We have to find a way..

[TheNumbersDontAddUp]

.. To allow those who need or want to shield to do so safely, and with support, and allow those who wish to accept the inherent risk to do so, and continue to work, go out etc because quite simply the economy cannot afford for us to do anything else?

£300 million a month it is mooted that Richie Sunaks new measures will cost.

How can we possibly afford this without irretrievably imploding the entire economy, which will ultimately destroy us all, shielding and non shielding.

I say this as a vulnerable person, at risk.

Also Sweden reporting 15% long covid.

This is a major risk to future life. In particular - do you feel sanguine about knocking years off your life due to early heart failure?

I do not want to take a risk that I don't yet understand. I value my health.

@TheDailyCarbuncle Well it's not really nonsense is it.
That's the point of two-three months (proper) lockdown. Gets cases down THEN we ease it BUT keeping borders restricted so that cases don't rise again. As an island it's very easy.

There will almost certainly be a vaccine and/or access to effective treatments. Work is progressing well. It's just an issue of manufacturing and distribution, which is why we're looking at around a year.
One year's restricted travel vs economic chaos, needless lives lost, and many people potentially left long-term disabled? I know my preference. Am added bonus is the benefit to the environment. Climate change had been very high profile in recent years. Now here's our chance to do something.

Australia is effectively dealing with its (by UK standards) tiny outbreak in Melbourne. They'll be back to normal well before us.
Most of Australia already pretty much is. My family in South Australia are living relatively normal life.

If someone can explain to me how I shield (no spleen and on immunosuppressants for RA) whilst living in the same household as an 18 and 24 year old.. who could quite easily'go about their daily lives with a skip and a hop not fearing what the virus would do to them .. then I am all ears...

What is it with people who can't grasp the fact that the shielded do not all live alone ? In fact the vast majority don't. !

This situation I'm in is a microcosm of the entire country . Until people can understand that their right to be out and about has a DIRECT affect on those that can't , then these ridiculous 'I'll be all right jack - fuck you' arguments will never cease.

This is a short time in all our lives. 6 months - a year to keep your fellow man alive. Because you can't come back from the dead or do people simply not understand that ?

These threads constantly come up. It's always the same. So everyone over 55, anyone overweight, anyone with asthma or any worse health issues cannot go ANYWHERE including to the supermarket or the hospital because everyone around them will have it?

How is that more moral than asking less vulnerable to chill out a bit and keep their distance?

@RepeatSwan

Also Sweden reporting 15% long covid.

This is a major risk to future life. In particular - do you feel sanguine about knocking years off your life due to early heart failure?

I do not want to take a risk that I don't yet understand. I value my health.

People really need to realise Long Covid is not something that happens to Other People. It's affecting young previously healthy people. Overnight they become one of The Vulnerable.

It will also affect the economy. A significant proportion of the working age population unable to work for months - potentially long-term.

My point is how do you shield people who need it properly? Nobody who advocates shielding the vulnerable and letting rip ever explains how you do that.

Why would it only be 6 months to a year? There most likely won't be a vaccine and it will just be 6 months to a year later with the same issues and an even more destroyed economy so no money to pay for the NHS or anything else.

I agree but apparently if you think this then you hate all disabled, elderly and vulnerable people so.

There most likely won't be a vaccine

How do you work that one out?

There is an assumption that if restrictions aren't in place then too many people will become sick at once, but there's no evidence for that, it's just a guess.
It’s not an assumption. It actually happened in Wuhan, Northern Italy (Bergamo in particular), Madrid, and New York. Arguably it happened here, but in a different way, in that the triage bar for hospital admissions was set so high that many who should have been hospitalised weren’t, or were admitted too late.
Also - how do you achieve herd immunity when there’s likely no long term immunity? Documented cases of reinfection are growing in numbers.
Oh - and there’s a pretty long list of conditions that make you vulnerable to Covid - diabetes among them. How can so many people stay at home indefinitely? Won’t they need some medical treatment at the very least? That can’t be done at home, and if the virus is running rampant medical settings will be rife with it as well.

@QueenStromba

My point is how do you shield people who need it properly? Nobody who advocates shielding the vulnerable and letting rip ever explains how you do that.

Because it can't be done

So everyone over 55, anyone overweight, anyone with asthma or any worse health issues cannot go ANYWHERE including to the supermarket or the hospital because everyone around them will have it?

Except this isn't the case, because by far the biggest risk factor is age. A 50 year old's risk of death is still extremely low, even if they are BAME and morbidly obese.

I hear long covid mentioned all the time but I have never seen statistics to back up it being a real rather than remote risk. Does anyone have a link to studies on it? I think I saw one some months ago about heart problems after 3 months but it didn't set out any greater risk than any other virus. Don’t know if I am out of date.

@amusedtodeath1

Have you not seen, heard, read the information put out by the Govt. recently?

