Protect the vulnerable, and get back to normal!... Simples!

[Derbygerbil]

.... at least that’s what keeps on being repeated.

Now, I’m open to the concept, and we’ve been doing it to an extent with shielding and (belated) care homes measures, and if a sufficiently effective vaccine isn’t available before or during 2021 we’ll have no other realistic option.

However, although it’s labelled as an obvious and simple solution, with 15% of adults eligible for the flu jab due to age or vulnerability, and with many more living with them - perhaps another 5-10% - how would we manage this? And how would we manage care homes and homecare provision with Covid endemic amongst the younger population?

Also, would it actually help the economy at this point? Most of it is now open... And with 20-25% of the population shielding or quarantined, and many more younger ones ill (even if they are less likely to die), wouldn’t this, and the associated lack of confidence that this wouldn’t lead to, be more likely to wreck the economy even more?

We may have to face this if a vaccine development proves fruitless - though this thankfully seems unlikely, but those who are blithely proposing this don’t really seem to have thought it through at all.

Entitlement to a flu jab is not going to be a criteria for shielding, for starters. I get a flu jab but there's no need for me to shield. The obese and type 2 diabetics can reduce their risk factors themselves.
If we continue with social distancing measures and, heaven forbid, wfh where possible (ignoring our government in other words) then spread will be slower so, no, we won't be overwhelmed
The huge numbers about to be made unemployed could be reemployed in roles supporting those who are shielding, if they wished. It's not like there will be a shortage of applicants, anyway.

I want the vulnerable protected but I don’t want everyone else back to normal and let it run rife. The shielding often live with others not alone.

I’d rather we had much stricter measures so that it was controlled as much as possible. Work places not being able to operate until they can apply SD, part time or remote schooling.

Healthy people can still suffer badly from it as can children. We should want as few cases as is possible.

I wish those people would define vulnerable, only first time around there were around 20 million people deemed vulnerable. That's a third of the population. That's a lot of people to lose from jobs.

Or do they mean the ECV (shielded)? Still 2.5 million people, plus presumably the people they live with because how can they continue to go to work and school if they risk taking it home? Must be approaching 10 million people then. Again, a lot to lose from jobs.

Basically just so that people can go out and socialise freely?

I wish those people would define vulnerable, only first time around there were around 20 million people deemed vulnerable. That's a third of the population. That's a lot of people to lose from jobs.

Yes, the 2.2 million shielders don’t routinely include the elderly for instance.

The obese and type 2 diabetics can reduce their risk factors themselves.

Firstly, even on the strictest diet, it takes time to lose weight - people are arguing for “protect the vulnerable, get back completely to normal!” now.... But are we going to say as a society: “Type 2 diabetes? Sorry, the pandemic may be raging wildly around you, but you’re not on the “list”, so you’ll just have to take your chances. You’ll probably be ok.”

The huge numbers about to be made unemployed could be reemployed in roles supporting those who are shielding, if they wished. It's not like there will be a shortage of applicants, anyway.

How many jobs can people just walk in to?.... Even with a few weeks of training? Not many.

I don't have the number off the top of my head but I thought that even among the young, a certain percentage will get very ill and a smaller percentage will end up in hospital. If the virus is allowed to spread unchecked a small percentage of a big number (ie. younger people needing hospital admission), will still cripple the NHS.

@Chevron123

I don't have the number off the top of my head but I thought that even among the young, a certain percentage will get very ill and a smaller percentage will end up in hospital. If the virus is allowed to spread unchecked a small percentage of a big number (ie. younger people needing hospital admission), will still cripple the NHS.

I saw figures quoted for the US and even with the lowest percentage needing hospital care it amounted to 4 million people needing hospital care. Apparently there are 906,000 hospital beds so it's quickly apparent how hospitals can be over run and of course that doesn't take into consideration ITU beds specifically or people needing hospital care for any other condition.

We need people to stick to the rules. That is the problem too many people doing what they like bugger the rest.
What we need to avoid is any form of remote schooling. Personally my kids were fine, kept up, even made progress.
From what I have seen at school (I'm a TA) a good two thirds of pupils have stagnated, gone backwards and in some of the cases where they have kept up with knowledge completely lost the ability to work independently due to having 1 to 1 support from parents. The level of engagement was so poor we have year 6s who haven't read since March and have to do SATs next summer.

