"All over 45s to shield" - one of SAGEs suggestions

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

Bonkers. Loads of parents of young kids are 45+. So all those kids stuck indoors/no school.

Massive amount of employees who can't work from home being (What?) Furloughed?

How many teachers/TAs/doctors/nurses/childminders are over 45? Tons!

I'm 45 and there's no way on earth I'm going to shield - DH is 66 and says the same!

I think the majority of people would feel like that so unless they are going to criminalise leaving your home over the age of 45 then it really isn't going to work.

A 45 year old who is a healthy weight, or overweight but not obese, with no health issues is low risk. I think the NHS could have a simple calculator based on the risk tables, but 45 and healthy to shield is ridiculous in my opinion.

I would suggest that what they have done is work out who has to shield if we want to follow the approach of shield the vulnerable so that others can carry on as normal...which some people have suggested as the best approach

If you run the sums ( I did a simple calculation myself last week ) under the assumption that you want to limit the number of hospital beds occupied by covid patients so that NHS services are not disrupted then you discover that you have to shield people over a certain age / covid age. ( I estimated 50 to 55 , looks like sage say 45 )

Having done that calculation, it's pretty clear that the suggestion of shield the vulnerable is stupid

I think every single living person should stay at home always in case they die from one of the billion things that might kill them, live to 100 and then say I’m so glad I did nothing as I got to live all that time doing nothing and going no where bonkers!

LOL! Im 47. I was about to run a marathon in April (it wsa cancelled obvs!) No underlying health conditions, not quite marathon fir any more but still quite fit and healthy!!! Im also an NHS clinician with kids. We would have no one left in our menatl health nhs team hardly if all us old buggers were sent home to shield LOL!

Well that would probably be the fast way to bring the entire country to a standstill! Perhaps this will stop the people who continually say just shield the vulnerable and let the fit and healthy crack on!

Fuck that. I would happily riot if ordered to shield.

Hahahahaha

No.

Ofgs it was one scenario that was considered. In the same way that whenever you have some sort of crisis you look at all the options and then work out which ones are realistic. It doesn't mean it was a recommendation or was ever likely to happen. But it does illustrate that "shield the vulnerable and everyone else carry on as normal" isn't realistic.

I think they come up with these suggestions/ideas which are supported by the science, after all they are scientists. Such ideas are like hypotheses to a science experiment and often don’t take into consideration the affects to people or the economy. I expect many many of these hypotheses are out there and don’t become public. I think we have more chance of the government doing a countrywide lockdown than an over 45 lockdown because if they did an over 45 lockdown the country would grind to a halt. For example my ds primary school would have 3 teachers!

Ridiculous suggestion.

Or is this a good way to provide work for all young people who've been made redundant?

I'm mid 50s and am not in fear of my life. I'm more scared of being told to stay home and do nothing /see nobody for months on end.

Ofgs it was one scenario that was considered

Yes I know.

It doesn't mean it was a recommendation or was ever likely to happen

I didn't suggest that it was.

Never going to happen.

45? I could understand 65 but not 45.

A 45 year old with a bmi of 20 or average would be better equipped to fight covid than an obese 30 year old......

@SandysMam

I think every single living person should stay at home always in case they die from one of the billion things that might kill them, live to 100 and then say I’m so glad I did nothing as I got to live all that time doing nothing and going no where bonkers!

I think this has to be one of the most sensible posts I’ve read on here in ages! High 5! So true

@Reallybadidea

Ofgs it was one scenario that was considered. In the same way that whenever you have some sort of crisis you look at all the options and then work out which ones are realistic. It doesn't mean it was a recommendation or was ever likely to happen. But it does illustrate that "shield the vulnerable and everyone else carry on as normal" isn't realistic.

This And what @midgebabe said

I have seen the idea of shield the vulnerable, let everyone carry on as normal so much....and it is an awful idea. Independent Sage look at all the scenarios.

There have been several studies (as yet not peer reviewed) looking at Covid at a population level comparing those included in shielded criteria and those not...Devi Sridhar linked to one yesterday which had findings showing
"75% of deaths were associated with moderate risk criteria for which shielding was not advised. >25% of entire population would have needed to be effectively shielded to prevent >80% of deaths."

The definition of who is vulnerable to this virus is why they have to look at all the (even the extreme) possibilities.

@midgebabe

I would suggest that what they have done is work out who has to shield if we want to follow the approach of shield the vulnerable so that others can carry on as normal...which some people have suggested as the best approach

If you run the sums ( I did a simple calculation myself last week ) under the assumption that you want to limit the number of hospital beds occupied by covid patients so that NHS services are not disrupted then you discover that you have to shield people over a certain age / covid age. ( I estimated 50 to 55 , looks like sage say 45 )

Having done that calculation, it's pretty clear that the suggestion of shield the vulnerable is stupid

This. I think what the make the vulnerable shield and let everything else go back to normal people tend to assume is that the shielding list will be the same as last time. They forget that your chance of needing hospitalisation (and taking up a hospital bed) is a combination of your individual risk of getting that ill and your chance of catching it. So on a population level if we want to increase the chances of people getting it we need to have a lower threshold for the shielding group in order to be able to cope with the number of people who would be in hospital.

And it won’t work because you’d need people to actually adhere to it and I think a lot of these people won’t see themselves as being g at increased risk.

@SandysMam

I think every single living person should stay at home always in case they die from one of the billion things that might kill them, live to 100 and then say I’m so glad I did nothing as I got to live all that time doing nothing and going no where bonkers!

Yeah, well done. Hilarious.

Sandysmam It's the only way really isn't it?

What planet are these people on, that make such suggestions?

it does illustrate that "shield the vulnerable and everyone else carry on as normal" isn't realistic.

It's clear that that wouldn't work anyway, as covid is spreading among younger people already.

Load of bollocks. I'm over 60 and certainly would never shield

And it won’t work because you’d need people to actually adhere to it and I think a lot of these people won’t see themselves as being g at increased risk.

I know people who have due to very serious medical problems and it was definitely the right thing for them to do. However personally I wouldn't do it as I (presumably) don't have have the same level of risk.

If they implemented this as a policy then virtually all of the government would have to shield.

It won't happen. I'm 54. I won't shield.

I’d be the only person left in my office!