Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Looks like shielding might be returning

385 replies

2X4B523P · 13/09/2020 14:56

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8727553/Up-4-5million-risk-Covid-told-stay-home-new-shielding-plan.html

Couldn’t see another thread but excuse me if I’ve missed it.

So shielding is currently paused and it looks like there’s a plan to restart it and with extended to more people.

OP posts:
Hereinthesticks · 13/09/2020 21:07

Obesity is an increased risk even without diabetes I think that is mainly for men, less so for women who are already at much less risk from Covid-19 than men anyway.

MadameBlobby · 13/09/2020 21:07

@SheepandCow

With obesity, severe Covid seems to be very strongly linked to diabetes and blood sugar levels. It might make sense to consider waist size more than BMI. It's known that visceral fat is the most dangerous.

In case anyone's interested this is the CDC list of most at risk conditions.
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html

The problem with shielding rather than everyone socially distancing is Long Covid, which is a risk to everyone. It can cause heart, lung, and brain damage, psychiatric issues, and evidence is emerging that it has been triggering diabetes in previously healthy patients (who aren't obese). Many Long Covid sufferers were (prior to getting ill) young, fit, not overweight, with no preexisting conditions.

Yes I have seen that before, I am quite lucky that I am fat all over rather than just carrying it on my belly. I think men with skinny legs and massive bellies have always been higher risk of ill health
Hereinthesticks · 13/09/2020 21:08

With obesity, severe Covid seems to be very strongly linked to diabetes and blood sugar levels then the logical thing to do is to state the risk factor and the shielding category as having diabetes and not being obese.

MilesJuppIsMyBitch · 13/09/2020 21:10

'Yes, what about the children of ECV parents? Would they be forced to live apart from their mother / father? For how long? Seems a bit reminiscent of nastier bits of history. Or alternatively the whole family shields and children of vulnerable parents miss out on education every other child is getting - and the same would be true of vulnerable children. (which is probably a breach of their human right to education when there has been literally no attempt to fund schools to open in a covid secure way)'

@IloveJKRowling (I do too Smile) that is exactly our position. My kids are at home. Older is being sent powerpoints, and is working a week behind his peers with no teacher support, & younger has been told to use Oak Academy.

The teachers are working very hard as it is, and nothing has been put in place for children like mine due to the incompetence of the DfE. My kids schools are being very supportive, but that's just down to luck. No TINPan SLT!

This is going to be the situation for all ECV families if shielding is unpaused.

Hereinthesticks · 13/09/2020 21:10

I'm with Mme Blobby here: stigmatising obese people rather than identifying the medical characteristic, which is actually diabetes as the risk factor.
Also it is much for significant for men, so the government really should make the distinction clear, but they are being v PC: not highlighting the higher risk for men and the higher risk for BAME.

JinglingHellsBells · 13/09/2020 21:15

Obesity is an increased risk even without diabetes I think that is mainly for men, less so for women who are already at much less risk from Covid-19 than men anyway.

No it's not.

If you are obese your body will find it far harder to fight off the virus.
There are two main reasons

1 The physical pressure of weight on your lungs

2 Fat produces inflammation in the body. This inflammation also causes hardening of the arteries and as the body is already fighting a type of inflammation through fat, it can't effectively counteract the inflammation caused by Covid.

MilesJuppIsMyBitch · 13/09/2020 21:15

@SheepandCow

With obesity, severe Covid seems to be very strongly linked to diabetes and blood sugar levels. It might make sense to consider waist size more than BMI. It's known that visceral fat is the most dangerous.

In case anyone's interested this is the CDC list of most at risk conditions.
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html

The problem with shielding rather than everyone socially distancing is Long Covid, which is a risk to everyone. It can cause heart, lung, and brain damage, psychiatric issues, and evidence is emerging that it has been triggering diabetes in previously healthy patients (who aren't obese). Many Long Covid sufferers were (prior to getting ill) young, fit, not overweight, with no preexisting conditions.

I saw a fellow school mum the other day. I could see from a distance that she was walking strangely.

She caught covid just before lock-down & is still ill. Was never hospitalised. She can barely walk up the stairs, has a new heart problem and still gets crippling lung pain. She's aged about ten years in six

She is mid-forties, and slim. No underlying health conditions.

