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.

Also DH is lucky as he can work fron home but what about the extremely clinically vulnerable who can't. Hos can they pay their bills. Contrary to popular opinion many extremely clinically vulnerable work.

Aahhh the 'I don't want to do it, make someone else do it' argument.

Even if all the 'vulnerable' people lock themselves in a room and stay out of sight the virus will still exist and be active.

People may not be as likely to die but they will still get sick and need to isolate while they get better. The more people getting sick, the more it transmits, which makes more people getting sick. The R number increases exponentially and more and more people are getting sick and self isolating.

Who do you think is running the local pub or driving the delivery van if everyone's off work sick?

@TorysSuckRevokeArticle50

Aahhh the 'I don't want to do it, make someone else do it' argument.

Even if all the 'vulnerable' people lock themselves in a room and stay out of sight the virus will still exist and be active.

People may not be as likely to die but they will still get sick and need to isolate while they get better. The more people getting sick, the more it transmits, which makes more people getting sick. The R number increases exponentially and more and more people are getting sick and self isolating.

Who do you think is running the local pub or driving the delivery van if everyone's off work sick?

The tooth fairy maybe, or the Easter bunny?

@Nellodee

You are coming at this from a perspective in which facts win arguments, when really, for most people, emotions win arguments.

I agree, though I get frustrated when people who hold a position for emotional reasons, then try and use out-of-context facts to win their arguments, and don’t have the self-awareness to realise what they are doing.

Who do you think is running the local pub or driving the delivery van if everyone's off work sick?

Exactly. It’s not just about the vulnerable and deaths. Not to mention the impact of HCP sickness.

Fit and healthy people are just as likely to put pressure on the NHS for covid meaning that all those people waiting for non-covid related treatment will sink to the bottom of the priority list again. Nobody should be talking complete bollocks about how only the clinically vulnerable are the ones putting pressure on the NHS. Even fit and healthy people seek treatment when their breathing is affected or they get a persistent temperature.

I don’t understand how people can do wilfully refuse to see the bigger picture. Lockdown and subsequent restrictions are shit, there’s no doubt about it, widespread illness lasting for months whilst it works its way unchecked through the healthy population will have the same economical impact as implementing relatively small measures.

[quote Derbygerbil]@Nellodee

You are coming at this from a perspective in which facts win arguments, when really, for most people, emotions win arguments.

I agree, though I get frustrated when people who hold a position for emotional reasons, then try and use out-of-context facts to win their arguments, and don’t have the self-awareness to realise what they are doing.[/quote]
Keep fighting the good fight, Derby. Every so often, you ask the right question and a lightbulb goes on somewhere.

It isn't only "vulnerable" who die or become very ill with Covid-19. Is the PM vulnerable? He nearly died.

@IVORNOIDEA why don’t we just put them all on trains and ship them off to special camps? Oh wait....

@PurpleDaisies

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

This. Aren’t they allowed some sort of semblance of a normal life?

My husband who is not in an at risk group and was a healthy and fit 45 year old man got Covid. He will never be the same again. It has floored him. He got it in March and still can't taste or smell, he can't eat because of terrible reflux. He can't stand for long periods of time.
Vulnerable people shielding would have done nothing to help him. Everyone needs to try not to get it. Nobody knows how their body will react to the virus, or what the long term effects will be.

The OP asked ‘why aren’t vulnerable groups being told to continue to shield while the rest of us crack on with getting back to normal?’

Even if vulnerable groups continued to shield, while the virus is still in circulation, the number of cases has the potential (especially if people ‘get back to normal’ and drop all the social distancing, masks and hygiene measures) to do exactly what it did before and grow exponentially, as has already been stated upthread. Without intervention (social distancing, masks, hygiene, lockdowns), the number of new Covid cases doubles every 3 or 4 days, once this exponential growth point is reached. France have now reached exponential growth again www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53954562

It’s worth remembering how little we know about the virus and that it can have serious long term effects, even on previously healthy people. Scientists are discovering more about this all the time, for example about it's long term effects on different organs, e.g. heart and lungs, even in mild or asymptomatic cases.

I would just also say let’s value all lives and quality of life equally, children are important, vulnerable and elderly groups are also important. Everyone has had to make sacrifices, but most people have understood it has to be a joint effort to suppress the virus and we can’t give up all the measures yet, however much we want things to ‘get back to normal’.

