Shield the vulnerable. Back to normal for everyone else.

[treebarking]

I keep seeing this literally everywhere.

I don't understand how it works!

Vulnerable people are through all walks of life and in all essential services. By virtue of them shielding means things can't run as normal as there isn't enough staff.

Do vulnerable people never leave home and never let anyone in if it's rife everywhere ripping through communities? Ever? What if they need hospital treatment? What if they have a heart attack or need cancer treatment? What if their central heating broke and needed fixing or there was a fire or a leak. What if their children go to school? Or have shared custody?

I feel like I must be missing something really obvious for the amount of people suggesting it. How does it work practically?

[Eyewhisker]

Totally agree Chessie. Excellent post

[Nellodee]

Some of it is about partying at the pub and a vague notion of freedom however. Just as we teachers needed a can do attitude to schools, we need a can do attitude to people suffering from mental health problems. There are other options than “let it rip”. For people with Alzheimer’s, I saw it suggested that one family member could become a nominated key worker, for example, which sounded like an excellent idea.

[BoJoTookMyMojo]

ShastaBeast I’m not sure who is coming out most selfish based on this argument. “If I can’t go out, then no one should”.

Exactly.
I don't understand the argument that it's wrong to "lock up" people vulnerable in terms of covid, but fine to "lock up" other people, eg. the third of adults who live alone, especially those vulnerable due to reasons other than covid who suffer and even die due to lockdown and isolation. Those who are vulnerable in BOTH ways seem to have the attitude that isolation isn't worth it.

The "I'm alright Jack" attitude works both ways - people saying they can't shield because of their family or important job, so others have to miss out on the chance to have a family, and lose their jobs. There seems to be a new type of discrimination/privilege in this "new normal" - those who can retreat into a smaller world relatively comfortably and those who live alone/have precarious incomes/need contact with other humans to make life worthwhile.

It might be impractical to shield the vulnerable (although Ecosse makes some good points) but please let's not forget the people who are isolated and losing everything that matters to them due to lockdown measures (esp. in local lockdown areas). Making out its all about partying down the pub or some vague notion of "freedom" is just demonising people who are really suffering.

[scaevola]

I don’t think you can say that 50% of people are vulnerable

It's based on the proportion of the population who qualify for flu jabs for clinical reasons.

Exceptionally vulnerable are about 3% of the population

[OpheliasCrayon]

@Chessie678

I don’t have a vested interest. Personally I’m in a relatively fortunate position in terms of my job etc though I have found the restrictions hard with a 6m old baby at times.

I don’t think you can say that 50% of people are vulnerable when the IFR of covid is c. 0.4% and only 7% of deaths were in under 65s with the vast majority being in over 85s. Obviously everyone is potentially vulnerable to it and there is a spectrum but if you are choosing to shield part of the population you would select only the most vulnerable.

I’m completely aware that many of the shielded are younger have families and that’s a really difficult issue to which there’s no good solution. I’ve tried to outline one above. But the majority of shielded are of retirement age as I’ve referenced above.

I think it is completely wrong to say that society is functioning though. For months we had no education for many children, no dentistry, limited healthcare, couldn’t see our families etc. I don’t find the current level of restrictions too bad from a personal point of view but cases are rising. To keep the number of cases safe enough for the vulnerable it looks like we won’t be able to see our families or operate full time school potentially for a year or more. And there was an article today about covid getting more infectious so we may well need more restrictions to keep it at bay. But mostly this level of restrictions just isn’t sustainable due to the public spending it requires and lack of tax revenues. Most of the economy is operating way below its normal capacity. Its like living in a hotel and eating out every night when you’re on an income of £25k - it just doesn’t work long term.

From my perspective it looks like we are systematically destroying society to try to control this virus when it probably isn’t controllable long term anyway. No one has a crystal ball so I might be wrong but I do think the long term consequences of our reaction to covid are being vastly underestimated.

We talk about the worst case scenario of hospitals being overwhelmed and no food supply if the virus was allowed to run through the population and that’s a worst case scenario. Maybe we should compare it to a worst case scenario for the economy of millions of job losses, no funding for health or education and covid still being present despite our efforts.

I agree. Hence why I'm not shielding. I really do not see the point or it to be worth the amount of damage it would do to my family, nor is it worth me not working. Personally I just don't think the risk to myself is worth me damaging my entire family, educationally and emotionally.
But I respect anyone who feels differently.

