Looks like shielding might be returning

[2X4B523P]

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.

@Derbygerbil

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.

This is correct. Shielding would not be an economic measure but just to reduce the deaths and morbidity caused by the current growing virus levels and inevitable huge second wave (after 3 months of madness promoted by the government during a global pandemic).

Shielding the very vulnerable is not going to make the relatively young or relatively healthy people want to shop instore more or eat out more, especially if virus levels get any higher.

Plus of course, the threads during the first few weeks of lockdown about what the positives of lockdown were nearly all mentioned posters realising that they don't need to eat out, enjoy baking and cooking for themselves, don't need to spend so much in shops and going out, enjoy spending time with their families outside in the fresh air etc, value not having to drive and fly so much and the consequent benefit to the planet. These trends can't be fully reversed now, not even by literally paying people to eat out.

@ChristmasSnowball

Sometimes we feel we are the only ones shielding at this level ☹️

Our daughters even moved out so we could my husband could feel safe as they still had to go to work.

I didn’t see my elderly parents for 4 months and now see them fortnightly but in their garden, and that’s a 160 mile round trip!

Hope you and your family stay safe ChristmasSnowball 💐

@JinglingHellsBells I woke up this morning with this thread in my mind, & realised the point you were trying to make. Sorry for being prickly!

Twospaniels us too.... Its hard not seeing anyone...
Iv seen my elderly nan once in 6 months where i normally see her every 2 weeks over night

Every -one keeps telling us, we will be ok and to go out.
But the fear that this bug could kill either of us is over whelming...

Bless your daughters

Take care

Of course it will make a return as will a full lock down at some point.

No idea why this is a shock to anyone.

I shielded before, and the support I got was fine in terms of accessing food etc.

I've been self isolating, and like an idiot, hadn't prepared at all and it happened at the worst time - I'd just taken out cash after losing my bank card and didn't leave much in the bank/have any fresh stuff in just before I got symptoms. I registered with the volunteers on Thursday? for help with shopping as I can't pay online or by card for anything. I'm still waiting to hear from them...

I was on the shielding list and was refused furlough. It caused serious financial difficulties last time as I lost my salary and I had to claim SSP which pays much less than I earn. I'm single.

I'm trying to sort my finances out now that I'm back at work. I can't afford to stay off again so would have to ignore any further shielding letters.

The problem with any of the suggestions that we get 'back to normal +/- shielding' (apart from many of the shielded having important roles in society and other good arguments) is that it leaves the poorest and most financially vulnerable at greater risk than the general population.

If death rates start to increase unchecked and workplaces no longer feel safe to staff, the well off will WFH and everyone else will have to risk their health or lose their job.

I’m 45, overweight and T2. I’m also the only person employed by the business I work for who can do my job and, no, it’s not possible to WFH as I don’t then have access to our systems. But then I’ve worked, shopped and done work errands throughout. I’d be a bit fuckadoodledood if I had to shield. Also a bit pointless when my youngest is in Y1 and my partner does the school runs and could, quite possibly, bring it home that way anyway.

talking about covid, and who isnt, my son in law got classic covid symptoms without the breathlessness , went for a test, still not had results , how long do these take

There has to be a new shielding or lock down because of the danger of infection to the elderly and disabled.

Today care homes are complaining they cannot get tests for residents or staff. Some weeks ago they changed the way the figures are being 'shrunk'. In the virus statistics, deaths are now only included if the person died within 28 days of having a test. Before that, hundreds of deaths were crossed out. Last week there was a shortage of tests and testing stations, so that people were being asked to travel miles to get a test.
Today it was announced that there was a shortage of laboratory technicians to carry out the tests.

Does that mean that eventually, very few deaths of elderly and disabled people will be put into the coronavirus statistics because they have not had a test and you have to have had a positive test in less than 28 days? Are the figures being well and truly massaged?

llizzie

I think you're right. I think we'll also start seeing anyone with a pre existing medical condition removed from the statistics too. It already happens on here - posters readily discount anyone who was elderly or had a pre existing condition, so I doubt it will be long before the government do it too.

It’s not about discounting anyone @EDSGFC. What posters have pointed out is that COVID is not an indiscriminate virus like Ebola. It is very clear what the risk factors are and who is at risk (much more so than in March).

The best course of action if things worsen will therefore to be to offer people at high risk the opportunity to shield, with wages being funded by the government.

Everyone else who is at very low or no risk can then keep working to make sure the NHS can continue to be funded.

