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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

@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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Eyewhisker]

Totally agree Chessie. Excellent post