[quote Eyewhisker]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/[/quote]
....
Sweden has 5-12 x the deaths / million of their Scandinavian neighbours who also have very low desnity population and similar culture
So we can see the effect of lockdown by conparing similar countries

The UK is a densely populated country and was following the death curves of Italy and other densely populated countries.
Multiples of our current total deaths would have wreaked economic havoc, quite apart from the tragedy

Sweden still has more cases / 100,000 than its neighbours - more than the UK or Germany too

Scientists actually working on vaccines are confident that a vaccine will almost certainly be produced and rolled out within the next year
(and I don't mean the Russian or Chinese ones that are already being rolled out)
Probably Oxford will be the first, early next year, British science in action !

Sweden is also predicted to have around the same drop in GDP by the end of 2020 as its neighbours who locked down - and Germany

OP - totally agree.

Shield if you want / need to. But let’s not fuck up the country any further with this over exaggerated threat bullshit.

We have had so much rubbish about the virus not discriminating. Of course it fucking discriminates which is why most of the deaths are over 65’s with pre existing conditions most of whom contracted the virus in hospitals / care homes.

With that logic... Does it mean the PM should shield, and let someone else more physically able get on with it? (I mean, he got hit pretty bad the first time round, so clearly in the vulnerable category... and immunity doesn't last that long?)

The 15% of the extremely clinically vulnerable who have kids under 16 are pretty screwed with that @Noextremes2017.
My dh is extremely clinically vulnerable but if we don't send our 3 kids to school in bubbles of 30 , 70 and 150 we will be fined.
So we take our chances or home educate because selfish people can't be arsed to practice social distancing or wear a mask.

I think this Covid reaction is disproportionate to the level of threat to most people.
Most people, but not all people.
And unless we can protect most people, then the most vulnerable will be the ones to die. Most people will be ok. I'm not ok with that.

It’s not just ‘most’ people will be ok

It’s the vast overwhelming majority of people who will be ok

Even those people in the most vulnerable categories are more likely - even if they catch the virus - to suffer none or only mild symptoms than suffer serious symptoms of die

Oh yes, let's lock the vulnerable behind their doors for a few more months so the rest can get on without being too bothered about SD etc.

great thinking!

Most people would be ok if they caught measleS
Most people would be ok if they never wore a seat belt
Most people would be ok if we gave thamidalide for morning sickness

Most people would be ok even if all ok hospitals had to close their doors to all new admissions

Actually most people wont need a hospital at all this year, why do we have them?

Most people don't need benefits , why do we have them ?

People who want to ‘get on with their lives’ are in most cases prepared to put up with the raft of illogical rules and regulations even though many of them are based on questionable medical evidence (the so called ‘science’).
Just because millions of people want to get on and ‘live’ it does not mean that they will be socially irresponsible and inconsiderate to others.

Sorry but we were on holiday and didn't see much evidence of social responsibility.
It was like people thought I am on holiday so I can forget about Covid..we had someone standing right bext to dh who is extremely clinically vulnerable in car park queue. Even when he took evasive action he nust moved anyway.
Briefly I popped into amusement arcade with teenage dd. Apart from staff we were the only ones masked up. We didn't stay.
Track and trace was please txt this number. Yeah like most people would do that
Bizarelly the only place which felt safe was tbe hotel and beach. Buf it was not acreally hot day.
Yet my 3 dd need to sit arm to arm with these types of people in bubble of up to 150.

This. Aren’t they allowed some sort of semblance of a normal life? Not just a normal life in the sense of meeting people - there's also all the necessary parts of life which were suspended during lockdown but can't be postponed forever - boiler services, chimney sweeping, house maintenance, dental check-ups, sight tests (which also check for serious things like glaucoma, macular degeneration), routine blood tests, even buying shoes to replace those worn out.

Shielding in a society where everyone is "back to normal" and Covid is being passed around like a common cold would mean you couldn't do any of those activities - and that is just not sustainable for more than a few weeks.

@NotEverythingIsBlackandWhite

It isn't only "vulnerable" who die or become very ill with Covid-19. Is the PM vulnerable? He nearly died.

He didn't nearly die though did he! He was unwell and required hospital treatment for a few days that is world's away from nearly dying.

The pm is obese. That makes him more at risk of serious disease.