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.

I don't have a death wish - thanks. I don't think we'll find common ground here.

My point is that (most) non shielded highly clinically vulnerable people also don't have a death wish. But they're not being given any choice to try to protect themselves.

It would be interesting to know the percentage of immunosuppressed patients who've been hospitalised or died with Covid

How are you defining ‘immunisuppressed’ for this?

No one has AFAIK collected enough stats to know how readily people with leukaemia (any/all types) catch Covid, but of those of us who are hospitalised, 36% die (source: Lancet Oncology). Bit grim, as we’re a group who is readily admitted (serious risk of neutropenic sepsis)

It is indeed grim. Glad you're able to at least complete your marathon virtually: those things look like hell to train for!

'No doubt any new shielding list will also exclude many people who have high risk of serious illness or death from Covid, who wouldn't be priority for hospital beds or treatment. These people won't even get the option of staying in (priority supermarket slots, employer obliged to do all they can to allow WFH or unpaid leave, etc).'

@SheepandCow I'm sure you didn't mean to, but the above paragraph sounds perilously close to telling shielders they should be grateful. Is that what you think?

Shielders were emphatically not going to be prioritise for hospital beds. That's what the three wise men protocol was all about.

From my point of view, it was chilling.

Someone with shielding status has the option of choosing to stay in and protect themselves. That's a choice other vulnerable to serious illness or death people haven't got.

An example. Many housing associations (and lettings agents with private tenants) are only allowing officially shielded tenants to refuse non essential repairs and inspections officially. That's just one small example out of many situations where someone needs shielding status to be able to protect themselves.

We all know many highly clinically vulnerable people won't be included on the shielding list. Which means they aren't allowed to try to protect themselves.

It's things like this, and the fact that Long Covid is a risk to everyone (who wants heart damage?), that mean shielding is not the best option. That would be proper measures to protect everyone.

I agree there should be measures to protect everyone.

Which is why it is pretty shocking that ECV were told on August 1st that they could go back to work. There are now, for example, ECV teachers working back in schools with full classes of children.

I'm interested in your motives for coming on to a thread about shielding, with shielders posting on it, implying that we're lucky.

Are you clinically vulnerable @SheepandCow ?

@MilesJuppIsMyBitch
Worldwide, diabetics make up approximately one in four of the deaths. Diabetics (and other non shielded vulnerable) were thrown to the wolves. No-one would want to be highly vulnerable full stop. But if you are, would you rather have shielding status or the fate of those left off the list?

@iVampire Sorry I should have been clearer. I meant patients taking immunosuppressants (steroids, biologics, and similar) rather than patients where the condition itself is immunosuppressant. I'm don't know the statistics there? What proportion of worldwide hospitalised Covid patients are immunocompromised (condition itself, not medication)? Is there any data?

No I'm not clinically vulnerable.
But I think it's morally wrong that many extremely clinically vulnerable people weren't protected. If there's going to be shielding, all highly vulnerable should be included.

I agree completely with you that ECV shouldn't be made to risk themselves by going back to workplaces like schools. All extremely clinically vulnerable, not just those given official shielding status. Don't you agree? Or do you think some ECV shouldn't have the protection?

I expressed my view on shielding, which I assumed I was entitled to do. I would prefer there wasn't the need. Wouldn't you?
And don't you think everyone should be protected from the risk of Long Covid?
Young previously healthy people have developed heart damage. Don't you agree that should be avoided if possible?

Like I said, I've have gone for the NZ and Australia approach. Which would have meant no-one needed to shield and everyone was protected (the economy too).

I think everyone who is at greater risk from covid should be given extra protection. But many of the things you have said about shielders 'perks' are inaccurate, and have unpleasant echoes of other posts I've read calling us 'entitled' and ungrateful.

Save your ire for the government. I would give anything not to have the health problems I've had, and implying that people like me are 'lucky' is pretty shitty.

But yes, I agree that everyone should be protected. I know someone with long covid, and she is so, so ill.

Shielding is a nice friendly word the propaganda merchants invented instead of saying total isolation or voluntary house arrest.

If the choice was everyone locked down or shielding, then I would support ‘shielding’.

A lot of posters, however, think that their right to party and have fun trumps vulnerable people’s right to a low risk environment.

We need to follow sensible guidelines and the government need to get the testing regime working properly. That way we can keep the economy open and relatively Covid free.

Everyone would benefit from a low risk environment.

But that does mean everyone acting responsibly this winter. Even if they think some of it is non-sensical, it's all we have

I'm sorry if it came across that way.
Of course you're not lucky and I'm surprised anyone would see it as having perks. Yes it's the government that failed diabetics and the other highly vulnerable who were left off the shielding list.

That's obviously not the fault of those who were included.