I think we should all be aiming a bit higher than just Not Dying,

JinglingHellsBells · 13/09/2020 21:16

@Hereinthesticks Nobody is 'stigmatising' anyone. These are scientific facts. Read the science online. It's FAT that is the risk AND diabetes is another risk. BOTH are risks.

PuzzledObserver · 13/09/2020 21:17

If they do shielding round 2, the sensible thing would be to do it based on a risk stratification tool, such as that developed by the BMA:

www.bma.org.uk/media/2768/bma-covid-19-risk-assessment-tool-july2020.pdf

In brief, you get points based on age, sex, ethnic origin, BMI and medical conditions. The more points, the higher the risk. There would be a cutoff point for shielding. So, nothing as crude as BMI over 40 = shielding, you would need another risk factors as well.

MadameBlobby · 13/09/2020 21:22

[quote JinglingHellsBells]@Hereinthesticks Nobody is 'stigmatising' anyone. These are scientific facts. Read the science online. It's FAT that is the risk AND diabetes is another risk. BOTH are risks.[/quote]
Agree but it’s not like being obese is a Covid death sentence. It’s as you say a risk factor.

Hereinthesticks · 13/09/2020 21:26

@JinglingHellsBells What does the government do about the statistically proven medical risk of being male or BAME - do those massive sections of the population get more restrictions than being female or white?

SheepandCow · 13/09/2020 21:36

The suggested risk point system should include living conditions. Someone living in shared and/or overcrowded housing in an urban area is at higher risk than someone the same age, sex, and state of health in a spacious house in a village or small town.

But I agree with MilesJuppIsMyBitch The risks associated with Long Covid mean definitely that we should all be aiming a bit higher than just Not Dying

Racoonworld · 13/09/2020 21:42

[quote Hereinthesticks]@JinglingHellsBells What does the government do about the statistically proven medical risk of being male or BAME - do those massive sections of the population get more restrictions than being female or white?[/quote]
No of course not. BAME abc make are a slightly enhanced risk, not in the shielding category. People vulnerable but not extremely vulnerable should not and will not get extra restrictions or protections as there’s too many of them and the risk isn’t huge.

Hereinthesticks · 13/09/2020 21:50

I know @Racoonworld I agree. The point I am making us that a white obese female aged 47is probably at lower risk than a male BAME frontline worker aged 61, so staying obesity as a factor for staying at home makes no sense unless equal weighting is given to all the risk factors

Hereinthesticks · 13/09/2020 21:53

Or rather the article referred to in the OP just had age, weight and medical conditions, which ignored several glaring omissions and so gives unequal weighting to those it does consider

IloveJKRowling · 13/09/2020 21:58

It’s not about funding. Schools have the same buildings and the same classrooms they’ve always had- where do they Magic yo extra space to have social distancing?

My daughter's school, with extra funding and extra staff, managed to have EVERY year group back in June/July in class sizes no more than 15 in individual bubbles (SD desks etc) - no illness over 4 weeks. They used the hall, outside space etc to have every class in their own classroom (which may have previously been used for another purpose).

Back now, no extra funding, class sizes around 30, bubbles 4x the size and within a week 4 kids off sick in DD's class alone.

The village hall was also offered, for free and DfE have flat out said no despite the fact that it's already used for school events. So, why? It has to be that to use extra space you need extra staff. I.e. funding.

Use other buildings, portacabins or - as they're doing in some other countries, have half the school in 3 days one week, 2 days the next with the rest being taught at home (my friend's child in the US doing this and provided a laptop with resources- state school).

Not bloody rocket science, but all of the above requires some cash which they'd rather give to unqualified people to provide inadequate PPE / test and trace.

PineappleUpsideDownCake · 13/09/2020 22:04

Im med risk on that BMA list. What does that mean? I assume high risk would be shielding?

Also is cfs/me classed as a rheumatoid condition?

I wish Id had an antibody test...

Fyzz · 13/09/2020 22:09

And just perform your own risk assessment. If you live in an area with 0 cases, go about your business. Area in local lockdown, batten down the hatches.
Im hoping I will be taken off the shielding list when they review it but this is my plan either way. I have asthma, another lung condition and take immune suppressive drugs.

amieejust · 13/09/2020 22:42

If there is another national lockdown I will not survive. Not because the virus might get me, but because of a broken heart, loneliness, hopelessness and depression.

There will be no point in carrying on.

It's a wonderful life.

