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.

Hope you husband recovers @Florrieboo
The virus is like Russian Roulette though. You have healthy young people like @florriboos dh being ill months later.

When shielding ended Jenny Harris said that there would be a review of the need for children to shield. The vast majority of children who have been shielding will no longer be advised to shield. In future only a very few extremely sick children would be on the shielding list.

I am really struggling to see why these threads are allowed to continue. They are discriminatory and othering towards people with disabilities and serious illnesses, covered as a protected characteristic under the EA. Do you think threads calling for all BAME people to be locked up indefinitely, for their own protection apparently, while white people were allowed to live normal lives would be tolerated?

Othering disabled people in this way, seeing them as less than, viewing their right to be fully included in society starts a process whereby their rights to access healthcare, education, jobs, human rights is under jeopardy.

EDSGFC- so recognising the needs of a vulnerable group in light of scientific evidence is discriminatory is it?

What utter piffle.

I have said quite clearly that it should be about informed choice and that we need to get the infrastructure in place to facilitate this choice.

NEWSFLASH- not every disabled person is in the high risk category.

However , there are others in society who are vulnerable in other ways and for whom this current state of affairs is harming . The conversation in how we choose to proceed as a society needs to include them and not be disproportionately focussed on one group.

@IVORNOIDEA

EDSGFC- so recognising the needs of a vulnerable group in light of scientific evidence is discriminatory is it?

What utter piffle.

I have said quite clearly that it should be about informed choice and that we need to get the infrastructure in place to facilitate this choice.

NEWSFLASH- not every disabled person is in the high risk category.

However , there are others in society who are vulnerable in other ways and for whom this current state of affairs is harming . The conversation in how we choose to proceed as a society needs to include them and not be disproportionately focussed on one group.

It's very easy to dress this up as a faux concern for the vulnerable - you're only suggesting this for the benefit of their health - except that the "and let the healthy get back to normal" betrays the agenda behind the suggestion.

Sending millions of people back into shielding might protect them against Covid, as long as you also shield the rest of the household too, but what about their emotional and mental health, their education needs, their fitness, their access to healthcare, their work and employment prospects, other needs like house maintenance, dentists, opticians etc? None of those needs are met during shielding.

You say it's also a voluntary idea but how would that work? If they all refuse you would then have high levels of infection amongst people who could get very sick and require hospitalisation, quickly overwhelming the NHS. It doesn't work on a voluntary basis does it?

And to answer your question - yes, it is discrimination. You are suggesting isolating a section of society, closing them off, based on having risk factors for Covid. Othering people in this way, apart from being inhumane, is the thin end of a wedge that leads to loss of education and employment rights and access to healthcare.

@IVORNOIDEA

EDSGFC- so recognising the needs of a vulnerable group in light of scientific evidence is discriminatory is it?

What utter piffle.

I have said quite clearly that it should be about informed choice and that we need to get the infrastructure in place to facilitate this choice.

NEWSFLASH- not every disabled person is in the high risk category.

However , there are others in society who are vulnerable in other ways and for whom this current state of affairs is harming . The conversation in how we choose to proceed as a society needs to include them and not be disproportionately focussed on one group.

It is discrimination if you then use that as an excuse to treat them differently and exclude them from society . If would not be discriminatory if you used your better understanding to adjust society to ensure they had the same rights and opportunity as everyone else.

It is not faux concern- very judgemental of you. You need to check your bias.

Discrimination works the other way around too - for those in society who's needs are not currently being met within other protected groups.

Hiding this thread now this is getting tedious.

The vulnerable group that we are protecting is NHS staff. CV19 can be really nasty and hospitalises people with no underlying problems. This puts NHS staff at risk and we really want to minimise that. It doesn't matter if other vulnerable groups are shielded, we still need to take these precautions OP.🤷‍♀️

It is not faux concern- very judgemental of you. You need to check your bias.

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

So people can either be vulnerable and need protecting from the virus OR they can need to live a normal life but not both?

One of my friends has been shielding. He's the Head of a primary school. Two other members of staff at that school have also been shielding and another one has a partner who is.

Would you like all of them to hide themselves away?

Oh and just because my dad is in his late 70's it does not mean that his life and his freedom, indeed his mental health, is any less important than young people. In fact one could argue that as he has proportionately less time in which to enjoy his life he should take priority over younger people with more years left?

No, I hear you cry. That would be ageist.....and yet it's ok the other way around.....