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?

[treebarking]

@PhylisPrice

This was my stance I'll be honest. Reading this thread as made me think a lot differently!

Fair play to you for being honest and rethinking your stance.

[Mymycherrypie]

Yeah I always think the same when people say “I’m not vulnerable”. Counting a lot of chickens there, mate.

[MilesJuppIsMyBitch]

@PhylisPrice you're brave! I feel really heartened that this thread has caused you to have a rethink.

I feel as though I bang on about this on here (because I do), but I'm ECV.

I work, I volunteer, I have two children, and I have (had) a social life.

COVID just blew it all apart. We started shielding on March 13th as a family, and are still doing so, with no definite end in sight. So my healthy children can't go to school or out with their friends, and my healthy husband is stuck at home.

If everyone else could just rein in it about, I don't know, ten percent, we would be less at risk when out.

Reading about people refusing to make the small changes. (Like masks/ social distancing - before the new restrictions) and saying people like me should just stay in the fucking cupboard made me feel genuine despair.

[onlyreadingneverposting8]

So glad to see that everyone is agreeing this would be a stupid idea! I've been getting increasingly worried by the number of people returning to February's stance of "its just a flu" and "we all need to get it". As the professor in public health for Edinburgh uni said on TV today "herd immunity is was we aim for when we have a vaccine - to protect the very small minority who can't have the vaccine. It's NOT the policy we use in the case of a novel virus!" She went on to explain that such a policy would overwhelm the NHS and lead to significant loss of life.

[Nicedayforawedding]

Because vulnerable people don’t live on another planet, a sub species.

I’m vulnerable and I know many more like me. We have young children, elderly parents to care for, jobs, we live in the same world as you.

So it’s not practical to suggest we all shield indefinitely.

[Nicedayforawedding]

I wouldn’t be so worried if people stuck to the rules. I’m in a hotspot and don’t know anyone sticking by the rules.

[mrshoho]

Makes my blood boil hearing these comments and the ones saying it obviously do not have the foresight to understand what a diabolical situation the country would soon be in if the virus was to spread uncontrolled. Their arguments re cancer treatment, mental health, young people, the economy being thrown under a bus because of restrictions is ridiculous because if millions of people were to become infected everything would eventually grind to a halt anyway.

[Areyousureted]

Well said mrshoho I do think these things aren’t explained very well on the news though. It is barely mentioned at all, if it was explained to people I think we could get more compliance with the rules

[anniversarywoes]

It's totally unworkable.
Dh is supposedly shielding. I'm a teacher, dcs in education still, where does that leave us? Unless you have a huge house, multiple bathrooms etc it's pretty hard to shield properly in a houseful of non shielders!

[Areyousureted]

The fact that for every person who does another 20 need hospital treatment is another thing that needs to be said more often

[QueenOllie]

I'm on the shielding list. Was absolutely fine until I kept getting a lot of infections. 8 years until I was diagnosed, with a phone call at night following blood tests asking me to go to hospital
Remember standing outside haematology that night and seeing the consultant and people waiting for me and it seemed a bit surreal
Of course the shielding don't work not like I did a decade for the ambulance service...

[Ecosse]

I think all this talk about ableism is a nonsense. The vast majority of people are at zero or no risk from COVID- unfortunately a small minority are at high risk. We also have a pretty good idea of who these individuals are.

It makes sense to protect these individuals if that is what they want. So I’d absolutely support giving people at risk the opportunity to re-shield, fully funded by the state.

I absolutely don’t think the rest of us should just ‘get back to normal’- measures like masks and social distancing should be in place to further reduce the likelihood of transmission to the vulnerable.

People should not be having house parties and clearly things like concerts and nightclubs can’t happen. But we just can’t afford another lockdown and the economic and health costs. We also cannot expect people not to see their friends and family indefinitely.

[Chessie678]

I’ve previously advocated some form of this approach. Basically this is because I believe the approach we are taking - keeping the virus at a relatively low level - is doing and will continue to do catastrophic harm and may not save lives anyway. That depends on suppressing the virus until a solution e.g a vaccine is available which, as we’ve seen recently, is really difficult.

The theory is that if in March we had made more effort to protect the vulnerable, taken some moderate steps to slow the rate of transmission but otherwise let people get it, we would be in a better position now because a higher proportion of the population would have some immunity and our economy may be less decimated. The shielding were shielding for several months anyway so it’s not like they were able to go out and about safely while we attempted suppression. If the virus really does continue to grow exponentially in the way we are told we may well have reached a degree of immunity which would have slowed further transmission within a few months. It’s awful for anyone to have to shield (and I don’t support this being mandatory) but there doesn’t seem any point in locking up 100% of people rather than say 10%. I agree that effective shielding would have been hard but we could have put huge resources into a more effective shielding program and it still have been a fraction of the cost of furlough.

I think that the unemployment, recession and hit to public finances caused by what we are doing will shave more years off peoples lives than the virus. I’ve read a fair amount about the effect of recessions on life expectancy and my opinion stems from that. I know some people think that unchecked transmission would cause more economic damage than what we are doing but I really can’t see how anything could be worse than shutting down most of our economy on and off for over a year.

If we successfully protect the vulnerable from covid but can’t fund the nhs next year this doesn’t seem to be a good result and I genuinely believe we are not far off that position if we keep this up.

I don’t think this is a selfish approach on my part and I don’t think it’s as simple as lives vs economy - I’m trying to take a long view. What we are doing seems the worst of all worlds because it requires huge indefinite restrictions without preventing covid coming straight back the minute restrictions are eased.

I accept that many will disagree with the analysis of what would have happened but there are significant uncertainties with the suppression strategy too.