EleanorOalike · 13/09/2020 22:56

@GalaxyCookieCrumble just replying to you quoting me...your thread was definitely deleted by MNHQ, I can see the deletion message which a pp screenshotted above.

Aridane · 13/09/2020 22:57

The alternative of a second lockdown would Alead to tens of millions losing their jobs

Get a grip, woman - there are only 28.02m people people in employment in the UK. It would be mathematically impossible for “tens of millions” to lose their jobs

Aridane · 14/09/2020 00:41

I probably wouldn't phrase it quite like that but yes I would quite clearly tell those ECV that if they chose to ignore shielding advice nobody would prevent them from doing so but that their decision would be taken into account when considering treatment options available to them

Like we do with smokers, the overweight Confused

Aridane · 14/09/2020 00:43

@NervousInYorkshire

The change in shielding rules Took place on 1 August

The announcement took place c6 weeks before the. To allow time for adjustment

NervousInYorkshire · 14/09/2020 00:55

I realise it was all paused on 1 August.

I've found this example letter from 22 June.. it gives a bit more of a timeline of which bits of shielding were relaxed when - it's a pdf link.
www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/06/C0624-shielding-letter-to-patients.pdf

What is the current guidance?
Over the course of the last three months, you have been identified as someone who is clinically extremely vulnerable due to an underlying disease or health condition that may put you at risk of severe illness if you catch Coronavirus (also known as COVID-19). This remains the case and you are advised to follow the shielding guidance rigorously.
You were advised to ‘shield’ to protect yourself during the peak of the epidemic in England when you were more likely to come into contact with the virus in your daily life. The initial shielding guidance advised that you should stay at home at all times and strictly avoid non-essential face-to-face contact.

On 1 June the shielding guidance was slightly relaxed, and we suggested that you may wish to spend some time outdoors away from your home once a day. This change was based on scientific evidence that the initial peak of the pandemic had passed in the UK and, in general, the likelihood of meeting someone in the community with infection had significantly reduced. Like all our guidance to those who are clinically extremely vulnerable, this was advisory.

What is changing?
Throughout the epidemic we have been clear on the need to balance the risk of the
disease to those who are clinically extremely vulnerable with the benefits of gradually returning to normal life. We know that the shielding guidance has been challenging to follow and that it will take time to adjust.
The latest scientific evidence shows that the prevalence of disease across all English regions has continued to decline. If this trend continues as we expect it to, the Government will further relax its shielding advice in two stages on 6 July and 1 August.
From 6 July:
• you may, if you wish, meet in a group of up to 6 people outdoors, including people
from different households, while maintaining strict social distancing;
• you no longer need to observe social distancing with other members of your
household;
• in line with the wider guidance for single adult households (either an adult living
alone or with dependent children under 18) in the general population, you may from
this date, if you wish, also form a ‘support bubble’ with one other household. All
those in a support bubble will be able to spend time together inside each other's
homes, including overnight, without needing to socially distance. This is a small
advisory change that brings those affected a step nearer others in their
communities. However, all the other current shielding advice will remain unchanged at this time.

From 1 August the advice to ‘shield’ will be paused. From this date, the Government is
advising you to adopt strict social distancing rather than full shielding measures. Strict social distancing means you may wish to go out to more places and see more people but you should take particular care to minimise contact with others outside your household or support bubble.
In practice, this means from 1 August you are advised that you no longer need to shield.
This means that from 1 August:
• you can go to work, if you cannot work from home, as long as the business is
COVID-safe;
• children who are clinically extremely vulnerable can return to their education
settings if they are eligible and in line with their peers. Where possible children
should practise frequent hand washing and social distancing;
• you can go outside to buy food, to places of worship and for exercise but you
should maintain strict social distancing; and
• you should remain cautious as you are still at risk of severe illness if you catch
Coronavirus, so the advice is to stay at home where possible and, if you do go out,
follow strict social distancing.

Derbygerbil · 14/09/2020 07:08

I think those who think the solution is to shield a few million and let everything get back completely to let normal are deluded.

To those who say it’s necessary to “fire up the economy”, the economy is largely open for business now. Removing a few million customers and a smaller, but still very significant, number of economically productive workers would hit the economy... And with infections rising exponentially again as all barriers are removed, confidence would drop and many millions more would withdraw from economic participation. It would be disastrous for the economy... and I’ve not even touched on health.

Swipe left for the next trending thread