"Vulnerable people should be free to choose whether to protect themselves"

[KihoBebiluPute]

Lord Sumption has just been on Radio 4 asserting that the new rules are terrible and people should be free to choose for themselves whether or not to protect their health, and for some people it is more important to them to see family and friends and to get on with life as normal even if it means taking the risk to shorten ones life.

I cannot get over the selfish idiocy of this position. I recognise that people have the right to take choices that may shorten their own life, but choosing not to take precautions during a pandemic is not just risking your own life. When each vulnerable person gets seriously ill and needs to be hospitalised, they are risking the lives of the medical staff treating them, and the lives of everyone else needing hospital treatment whose care is incrementally reduced for each new patient - and if lots of people choose to take these risks then the numbers become overwhelming, so your choice not to protect yourself directly contributes to the deaths of others.

I can't support a system of refusing medical care to those who have deliberately endangered themselves. However, if we value the principle that illness is a matter of misfortune that should be treated sharing the costs across society as a whole, rather than a cost borne by the individual, then every member of society has a duty to keep themselves healthy as far as their individual circumstances allow, understanding that this will mean different things to different people. That principle needs to be part of our national culture more deeply ingrained than any religion. Lord Sumption's individualistic free-for-all is only compatible with a right-wing I'm-Alright-Jack privatised healthcare system where people pay their medical insurance premiums set according to the economics of how expensive their medical treatment is statistically likely to be, and then comfortably well-off Senior Judges can happily pay the eye-watering premiums that would be charged for those who choose not to look after themselves and can therefore expect to need ££££££££ medical care very shortly, and the poor get told that their policy isn't valid if they haven't taken every possible precaution.

The overall point is that lockdown only works when you're locked down. The virus won't disappear - it's all over the world now so even if we eliminated it from the UK it would come back in. We flattened the curve and reduced the pressure on the NHS by lockdown, but now we've opened up, the virus is spreading again more freely. Social distancing etc only slows the spread. I completely agree with Lord Sumption and think other posters' comparisons to drinking, obesity, risky driving are all valid. Yes, they're not infectious, but they still have a knock on effect on other people and use NHS resources.

Perhaps those people should have an advance directive in place so that HCP aren't put at risk in the event they contract the virus.

Have you properly thought through what you are suggesting here?

Over 2 million people with certain medical conditions were advised to 'shield' during the last lockdown. This involved not going out at all for months on end. People were told it was not safe to sleep with their partner, hug their children or eat with their families. Lots of people who live alone saw nobody except for the occasional delivery driver. For months.

Maybe you've just never thought about how extreme the guidance was for people advised to 'shield'.

By the time this advice changed, everyone else was already allowed back down the pub.

People of all ages were told to 'shield'. Many (most?) of the people on this list are generally healthy, few are at death's door. Many have jobs, some are HCP. Those who are at death's door would prefer to spend the last bit of time they have on this planet in the company of loved ones, not shut in the fucking cupboard.

You are suggesting that 2M+ people should now decide whether to forego all rights to medical treatment or just get back in the cupboard. For how long?

FYI an advance directive only concerns life saving treatment like ventilation and CPR. People who are dying deserve proper palliative care, delivered by competent, trained HCP, whether they have the virus or not. Or are you suggesting they forego this too?

Seems like a big ask in exchange for a few priority delivery slots.

'Shielding The Vulnerable' would only ever have been morally acceptable if the government had used that time to sort out the basic strategy of testing, contact tracing and isolation.

They didn't so here we are.

@TheKeatingFive

Should he confine his life to the house because we all can't be sensible, keep to social distancing and wear masks?

Unfortunately those measures alone don’t contain this thing. The only thing that we know works is fairly strict lockdown.

Lockdown is what you have to do when you've fucked up and lost control. It 'works' in the same way a tourniquet works. It buys you a bit of time to fix the underlying problem. If you don't fix the problem then releasing the tourniquet will just result in the patient bleeding out again.

Lockdown 'works' in the same way that turning the water off works if you have a burst pipe. However gradually you turn the water back on, you will still end up with water spurting everywhere unless you actually fix the pipe.

The way to fix this problem is testing, contact tracing and isolation. Anything that is not working in that system should be the highest priority right now. We won't eliminate this virus but if we can control outbreaks until we have a widely available vaccine we have a much better chance of protecting both a functioning economy and basic human rights.