I accept that as time goes by the correct approach changes. If we were one month off a vaccine I’d agree that it makes sense to keep cases as low as possible until it’s here.

[WiseUpJanetWeiss]

Did you read any of the thread Ecosse?

[LemonTT]

The fake nobility of this makes me want to barf.

Essentially these psychopaths want to imprison people so they can have their freedoms. But don’t worry “we” will sustain the “them” in their confinement. Because “We” are good like that. Although there is never an explanation as to how🤷‍♀️

And what really drives me mad is the people spouting the need for personal freedom. I don’t even think they know what this means. Because if you want that then you take back responsibility and liability for all the stuff you expect to be given by even this government. Like a free NHS, welfare, policing and education. Do your own thing and expect nothing in return.

That is our societal pack. We give up freedoms in return for the benefits we derive from government and democracy. Extremists, idiots and agitators want us to lose faith in these things and our sense of society. As much as I loathe Bj and his merry bunch of incompetents, I value society, democracy and community.

[booandbumpp]

@Chessie678 I think what I don't understand is vulnerable people who live with non vulnerable people. For instance a friend has a very high risk child, with 2 siblings. Her partner works. If there were no restrictions to everyone, how could her healthy school aged children go to school or her husband to work if everyone didn't have some sacrifices.
Obviously this is a single case, but can multiply it a lot with vulnerable children alone, never mind when you take into account other vulnerable people who live with non vulnerable people.
If I could lock myself up, and not leave the house I would (37 weeks pregnant, and high risk and complicated pregnancy), but my partner is a teacher, and I have to go into the hospital 3x a week. Obviously the hospital is trying to keep things as low risk as possible, however if we lifted restrictions for none vulnerable people, this would be even harder than it is now!

[treebarking]

@Ecosse I accept your opinion but can you explain exactly how that will be achieved? How will society continue normally with all the vulnerable shielded who make up the large workforce in essential services etc.

[treebarking]

@booandbumpp exactly. I work in a hospital and if we had to reimpose shielding my service can't run. We'd have to shut other services down and start redeployment again. Everyone suffers.

If covid is rife in the hospital and community, we wouldn't be able to offer services we do now as we couldn't protect the sick. Unless this theory in my OP also includes never letting sick people come in to hospital....

[PinkLegoBrick]

It's a horrible idea and very much a case of I'm alright Jack.

[booandbumpp]

@treebarking Exactly - unfortunately high risk people have to put themselves in high risk situations (i.e. hospitals where there are active and known COVID cases) regularly. If we 'let it spread through the community' for herd immunity, we'd then have to take into account more cases, known and unknown (cleaners, porters, nurses, admin staff, doctors who can and are entitled to go out and not be imprisoned based on their jobs) which would impact people getting routine treatment. Which would obviously impact vulnerable people more, but I'm betting that non vulnerable people would be shouting about it when it takes over a year for an appointment and a few more for treatment!
Are hospital staff to sacrifice their freedom too in the 'vulnerable people shield and everyone else get on as normal' scenario?
'Vulnerable people' are a part of society, so when we're talking about how society can function, they are an inherent part of that plan!

[MilesJuppIsMyBitch]

@WiseUpJanetWeiss

Did you read any of the thread Ecosse?

Ecosse doesn't read threads. She comes on and spouts the same tired views in a tone-deaf manner in every thread I've seen her on.

I've tried to engage with her, but she's not interested 🤷‍♀️

[FOJN]

Their arguments re cancer treatment, mental health, young people, the economy being thrown under a bus because of restrictions is ridiculous because if millions of people were to become infected everything would eventually grind to a halt anyway.

Absolutely this. Too many people would be ill or caring for those that become ill with the virus that everything would collapse; no schools, no transport, not enough healthcare capacity, no ambulances, disruption to food supply chains, empty supermarket shelves where there was even enough staff for them to open. There would be significant civil unrest, everyman for himself and the army (those not sick) would be called in to restore order.

The government know this and are trying to tread the fine line between the consequences of uncontrolled transmission and the fall out of too severe restrictions. I sat on a pandemic flu planning committee around the time of swine flu and the realities of uncontrolled spread are pretty terrifying it is not something I could ever advocate for.

[AlexaShutUp]

It's encouraging to read so many sensible posts on this thread. I expected more people arguing for the vulnerable to be locked up.

Kudos to phylisprice for being open-minded enough to change her mind and honest enough to say so.

[Ecosse]

@WiseUpJanetWeiss

I have read the thread, yes. I don’t support ‘going back to normal’ at all- clearly there will have to be masks, social distancing and limits to the size of social gatherings over the winter. Imo this alongside shielding would get us through winter.

However imo we cannot afford another lockdown that would devastate the economy and therefore people’s health.

[bumblingbovine49]

For me it is not that it is a selfish view ( though it is) but that it is a shallow , unthinking, knee jerk reaction. When you give it even a moment of thought , any idiot can see it won't work. it just isn't possible to : carry in as normal' without some sort of serous repercussions.

If you let the illness run through, you just get people dying anyway, either because people can't get treated for non Covid things because hospitals are full of Covid patients or we just turn away Covid patients to make room for everyone else.

Also they just ignore the fact that the reason we didn't overwhelm the NHS is because we locked down and because we were so worried about overwhelming the NHS that we actually didn't try to treat lots of people that we should have done

We need to continue to ensure that we minimise the numbers if people in hospital while at the same time providing trearment for anyone who needs it . It is a balancing act and there is no place in it for ' black and white ideas'but a lot of people just can't cope with that, they need simple answers. Unfortunately there just aren't any .