It's really, truly delightful to see that obese people and type 2 diabetics can just reduce their risk factors by themselves.

As a type 2 diabetic, who was obese until very recently, I would like to point out that it's really not that easy!!! I've been very strict with a low carb diet, and doing plenty of exercise for months. Unfortunately, I'm still diabetic, so my risk factors haven't changed much. And that's after months of a very strict diet. It's not instant. I suppose if I had 18 months notice about this pandemic I could possibly have sorted out my own risk factors, but I didn't, and these things take time (especially when the diabetes is caused by genetics and previous medical conditions rather than being completely caused by diet).

How do you propose to protect the truly vulnerable? What about the cancer patient married to a teacher? What about the single parent with a serious condition who has to send their children to school? What do you propose to do in order to properly protect them? Shielding people (and that's a small section of the "vulnerable" population) don't/can't live in a secure bubble all on their own, they have to interact with the outside world.

“Every body counts or nobody counts”
Harry Bosch

@Derbygerbil

The obese and type 2 diabetics can reduce their risk factors themselves.

Firstly, even on the strictest diet, it takes time to lose weight - people are arguing for “protect the vulnerable, get back completely to normal!” now.... But are we going to say as a society: “Type 2 diabetes? Sorry, the pandemic may be raging wildly around you, but you’re not on the “list”, so you’ll just have to take your chances. You’ll probably be ok.”

Yes we probably are going to say that

@PremierInn

I agree we’d have to draw the line somewhere, but where?

The old and frail people in care homes weren’t out and about raving it up in March. They were as isolated as you could be without being put in an isolation block in a prison.

Yet they died. Why? Because the people who care for them in hospital, clinics and the homes remained socially active for most of March and beyond. No blame here just pointing out the frail and vulnerable need people.

We can all have an acceptable level of social activity and protect others.

Many type 1 diabetics are young, slim and active. Are they meant to stay at home shielding? Also, what about the large number of parents in their 50s? You only need to have had your DC in your late 3O's to be in your fifties with DC at secondary school. How are they meant to shield and take their kids to school, to friends' houses, activities etc? How about the active workforce in their 60s? Or active 60 and 70+ year olds? Why should they be forced to sit at home and stagnate? What about the knock on effect of those people no longer being able to provide childcare for their grandchildren? That will hurt the economy too. And what about the children who are also vulnerable? Why should they be denied an education so we can do whatever we want? How did we become such a selfish, impatient society? "This too will pass". Let's just think of others for a while...

It won’t be the flu jab group for shielding, this it’ll be a reform of the original shielding group with some taken off and some added. All other vulnerable left to get on with it like everyone else, and like people do with all other viruses. This appears to be the government plan over winter.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

I want the vulnerable protected but I don’t want everyone else back to normal and let it run rife. The shielding often live with others not alone.

I’d rather we had much stricter measures so that it was controlled as much as possible. Work places not being able to operate until they can apply SD, part time or remote schooling.

Healthy people can still suffer badly from it as can children. We should want as few cases as is possible.

And just how long do you want these stricter measures to go on for??

At some point we are going to have to accept that the virus is endemic. At the current rate of infection it could take 20+ years for 75% of the population to catch it and (hopefylly) form some sort of immunity. Yes there may be a vaccination in the next year, but equally there may not be. This half life cannot continue forever, at some point we are going to have to decide to take the risk, or not.

Had the vulnerable been adequately protected back in February/March, it would have been possible that the virus would have been allowed to circulate and then we could be in a better position as far as general immunity now.

As with every virus there is a cohort that is vulnerable, and may well get seriously ill, but unlike with those that aren't novel, they havent built any immunity from repeated exposure.

Just think what a bog standard cold would do to a remote community that had not experienced before, pretty similar to what this has done (to a much larger degree). While in the person that introduced it, it would cause no more than the sniffles because repeated exposure from childhood means that they've built up a level of immunity since childhood (not full immunity, but some)

@LemonTT

The old and frail people in care homes weren’t out and about raving it up in March. They were as isolated as you could be without being put in an isolation block in a prison.