Boris's money shot is costed at £100BN and may come to nothing. That amount of money could go a very long way if reallocated to protect people's income if they have to isolate, and to fund proper boots-on-the-ground epidemiology.

Hospital doctor and I agree with him.

We are doing untold harm through the current policies. Children who are not be appropriately educated and safeguarded. Those with other health conditions needing face to face treatment. Mental health of the general population. The damage to the economy with all of the increase in health inequality that comes with it.

We cannot protect everyone and in trying to do so the public will become complacent or disillusioned with whatever version of “the rules” the government are implementing this week.

Public efforts should be on shielding the extremely clinically vulnerable (if that is what they choose) whilst vaccine development is ongoing and testing capacity is increased.

Ok op. I'll do as you think I should do, because you think you know me and my circumstances better than I do.

Or, I will make my own choices, not shield despite having had the sheilding letter in march, and go to work as a key worker.

I do not appreciate anyone at all suggesting that they have a single right to tell me what I should or should not do. Or suggest in anyway that I should be responsible for the NHS and their burden if I don't sheild.

I didn't chose to have any of the illnesses I have. I did not chose willingly to take the drugs I need to to manage them, and I do not see why anyone has any right to dictate to me what I should choose to do during a pandemic, or what I should inflict upon my family.

So it's lovely that you'd probably like to blame me for being a terrible person, but I'm sorry that is absolutely no right of yours or anyone's.

Nurse and I also totally agree with him. I’ve seen first hand the price some people have paid for lockdown, physically, mentally and financially. It went on for months and here we are again, so soon. Not enough was achieved through this sacrifice. My friends 98 year old Nan Who has by her own admission no quality of life in her care home went without seeing her 75 year old son the whole time. He died of heart disease before she was allowed visitors. She’s heartbroken and full of regret.

He died of heart disease before she was allowed visitors. She’s heartbroken and full of regret

Oh god, this is awful. Poor, poor, woman. My 92 year old mum has had enough. The only reason for living at that age is social interaction. Going out and seeing people, or people coming to visit. There is no joy in just sitting in an armchair (or stuck in bed) and looking out the window.

IF, there was choice, then fair enough. But the NHS didn't give ECV people a choice. Like my OH, the NHS stopped his cancer treatment without any consultation or agreement or choice. That's not acceptable.

As we've heard from other Mnetters there were some ECV NHS staff who were willing to work but TOLD not to by their NHS managers. Again, not acceptable.

@KnobChops

Nurse and I also totally agree with him. I’ve seen first hand the price some people have paid for lockdown, physically, mentally and financially. It went on for months and here we are again, so soon. Not enough was achieved through this sacrifice. My friends 98 year old Nan Who has by her own admission no quality of life in her care home went without seeing her 75 year old son the whole time. He died of heart disease before she was allowed visitors. She’s heartbroken and full of regret.

I am so sorry to hear this and I am afraid it is one of my own worst fears.

I have very vulnerable and frail elderly parents who are in their mid eighties, greatly reduced mobility and mounting health problems. Both have been hospitalised (not Covid related) with serious issues that could have killed them as lockdown wore on. live a three hour drive away and they were in shielding so at the time it seemed I couldn't visit.

If we are again instructed no longer to travel and visit elderly relatives then I shall feel unable to comply. It is just by pure luck that my parents are still both alive and I have been able to visit them. I really feared that it would not happen that way though and I am no longer willing to take that risk if further lockdown happens. I will simply have to go if needed, and would never forgive myself as long as I live if I didn't. I even spent two weeks looking after them recently as my Dad had been taken to hospital and we needed to get a suitable care package set in place.

I really sympathise with the lady you mention, and I am nowhere near her age.

My 92 year old granny is in a care home. Last week they said they were stopping distanced visits in the garden and going back to through the window visits, fair enough.
However today my mum has been told that through the window visits are now banned. The owner of the home has banned anyone who is not a carer from entering the grounds of the home.
Last time I checked the virus couldn’t travel through glass. Absolute joke. I’m so angry and upset

Some of these stories are heartbreaking. I’m so sorry.

In the focus on keeping people alive, we seem to have lost a lot of humanity. There are worse things in life than dying of Covid.

Also, I am not sure my parents will agree to fully shield again. It impacts their quality of life hugely, and who knows how long they really have left.

