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.

@TheDailyCarbuncle
But they don't keep going up. Because borders would remain restricted so no new cases could get in. The remaining low number of cases after lockdown would be isolated and treated. Like they did in Auckland when they had their small outbreak, and in Melbourne where the authorities are effectively tackling theirs (which happened because of a quarantine fuckup that won't be repeated - bar malicious sabotage).

We had a “light” lockdown. It was made clear that the police wasn’t going to enforce it properly, and when they did they were vilified in the tabloids.
Cafes and restaurants stayed open for take away and you could go inside for pick up. Building sites stayed open.
Everyone could go as far as they wanted for “exercise”, so they did, crowding places like Richmond Park on Mother’s Day, beaches etc.
VE Day celebrations carried on.
We were told not to wear masks.
And so many people continued to see friends and relatives regardless - not least because it was made so clear that the government’s heart wasn’t in this lockdown.
None of this caused spikes, but it caused the virus to remain bubbling away above the level at which the other European countries unlocked.
And then we had Eat Out to Help Out, trying to bully people back to offices unnecessarily, Boris encouraging everyone to go into the shops and on public transport, and a whole host of mixed messages that mean that we are now basically back to square one.

Not a problem at all
Thanks, great minds think alike.

@StarCat2020

No, I haven't had any personal experience, although I've a relative who had some funny symptoms but nothing troublesome (rash mostly) Even though I don't know you I am glad that you aren't suffering with this.

To be honest, I think this could be a real problem in the future though especially as it seems to affect people irrespective of age, sex, ethnic origin.

There are around 123,000 cases of sepsis from infections in the UK every year. Of those people around 37,000 die and a very large proportion of the rest suffer long term effects. Suffering long term effects after and infection isn't a new thing. That's not to say those who are suffering after covid aren't a worry, but it bothers me the way 'long covid' is being presented as an entirely new phenomenon, as if post-viral health problems are somehow new.

[quote SheepandCow]@TheDailyCarbuncle
But they don't keep going up. Because borders would remain restricted so no new cases could get in. The remaining low number of cases after lockdown would be isolated and treated. Like they did in Auckland when they had their small outbreak, and in Melbourne where the authorities are effectively tackling theirs (which happened because of a quarantine fuckup that won't be repeated - bar malicious sabotage).[/quote]
So you do expect to get rid of it entirely. In that case, how long do you think the borders would remain closed? Until covid is gone from the rest of the world?

Until there’s a vaccine.

@EarlGreywithLemon

Until there’s a vaccine.

And if there's no vaccine?

it bothers me the way 'long covid' is being presented as an entirely new phenomenon, as if post-viral health problems are somehow new
I think maybe it is more of a case of people saying that covid infection isn't a case of either dying or getting better, you could also get long lasting health effects from covid??

It’s frustrating that people still don’t grasp how the economy and public health are deeply intertwined. A virus making its way (unchecked) through the population with all its ramifications on staff sickness and the collapse of routine health services, people who aren’t able to work for months due to fatigue, which then has an economic impact. Mass redundancies in turn lead to an inability to pay for health services, mental health problem, social inequalities etc. You can’t think of one without the either.

An attempt at maximum suppression at the start the summer (delaying pub openings, a restriction on travel abroad, enforced quarantine and support for the airline industry, mass testing, support for isolation) and we would’ve been in a much stronger position now. There were points where we had as low as 500 cases a day in the whole of the UK.

Problem is Sunak jumped the gun with the recovery (EOHO etc) - understandable but premature. Now those same restaurants that were ‘helped out’ are having their opening hours restricted and will almost certainly be closed at some point over the coming months.

‘Zero covid’ may have been incredibly difficult to achieve, but a policy of maximum suppression really would’ve been helpful...

@StarCat2020

it bothers me the way 'long covid' is being presented as an entirely new phenomenon, as if post-viral health problems are somehow new I think maybe it is more of a case of people saying that covid infection isn't a case of either dying or getting better, you could also get long lasting health effects from covid??

So why not call it 'post-viral syndrome' (which is what it is) rather than the ridiculous term 'long covid'?

Most scientist are of the view that there will be one.
If there isn’t, we’re in serious trouble anyway given the mounting evidence that natural Covid immunity doesn’t last.

*scientists

I’ve not read all these comments but the very idea of shield the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it is majorly flawed.

Another poster summed it up well on another thread ‘it’s such a heartless idea that even the tories won’t vote for it!’

Firstly, the shielders aren’t just old frail people there are a lot of pupils, workers, key workers etc. Who back fills their jobs when they’re at home? Their families would then also have to shield presumably.

Shielders cannot avoid all human contact as they will need to visit hospitals etc for care.

Herd immunity cannot be gone for with a novel virus. This was outlined by Whitty as to why, we need to get to a stage where it is endemic. And when we have a vaccine. If we went for herd immunity it would collapse the NHS because even a proportion of non vulnerable people would need hospital care.

It has not been proven even remotely yet that if you have had the virus that you are then suddenly immune so even if people catch it now there is no guarantee they won’t catch it again.

These are practical points but also the moral issue of locking up our most vulnerable is just beyond comprehension to me personally.

