That's the equivalent - if distributed evenly, which of course they're not - of 3 in every school

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. But what about the vulnerable? Most of whom are not in care homes?

@MereDintofPandiculation

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. But what about the vulnerable? Most of whom are not in care homes?

Yes millions of people classed as vulnerable are drs, care workers, teachers, bus drivers etc etc. Are they meant to stay home as well to allow all the fit and healthy young people to get on with living?

[quote Derbygerbil]@AlexaShutUp

Me too. The Internet is awash with distorted and out-of-context figures used to support a particular position - usually a position whose basis has nothing to do with the facts and figures but one based on personal feelings, anger or political persuasion. And it’s usually, but not exclusively, from the “Covid’s just the flu” people.

They don’t see that their disregard for correct and contextualised figures harms their argument. I’d have more time for their position if they just admitted: “Covid is shit, but our response is disproportionate and excessive, and does not justify restrictions on personal freedom”, rather than attempt to justify their position with distorted facts and figures.[/quote]
You are coming at this from a perspective in which facts win arguments, when really, for most people, emotions win arguments. Whilst you may be persuaded by research with citations, a lot of people stop at the soundbite if it feels true. This is why we have so many people confidently asserting nonsense like "You're more likely to get hit by a bus/struck by lightning/etc. Their "disregard for correct and contextualised figures" doesn't matter whatsoever to other people who lean towards feeling, rather than thinking.

Hence Trump.

Well said @Nellodee . It's only this simple if you are that simple, isn't it!

Thank you @latticechaos

I think shielding advice will be different if there is a second wave. For example immune compromised children were not found to be more at risk.

Given that 15% extremely clinically vulnerable have children under 16 it makes it rather impossible for them to shield really.
Shielded prople and their families have already made bigger sacrifices for themselves but also for the NHS so they wouldn't clog up beds for others. Hell many were also pressured into signing DNRs so yabvu.