[Chessie678]

I don’t have a vested interest. Personally I’m in a relatively fortunate position in terms of my job etc though I have found the restrictions hard with a 6m old baby at times.

I don’t think you can say that 50% of people are vulnerable when the IFR of covid is c. 0.4% and only 7% of deaths were in under 65s with the vast majority being in over 85s. Obviously everyone is potentially vulnerable to it and there is a spectrum but if you are choosing to shield part of the population you would select only the most vulnerable.

I’m completely aware that many of the shielded are younger have families and that’s a really difficult issue to which there’s no good solution. I’ve tried to outline one above. But the majority of shielded are of retirement age as I’ve referenced above.

I think it is completely wrong to say that society is functioning though. For months we had no education for many children, no dentistry, limited healthcare, couldn’t see our families etc. I don’t find the current level of restrictions too bad from a personal point of view but cases are rising. To keep the number of cases safe enough for the vulnerable it looks like we won’t be able to see our families or operate full time school potentially for a year or more. And there was an article today about covid getting more infectious so we may well need more restrictions to keep it at bay. But mostly this level of restrictions just isn’t sustainable due to the public spending it requires and lack of tax revenues. Most of the economy is operating way below its normal capacity. Its like living in a hotel and eating out every night when you’re on an income of £25k - it just doesn’t work long term.

From my perspective it looks like we are systematically destroying society to try to control this virus when it probably isn’t controllable long term anyway. No one has a crystal ball so I might be wrong but I do think the long term consequences of our reaction to covid are being vastly underestimated.

We talk about the worst case scenario of hospitals being overwhelmed and no food supply if the virus was allowed to run through the population and that’s a worst case scenario. Maybe we should compare it to a worst case scenario for the economy of millions of job losses, no funding for health or education and covid still being present despite our efforts.

[OpheliasCrayon]

@ShastaBeast

And I’m not socialising or going out much at all and happy to comply with current rules. But if it gets worse, what’s your plan?

My plan? Carry on working for as long as the schools I work in are open. If they're not I won't. I comply with other rules also. My kids go to school, they will continue to do so for as long as they are open. If we need to isolate we will. Why ? What's your plan? I respect anyone's choices and I expect people to respect mine, irrespective of whether I'm extremely vulnerable or not.

[OpheliasCrayon]

@ShastaBeast

“My life can't and won't just stop because of this!“

What’s the answer if things get worse. How will you be able to protect yourself without a total lock?

I choose not to shield. I'm happy to continue working in schools etc. But I then get told I should be shielding and I am burdening the nhs. Which I definitely do not appreciate and find offensive. It was never mandatory and therefore I chose not to. But some people who are not having to shield, I find, seem to think they can tell me I have to. If I get it I get it I'm not bothered and to be honest I think I had it back in March - my doctors agree.

[ShastaBeast]

And I’m not socialising or going out much at all and happy to comply with current rules. But if it gets worse, what’s your plan?

[ShastaBeast]

“My life can't and won't just stop because of this!“

What’s the answer if things get worse. How will you be able to protect yourself without a total lock?

[ShastaBeast]

@Bluelinings

Great completely shield the vulnerable and elderly. No life for the vulnerable. No seeing family. No watching grandchildren grow up for elderly. No education for millions of vulnerable children or children of vulnerable parents.

A second rate life of drastic measures for tens of millions.

Because the rest couldn’t take light measures.

Isn’t that discrimination?

But full lock down will also lead to not seeing family and friends. So you’d rather go back into full lockdown and no one can go out except keyworkers and once a day exercise, rather than shield vulnerable people and anyone who is not vulnerable (yes I know some will fall ill and die anyway as they didn’t realise they had diabetes etc) will keep the economy running and children educated while sticking to current rules. I’m not sure who is coming out most selfish based on this argument. “If I can’t go out, then no one should”. Does that mean if vulnerable kids stay at home all of them should suffer?

I say this having lost one family member, have another shielding and suffering with potential lung damage. There has to be a balance, without an economy there may not be an NHS and education specifically is priority.

[LemonTT]

[quote Ecosse]@Sewsosew

I think you’re totally oversimplifying the issue. It’s not just about people wanting to go out on the piss- lockdown has enormous impact on people’s health. Particularly that of the newly unemployed and their families.