They are still able to go out for a short drive in the car, although they don't get out of it as they aren't that mobile. It is just a change of scene from being in the house all day every day. I really do understand that.

@Polkadotties

My 92 year old granny is in a care home. Last week they said they were stopping distanced visits in the garden and going back to through the window visits, fair enough. However today my mum has been told that through the window visits are now banned. The owner of the home has banned anyone who is not a carer from entering the grounds of the home. Last time I checked the virus couldn’t travel through glass. Absolute joke. I’m so angry and upset

So many sad stories.

Care homes became a story of failure around controlling outbreaks. And now people are too alone. It is so difficult.

I agree with him .

Shielding has always been voluntary.

Do people really not know that?

The advice even explicitly singled out people with terminal illness as people who might choose to disregard shielding, out of consideration for the fact people with a short time to live might well prefer to spend it with their loved ones rather rush isolating for little benefit.

Of course everyone needs to obey the universal rules (masks unless exempt, social distancing, observing national or local lockdown rules) but shielding is a personal choice solely to protect the extremely vulnerable.

@froggygoneacourting

Shielding has always been voluntary.

Do people really not know that?

The advice even explicitly singled out people with terminal illness as people who might choose to disregard shielding, out of consideration for the fact people with a short time to live might well prefer to spend it with their loved ones rather rush isolating for little benefit.

Of course everyone needs to obey the universal rules (masks unless exempt, social distancing, observing national or local lockdown rules) but shielding is a personal choice solely to protect the extremely vulnerable.

Unfortunately, NHS didn't respect personal choice when they stopped cancer treatment for ECV cancer patients - they unilaterally decided it was too risk for ECV patients to attend hospitals for treatment, so stopped treatment without consultation or agreement.

@froggygoneacourting

Shielding has always been voluntary.

Do people really not know that?

The advice even explicitly singled out people with terminal illness as people who might choose to disregard shielding, out of consideration for the fact people with a short time to live might well prefer to spend it with their loved ones rather rush isolating for little benefit.

Of course everyone needs to obey the universal rules (masks unless exempt, social distancing, observing national or local lockdown rules) but shielding is a personal choice solely to protect the extremely vulnerable.

We do know that shielding is voluntary. We are glad of the loophole that provides and will be utilising it from now onwards if lockdown and shielding are reintroduced.

There is also the clause in the guidelines that suggests you ca travel to the aid of vulnerable people. I will be keeping that one in my back pocket too if there is a second lockdown.

My parents didn't want me to travel last time as the government had scared them shitless about the virus (some justification due to their extreme vulnerabilities, but horrible even so). I don't they view it in quite the same light now after so much water under the bridge for our family. It has been hell.

Shielding is NOT voluntary if you are in a care home. It's like being in prison .

@Baaaahhhhh

Shielding is NOT voluntary if you are in a care home. It's like being in prison .

I agree. My poor granny is now a prisoner in her room. She has always been pretty sharp, it’s her body that failing. However since lockdown she is becoming mentally slower. This may have happened anyway. But I’m convinced it is due to the lack of social interaction

There’s no doubt lack of social interaction can be devastating.

The trouble is it does spread easily in care homes as we’ve seen. Then it becomes a care home crisis.

Personally I’d prefer people were not left alone. But it is a very sufficient situation.

Difficult situation

How is talking to someone through a window a risk of Covid being transmitted?

@Polkadotties

How is talking to someone through a window a risk of Covid being transmitted?

Because people won't limit themselves to that. They'll try to handover a box of chocolates, they'll ask to use the loo, they'll ask for a glass of water etc. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

Staff don't have time to act as gatekeepers and don't need the hassle of "policing" visitors who don't want to follow the rules.

Staff don't have time to act as gatekeepers and don't need the hassle of "policing" visitors who don't want to follow the rules.

Residential homes are supposed to be people's homes not prisons. And staff are paid to care for residents and improve their lives. Ensuring residents can see their loved ones in a safe way should not be considered a hassle, and any care worker who takes that position is in the wrong job.

@Kazakaren you are 100% correct here. Its vile how people think nursing homes are prisons and the staff are wardens. As you said its the residents home and anyone who goes into care thinking otherwise is a disgrace in the wrong profession. Jesus how scary that the day come come to any of us that we end up in a home with younger people telling us what we can and cannot do in our own home.