I also think, given the risks to everyone, we should've taken measures to avoid the need for any kind of shielding. My family are in Australia. There's no need for it there. They're living pretty normal lives.

I hope your friend eventually has a full recovery. I don't think Long Covid is being taken seriously enough. It's worrying.

Shielding is a nice friendly word the propaganda merchants invented instead of saying total isolation or voluntary house arrest

Yes! If we were to say ‘ghetto’, ‘remove from society’, ‘isolate and exclude’, that would give a better flavour.

Or to reflect more on the CEV taking one for the team (healthy) - ie if the CEV catch covid, they will likely require hospital treatment (no asymptomstic / light cold for them) and take away facilities for the ‘healthy’ who may otherwise need (non covid etc) medical treatment .

To those shielding on our behalf to ensure NHS capacity remained, thank you

@SheepandCow

I'm sorry if it came across that way. Of course you're not lucky and I'm surprised anyone would see it as having perks. Yes it's the government that failed diabetics and the other highly vulnerable who were left off the shielding list.

That's obviously not the fault of those who were included.

I also think, given the risks to everyone, we should've taken measures to avoid the need for any kind of shielding. My family are in Australia. There's no need for it there. They're living pretty normal lives.

I hope your friend eventually has a full recovery. I don't think Long Covid is being taken seriously enough. It's worrying.

Thanks for clarifying. I probably jumped in you too quickly.

You may have seen a poster upthread who suggested that shielders should be penalised for not shielding by forgoing hospital treatment. That, in my opinion, shows a level of psychopathy, and - given that some of our country's most powerful also display that trait - makes me fearful.

That's the kind of attitude we've been dealing with, and it's coloured my view of the discussion, without a doubt.

Jumped ON you, obvs

@Aridane

Shielding is a nice friendly word the propaganda merchants invented instead of saying total isolation or voluntary house arrest

Yes! If we were to say ‘ghetto’, ‘remove from society’, ‘isolate and exclude’, that would give a better flavour.

Or to reflect more on the CEV taking one for the team (healthy) - ie if the CEV catch covid, they will likely require hospital treatment (no asymptomstic / light cold for them) and take away facilities for the ‘healthy’ who may otherwise need (non covid etc) medical treatment .

To those shielding on our behalf to ensure NHS capacity remained, thank you

Thank you for understanding.

I'm so tired of people justifying shielding as being for our own good (yes, but imo, that was a side effect. It wasn't the main reason). I'm quite sure the only reason government shielded some of us was that we would become early bed blockers and they would then have to face either terminating our treatment and the backlash that would cause or admit that the NHS was now unable to cope, and the backlash that would cause.

I don't think for one minute the cabinet all sat there worrying about my health and the outcome for me like some paternalistic guardian looking out for my welfare.

Shielding is a measure designed to protect vulnerable people. It is as simple as that- it is not propaganda or discrimination at all.

The risk factors for COVID are very clear- it is not an indiscriminate virus. It makes sense to focus our efforts on protecting people who have been identified as vulnerable rather than stopping people at no risk contributing to the economy.

If we have to lock everyone away again, there will be no money left to fund the NHS in the form it exists at the moment.

@Ecosse

Shielding is a measure designed to protect vulnerable people. It is as simple as that- it is not propaganda or discrimination at all.

The risk factors for COVID are very clear- it is not an indiscriminate virus. It makes sense to focus our efforts on protecting people who have been identified as vulnerable rather than stopping people at no risk contributing to the economy.

If we have to lock everyone away again, there will be no money left to fund the NHS in the form it exists at the moment.

The government said at the start that shielding was to stop the NHS becoming overwhelmed and collapsing.

@Lockdownseperation

Absolutely- it has dual benefits in that way. It protects the individuals concerned but also ensures NHS capacity is not overwhelmed, given that the shielded are the people vulnerable to hospitalisation.

We also know a lot more about risk factors now, so I’d expect far fewer people would be asked to shield than last time.

We also know a lot more about risk factors now, so I’d expect far fewer people would be asked to shield than last time.

How many is far fewer? How many ITU beds do we have in the country? How many ECV need to shield to.protect hospital capacity?

Ok @Ecosse , I posted this earlier:

'If @Ecosse was diagnosed with leukaemia tomorrow (and it goes without saying I sincerely hope she isn't), would she be happy to accept potentially losing her job, homeschooling her children and being completely isolated for the foreseeable without a fuss? It seems unlikely.'

Any thoughts? If you had a catastrophic, life-altering diagnosis which had already caused you and yours great pain, would you then accept being shielded while everyone else went back to work & play, while you were forced to stay at home because lack of social distancing made it too dangerous for you to leave your house?

You are arguing from a pragmatic, unemotional, societal perspective, but the personal should never be discounted.