People have different views on both sides but I think reducing the issue to keeping people safe v going out on the piss is a nonsense.[/quote]
Ecosse

Im sorry but you have been talking nonsense as well.

There is no total suppression or eradication strategy yet you frame your opinion around this.

We cannot regularly test the people who need to come into contact with the “vulnerable” on a daily or weekly basis. The capacity does not exist.

You cannot grab your freedom at the expense of others and expect them to comply. And the vast majority of people don’t want this.

[OpheliasCrayon]

@treebarking

I keep seeing this literally everywhere.

I don't understand how it works!

Vulnerable people are through all walks of life and in all essential services. By virtue of them shielding means things can't run as normal as there isn't enough staff.

Do vulnerable people never leave home and never let anyone in if it's rife everywhere ripping through communities? Ever? What if they need hospital treatment? What if they have a heart attack or need cancer treatment? What if their central heating broke and needed fixing or there was a fire or a leak. What if their children go to school? Or have shared custody?

I feel like I must be missing something really obvious for the amount of people suggesting it. How does it work practically?

It doesn't and I'm fed up of it. I'm vulnerable and I hate the insinuation that I would just be ok if I got shut away until this is all over and that's the best for everyone. Im vulnerable yes but I have a young family and a key worker job working with other vulnerable people. My life can't and won't just stop because of this!

[Bluelinings]

Professor Devi Sridhar has written about this today. She warns against it.

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/covid-19-herd-immunity-strategy-flawed-until-we-have-coronavirus-vaccine-professor-devi-sridhar-2981017

[Orangeblossom7777]

My DH is self employed and going out to work while being in the shielding group- it is a worry and I would have been grateful for some support for him but it seems they are giving that to the healthy furloughed who have already been home since March

Don't understand the government there- as Boris said he wasn't going to support the vulnerable and it seems the majority on here agree.

[mrshoho]

@Tootletum

At this point I just don't care if I die, or my mother dies, or anything. I just want this to be over and if that means dying, brilliant.

Every single person I'm sure also wants it to be over. What is the main problem you are having dealing with the situation? Are you in a local lockdown area and unable to mix with other households? Are you and your family healthy and well? Is it financial problems? Maybe if you say what it is that is causing you to feel so desperate there could be help available.

[Tootletum]

At this point I just don't care if I die, or my mother dies, or anything. I just want this to be over and if that means dying, brilliant.

[Ecosse]

@Sewsosew

I think you’re totally oversimplifying the issue. It’s not just about people wanting to go out on the piss- lockdown has enormous impact on people’s health. Particularly that of the newly unemployed and their families.

People have different views on both sides but I think reducing the issue to keeping people safe v going out on the piss is a nonsense.

[Areyousureted]

I would agree people are just angry and looking for someone to blame. They think if we pack away “the vulnerable” then everything can go back to normal. But there isn’t really anyone to blame, we are in a pandemic and nothing we do will make us not be in a pandemic!

[Sewsosew]

I think when people say vulnerable people should shield - they mean ‘not me’.

Why should DH shield and not have hospital appointments, so others can go on the piss and go to A&E.

[MRex]

@Chessie678 - you seem to have a vision in your head of elderly frail people. I don't think you understand the numbers of people involved who are vulnerable, nor that many of them live normal lives and work. Shielding is a tiny proportion who are expected to be very unwell, but many more are vulnerable with a risk of being hospitalitised. Think for a moment just about any man over 50 and woman over 60, plus anyone pregnant or with very young babies, anyone you've ever known who has diabetes, asthma, heart disease, cancer... plus everyone they live with. Plus everyone black, asian, and everyone they live with. Then you have people with other disabilities or elderly, plus healthcare and social care workers who look after them - and their families. You'd be lucky to have over 50% of the country able to get out and about, probably far less. Who do you think ensures you now have water, gas, electricity, food, rubbish cleared? Who teaches your children and provides medical treatment for accidents and illness in the remainder? Many of them have disappeared into the isolation that the remainder are somehow paying for (how?), so they aren't there to keep society moving, and you wouldn't have enough infected people for herd immunity to ever get them out safely. That's actually not all of the problem, high viral load seems to have led to young healthy people becoming very unwell - loud nightclubs for example. So you can't actually do everything and safely get herd immunity. That's before any moral debate about the unfairness of expecting a group of people to lock themselves away rather than you making a few smaller sacrifices. You don't even need any community spirit, logic can show you that what you're asking for simply won't work.