We all have to act together with the less stringent controls that are in place now which allows the economy to open as much as it can safely to reduce the cases to avoid another full lockdown. I hope most people who suggest to shield the vulnerable aren’t suggesting everyone else just go completely back to normal, no masks, social distancing etc so even if this could work how would putting the shielders away help the economy? What else would be able to start which isn’t now? What restrictions would be able to be removed?

Extinction Rebellion were protesting a few weeks back. I bet they'd be happy if we kept borders shut indefinitely...it would really help combat climate change. However, there's almost certainly going to be a vaccine. Work is going well. It's more a matter of time needed to manufacture and distribute on mass. And if there really was a sudden and drastic change in direction re the very positive vaccine development, we've also made very good progress on various different treatments.

the ridiculous term 'long covid'?
I hate that phrase too and apart from when quoting others I don't use it if I can avoid it.

Thing is people are genuinely suffering so to me it doesn't matter what it is called.

Too heartless? I don't think that's the driving consideration.

Too expensive maybe. If we were all told to shield again, then employers would need to let vulnerable people work from home or have them signed off sick.

And our children would need to have special schooling arrangements etc. Unless schools were actually set up to be much safer.

I think the current cabinet would now rather have vulnerable people die more quickly. than go to the trouble and expense of all of that. So maybe a bit heartless in fact.

@Redolent

It’s frustrating that people still don’t grasp how the economy and public health are deeply intertwined. A virus making its way (unchecked) through the population with all its ramifications on staff sickness and the collapse of routine health services, people who aren’t able to work for months due to fatigue, which then has an economic impact. Mass redundancies in turn lead to an inability to pay for health services, mental health problem, social inequalities etc. You can’t think of one without the either.

An attempt at maximum suppression at the start the summer (delaying pub openings, a restriction on travel abroad, enforced quarantine and support for the airline industry, mass testing, support for isolation) and we would’ve been in a much stronger position now. There were points where we had as low as 500 cases a day in the whole of the UK.

Problem is Sunak jumped the gun with the recovery (EOHO etc) - understandable but premature. Now those same restaurants that were ‘helped out’ are having their opening hours restricted and will almost certainly be closed at some point over the coming months.

‘Zero covid’ may have been incredibly difficult to achieve, but a policy of maximum suppression really would’ve been helpful...

Again this confuses me. We could have got the numbers down really low, but then when you open up, the go up again. So what do you do then? That's a genuine question - no one ever seems to actually answer it. It just seems to be case of locking down and opening up over and over and over until...what? We all just commit suicide to finally be free of it?

Thedailycarbuncle I was sort of alluding to this and the need for post viral fatigue in covid being assessed as a percentage of cases ie 0.5% similar to the death rate and how it compares to other viruses. I don't suggest it does not happen. Just that it seems to be shouted out without context.

@Zxyzoey31

Thedailycarbuncle I was sort of alluding to this and the need for post viral fatigue in covid being assessed as a percentage of cases ie 0.5% similar to the death rate and how it compares to other viruses. I don't suggest it does not happen. Just that it seems to be shouted out without context.

The estimate is 10%.

It's much more than post viral fatigue. There's evidenced heart and lung damage.

I think Long Covid is what doctors are calling it.

Why would a NZ ‘circle the wagons’ approach to border control work here?

I’m not convinced as we don’t seem to be able to stop dinghies coming across the channel do we & the UK border force may have their hands full of EU trawlers after Dec 31st.

@SheepandCow

It's much more than post viral fatigue. There's evidenced heart and lung damage.

I think Long Covid is what doctors are calling it.

Other viruses also cause heart and lung damage. I have minor heart damage from measles. It's not 'long measles.'

We do need to co exist with the virus but the issue time and time again with this topic. There are lots of vunerable people that could be classed as essential workers: teachers, nhs workers, supermarket staff and so on. Not everyone is elderly or can’t work, lots of active people are still vunerable. Who pays for the shielding and for how long?
Is there an abundance of qualified people to replace them?
Then when the virus establishes itself further, more of these essential workers get sick and then you have less staff again. Society then doesn’t work as the normal you want ....

The virus needs to be at a manageable level for us to function as a society. We can just hide people away and let it rip. It’s just not that simple. It’s not flu and no one is immune apart from the small percentage that have antibodies and that’s not Probably permanent.

I’ve not got the answer either btw. The local Lockdowns aren’t working in my area but then a lot of people are still gathering in houses [and have given up with following guidance/ rules etc. confused]

I've been shielding since March. Stayed away from my parents, avoided shops, not seen anyone. I can go weeks and weeks without a conversation with anyone
I've not added to the issue, followed the guidelines etc
Why should I have to spend the next 6 months alone because people want to be able to live their lives, go shopping, go to the pub and not be inconvenienced ever so slightly as though nothing is going on? That's not really on

I mean people are talking about Christmas and whining about 6 people. Mine will be spent alone because again, I can't meet up with parents

To add I think the issue is people think oh I'm only bending the rules a little, doesn't matter
But how many thousands and thousands of others are doing that and then bang, cases up again. People aren't isolating with symptoms either