Yet they died. Why? Because the people who care for them in hospital, clinics and the homes remained socially active for most of March and beyond. No blame here just pointing out the frail and vulnerable need people.

We can all have an acceptable level of social activity and protect others.

Yes this exactly!

Also, included in the group of millions of people expected to shield, so everyone else can lead a normal life are essential workers such as teachers, medical and care staff, police, transport. Who is going to suddenly be trained to do their jobs? And the children of those shielded? Are they supposed to lock themselves away too?

@Firef1y72

I’d expect measures to be in place (as few as necessary to ensure businesses and schools remain open) until a vaccine is rolled out, significantly reducing the risk levels down to flu-like levels. To think we should all get back completely to normal after six months when we are potentially a couple of months from a vaccine would be madness.

I’m in the clinically vulnerable category. I have Addison’s, lupus, pituitary issues, asthma and so on.

I am also 39, married to a man who works full time in a busy office and have two children, one of which is 17 and attends a busy sixth form and the other is 8 and has complex needs.

There is no way I can shield, I had the letter and just ignored it. Life doesn’t work that way for many of us.

People seem to assume those of us in these categories are very old and live alone! Many of us are just like me with active and busy families. We can’t just shut ourselves away.

[quote Derbygerbil]@Firef1y72

I’d expect measures to be in place (as few as necessary to ensure businesses and schools remain open) until a vaccine is rolled out, significantly reducing the risk levels down to flu-like levels. To think we should all get back completely to normal after six months when we are potentially a couple of months from a vaccine would be madness.[/quote]
But seriously, what if there isn't a vaccine?? Its a possibility.
Or it takes another year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, how long do you think we should hold out for??
Yes it is looking good for a vaccine, but its not 100%
And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't do crowds or people. Personally i am currently very minimally affected by the measures. I dont have people in my house, have an extremely small circle of friends. Shops are a nightmare for me at the best of times. I love that (in theory) nobody is going to get in my space

Still I can see the toll this is having on other people's mental health and the effect its having on the economy.

@Firef1y72

If there isn’t an effective vaccine then we’ll have no choice but to get herd immunity the hard way - to the extent that it’s possible - and do that by some form of allowing the young and less vulnerable to be exposed, whilst protecting the rest as far as possible, but it would likely be very ugly and messy We can’t live in our current state forever.

But to call time now on containment measures now, as various vaccine trials are in their final stages and most businesses and schools are open, would be madness. The implications for health, economy and education would be appalling.

I am vulnerable, with three autoimmune diseases and asthma. It's apparently fine for me to continue teaching as schools are MAGIC.

Vulnerable people are not all old, useless and unemployed. Personally I would like schools to be safer, i'd like a visor at least (no ppe in primaries allowed) and i'd like the fact that kids symptoms of covid are different to adults to be recognised.(headache, tummy ache, rash, head cold, sore throat not necessarily a temperature or cough) As it is i'm just desperately exposed and have already had kids with unrecognized symptoms in all week.

@phlebasconsidered

Were you be shielded?

If the Government brings back shielding if cases rise, that’s going to screw up many schools.

Those parents with the “just protect the vulnerable ffs and let me get on with life” attitude will, ironically, probably be the least understanding of the disruption.

But to call time now on containment measures now, as various vaccine trials are in their final stages and most businesses and schools are open, would be madness.

Yes!

If we really can’t get a vaccine then we’ll just have to accept a lot more damage from Covid, awful though it will be. But why on earth would we tank all the containment efforts now, and leave us with all the damage from lockdown and none of the benefits, when it’s looking increasingly likely we’ll get one soon? “Yes, we lost a hundred thousand people that didn’t need to die but at least I didn’t have to wear a mask in Tesco for a couple of months.”

People are very shortsighted. The countries that have done the best at protecting the vulnerable and letting everyone else get back to their normal lives are places like China, South Korea, Taiwan. Places like Brazil and Israel have neither protected the vulnerable nor let everyone else get back to normal life.

We can’t “just crack on with life” with overwhelmed health services on top of massive economic damage and things shutting all over the place due to sickness absences and lack of custom.