[LemonTT]

Society is functioning and it did function during the lockdown period. Maybe not in a way that was to your liking. I suspect if you own a business that was closed or restricted you are talking about your own vested interest.

There is no strategy of total suppression or eradication. There never was and it would be impossible in the UK and mainland Europe anyway. The constant suggesting that there was or is such a policy is either daft or determined attempts to spread fake news.

We are and we will continue to be subject to sliding levels of restrictions aimed at enabling people to go to work and school with assurance that vital services will continue. There is overwhelmingly evidence that the public support measures to reduce transmission.

We don’t have the testing capacity to support the level of testing being suggested to remove the risk of transmission into health and career schools and the workplace. When we do, and you are willing to pay for it, bring these suggestions back. Until then you are talking about pie in the sky solutions and insulting public opinion

[mrshoho]

@Chessie678

But society isn’t functioning now and was barely functioning at all from March to July and even with the current level of restrictions cases are growing. And society will barely function afterwards at this rate as there’ll be no economy. And even if we attempt suppression for another 6 months or one year we could end up in basically the same position we are now at the end of it.

The intention of shielding is that most of those who did get it would not need hospital treatment. Around 50% of cases are asymptotic and herd immunity probably kicks in when around 60% of people have had it (but transmission probably slows a lot before that point) so you are talking about 30% of the population having symptoms. Some of those have already had it. Not everyone would get it at the same time even if you allowed unchecked exponential growth and you could do plenty of simple things to slow down the rate of infection. I still think that would be the lesser of several evils. Currently huge numbers of people are self isolating at any one time anyway.

What if we got a vaccine and it was 50% effective cutting the IFR for covid to around 0.2%? Would the current level of restrictions be justified then?

So what exactly are you wanting? Do you want testing of people to stop? So say a food processing plant allows covid positive staff to carry on and possibly go on to infect their entire staff? Ok so who will keep the business going when they run out of health staff. What about Bus drivers and other transport staff? When it rips through the population who will carry out these jobs? What about teachers? Getting covid can for many take weeks/months to recover. The list goes on and on. Also I'm no scientist but there is often talk of the higher the viral load the more serious the infection is. If work places and homes, hospitals are heavily infected we just don't know how bad it could get.

What parts of the economy is it that you want back up and running so urgently. Leisure, theatre, travel, entertainment? If half the population are unwell I don't think these industries would be able to carry on anyway.

[Chessie678]

But society isn’t functioning now and was barely functioning at all from March to July and even with the current level of restrictions cases are growing. And society will barely function afterwards at this rate as there’ll be no economy. And even if we attempt suppression for another 6 months or one year we could end up in basically the same position we are now at the end of it.

The intention of shielding is that most of those who did get it would not need hospital treatment. Around 50% of cases are asymptotic and herd immunity probably kicks in when around 60% of people have had it (but transmission probably slows a lot before that point) so you are talking about 30% of the population having symptoms. Some of those have already had it. Not everyone would get it at the same time even if you allowed unchecked exponential growth and you could do plenty of simple things to slow down the rate of infection. I still think that would be the lesser of several evils. Currently huge numbers of people are self isolating at any one time anyway.

What if we got a vaccine and it was 50% effective cutting the IFR for covid to around 0.2%? Would the current level of restrictions be justified then?

[treebarking]

[quote Ecosse]@Bluelinings

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone (or very few people anyway) who want to let COVID run unchecked. I think the majority of people are in agreement that we need to have measures like masks, social distancing and venue closures in place.

What many of us don’t support is a lockdown which would devastate the economy and many people’s health.[/quote]
There are many, many posts that suggests the vulnerable should be locked up and everyone else goes back to normal.

It is never backed up with how society functions when hospitals are full and you can't get treated for your car accident, what you will do with your kids because school are shut through lack of staff and there aren't enough delivery drivers to provide stock.

I actually think people who say this are scared / pissed off with what is happening and trying to find someone to blame. For some it's the government and others it's vulnerable people who they perceive is why we are living like this, to protect them when actually we are all having to live like this to preserve life for everyone, in lots of different ways.