If the majority of non vulnerable people "carry on as normal" the likelihood is that too many people become sick at once and the NHS, food services, education, etc, etc, don't have enough healthy staff to operate and people who would normally have survived Covid will die because they cannot access medical services.

How many times does this have to be explained before people understand that "carrying on as normal" is not an option?

Exactly.

@ChromaBook

So everyone over 55, anyone overweight, anyone with asthma or any worse health issues cannot go ANYWHERE including to the supermarket or the hospital because everyone around them will have it?

Except this isn't the case, because by far the biggest risk factor is age. A 50 year old's risk of death is still extremely low, even if they are BAME and morbidly obese.

Even a 90+ year old with poor health has a greater than 85% chance of surviving covid. People seem absolutely determined to convince themselves that getting covid is certain death. It absolutely, definitely is not. Some people suffer, that is true, but the vast vast vast majority of people recover.

@ChromaBook

I agree but apparently if you think this then you hate all disabled, elderly and vulnerable people so.

No, but it does show that you are either ignorant or stupid.

@QueenStromba

My point is how do you shield people who need it properly? Nobody who advocates shielding the vulnerable and letting rip ever explains how you do that.

Exactly. You can’t.

@Zxyzoey31

I hear long covid mentioned all the time but I have never seen statistics to back up it being a real rather than remote risk. Does anyone have a link to studies on it? I think I saw one some months ago about heart problems after 3 months but it didn't set out any greater risk than any other virus. Don’t know if I am out of date.

Yes, you're out of date

Google long covid...

Why would there be one? There have been decades of attempts to develop vaccines for all sorts of viruses that haven't succeeded why would this one work? Because people really really want it to?!

If the economy collapses there will be no treatment for shielded/vulnerable people. There will be no money to pay for benefits, or operations, no subsidised medication. No schools, no care homes. No nothing. Poverty, destitution, hunger, illness, homelessness, death.

It's not about saying fuck you to vulnerable people (please note that I said I am vulnerable too).

It's about finding a way to protect people as much as we can, whilst ensuring there is some kind of economic life to get back to.

Nobody can survive without money, an economy. You can't, I can't, unemployed people can't, employed people can't, shielded people can't, non vulnerable people can't.

You might not like that, but it is the bottom line.

So what are we going to do about it?

OP - As well as the NHS not coping, the other problem with your suggestion is that the more cases of coronavirus there are, the more the virus has of potentially mutating, we also don't know if people can catch it more than once or how long antibodies last for. We just don't know enough about this virus yet.

Not asking for a Google, asking for statistics and studies. It looks like you have none.

Back when toilet roll was flying off the shelves everyone was being accused of being selfish stock piling because there were little old ladies who couldn't afford to bulk buy food or have online deliveries but popped to the shops every few days. Funnily enough they are some of the vulnerable people but now it supposedly ok to expect a 90 year old to get to grips with online shopping. And no, if they are shielding from a virus ripping through the population they can't rely on family to do their shopping for them as that will inevitably end up with contact.

Whilst it might seem simple to let the vulnerable shield and let the rest of the population get on with life, 20% of the population are vulnerable to covid. If you then take into account family they are living with this probably increases to 25-30%. Many of these people are from low income or BAME groups who can't afford to lock themselves away.
I also keep hearing from lots of posters who refuse to stop seeing elderly parents/grandparents or elderly who refuse to stop seeing their grandchildren. So if covid is ripping through the "healthy" population these people will inevitably catch it, end up in ICU, hospitals will be overrun and we will be in exactly the situation that these restrictions are trying to avoid.

Do you really think people in charge across the world haven't considered the possibility of just leaving the vulnerable to isolate and letting the rest of us get on with it? No, of course they have and they have realised that it isn't any better as a solution.

Pandemics suck, they cost economies billions etc etc. There isn't any way to get round the fact that this pandemic will be expensive. The best we can hope for is that the world continues to invest in vaccine technologies after this pandemic ends and that we stop destroying animals natural habitats which leads to a proliferation of smaller animals who are more likely to act as a reserve for viruses which can cross to humans.

Also, if you take the vulnerable out of circulation, you lose, I would imagine, a fair proportion of your NHS staff, of retail staff, of teachers and TAs, of postal workers, bus drivers, etc.
Do you propose to pay all these vulnerable people to keep our of the way of the healthy? If yes, I would imagine that's a much bigger financial burden than anything yet proposed.
Also, Long Covid. I know someone with this. Young, previously healthy, now effectively disabled. There are thousands like her. How do we know which of the healthy people we need to protect against disastrous long term health damage?

Nobody can survive without money, an economy. You can't, I can't, unemployed people can't, employed people can't, shielded people can't, non vulnerable people can't.

You might not like that, but it is the bottom line.

So what are we going to do about it?

Suppress the virus as much as we can. It is the best thing for the economy. That’s why countries that have done this are doing better now economically.

The idea that we can somehow protect all the vulnerable and let the virus spread, and at the same time not take a hit to the economy or overwhelm the health service, just isn’t possible. No country has been able to achieve that.