@Ecosse

It’s not about discounting anyone *@EDSGFC*. What posters have pointed out is that COVID is not an indiscriminate virus like Ebola. It is very clear what the risk factors are and who is at risk (much more so than in March).

The best course of action if things worsen will therefore to be to offer people at high risk the opportunity to shield, with wages being funded by the government.

Everyone else who is at very low or no risk can then keep working to make sure the NHS can continue to be funded.

It is just not as simple as you think. You can't just let the virus spread through the general population - firstly because in reality it's impossible neatly to separate out the people at high risk from the rest of the population, and secondly because a society in which covid is spreading freely simply cannot be one that has a thriving economy. Those taxes for the NHS depend on a thriving open economy and that will be threatened, not helped, by widespread disease in the community.

@Ecosse

It’s not about discounting anyone *@EDSGFC*. What posters have pointed out is that COVID is not an indiscriminate virus like Ebola. It is very clear what the risk factors are and who is at risk (much more so than in March).

The best course of action if things worsen will therefore to be to offer people at high risk the opportunity to shield, with wages being funded by the government.

Everyone else who is at very low or no risk can then keep working to make sure the NHS can continue to be funded.

Problem is, it isn't easy to identify who is at risk. The vulnerable group is very broad and includes anyone over certainly 70, but arguably over 50, anyone in the BAME group, people with obesity, high blood pressure, men, diabetics, and so on. There were estimated to be 20 million people in this category.

Then there are 2.5 million in the shielded category.

Are you proposing to shield all of the above? How will you fill all of the jobs left vacant if that's the case?

Also, shielding isn't just about wages it's about isolation, lack of exercise, lack of contact with other people, potential job losses and career damage, problems accessing healthcare, dentists, opticians. For children it's missing out on education, friendships, socialising, exercising outdoors.

Shielding is a huge ask and is like nothing I've ever experienced before. It was so damaging for me that I'm not sure I'm prepared to do it again

@EDSGFC

Most of the groups you mentioned are not at significant risk- over 50s, men and BAME people have a less than 1% chance of dying.

Only those at significant risk should be shielded. Even then, it is important to remember that, despite the scaremongering, even over 80s with comorbidities have a survival rate over 90%.

This is not the bubonic plague.

Ecosse

Then why does anyone need to shield in that case?

And the figures you quoted - are they % of people who are infected or an individual risk? Only I thought 15% of the over 80s who catch it sadly die? That was certainly the figures released earlier in the pandemic.

You can't just lock people away and deny them access to any sort of medical treatment.

Some of you seem to be utterly devoid of empathy. I don't think you realise the utterly desperate fear many have of returning to that again, not seeing anyone, being locked in flats for months on end, cut off from society.

@OhYouBadBadKitten - oh well, you know, let the c7m vulnerable (not even the CEV) shield so everyone else can go about their inalienable rights to haircuts , house parties and crowded pubs. 😠

Fuck. I don't think I can do it again. 5 months was enough. :(

I have read with interest the newspaper clips that are discussed on here. I signed up to the government's daily update email which has been full of info since the first day, but they make it very complicated, but most of it is directed at care homes and educational establishments, manufacturers etc. and I have found it quite interesting.

@housemdwaswrong

Fuck. I don't think I can do it again. 5 months was enough. :(

Me either. I don't think I will shield if it happens again.

Excuse the language. I'll do a modified version I think, but no way can I shield properly again (despite those who think we should just suck it up so their lives are not disrupted at all).

Would you modify your behaviour at all or just carry on?

housemdwaswrong

My behaviour is already modified in that literally all I do is go to work and come home. I have no idea what would happen about work - no mention yet of pay or job protection but I have the feeling that I will lose my job if that's an option for them.

I hate that we are being put in this position. My GP told me off last week for going to work, asking me if I knew how much of a risk I was taking - but what's the choice? I don't know if I'll cope with the constant worry of possibly getting ill if I don't shield but then I do t think I'll cope with shielding either. What will you do?

No-one was or will be 'locked away'. Shielding was never mandatory. What it did do was give people the option of protection. If they wanted it. Shielding status meant people weren't forced to work in potentially unsafe environments, they were priority for furlough or wfh, they had priority delivery slots. I also know several housing associations and lettings agents allowed only shielding tenants to refuse non urgent visits.

Whether shielding should start again and who should shield is another matter. It could be argued that's everyone now that we know about the dangers of Long Covid.

You're very naive, @SheepandCow we were shielded to keep us out of hospital to.leave space for others who more unexpectedly needing treatment tge Brucie Bonus was we were also more likely to survive as well.