"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!

Over 45s shielding? 😁
That's probably most of the Government.

But even someone with some health issues or is obese is still much much more likely to be fine than not. And even if not, surely shielding is not a proportionate response
Exactly, and unfortunately it is obese men, not obese women, who have the most increased risk. So locking up obese women is disproportionate.

@elfies

Bring in a strict set of rules and enforce them . Anyone breaking the rules shouldn't be fined , but put into lockdown. Then the folks being sensible could still have a life .....whatever age they are !

Put into lockdown how though? In a commandeered hotel? Or just send them home and tell them not to come out again?

Sage are a group of upto 25 scientists and experts who frequently brain-storm the various issues. This was probably just one idea put on the board, that or some journo made it up.

Also what about obese over-45s working in the NHS? If I would be putting myself at risk by leaving the house, presumably they are massively in danger and should be sent home ASAP.

Yep, I stay home and make everybody else stay home, too, avoid dying of C (my chance of dying after catching it is 0,012%) or any other illness or event that I might catch / meet outside.

But what if I break my neck slipping in the shower? Oh, of course, avoid showers.

Call that life? Because I don't.

SAGE has all sorts of scientist & OTHER experts in different fields - so I wonder who suggested this? & whether they were just working through different scenarios but not necessarily suggesting that this would happen
If it was the DM - well its not exactly a reliable source

@Poppingnostopping

herecomesthsun I agree with most of your suggestions, but not with complete online learning for students, as I think it's too isolating for them even in parental homes. That said, at our institution, a risk assessment is calculated so staff that are higher risk teach online. I think that's the best way to do it.

We have to accept though that it massively impacts the economy if fewer people move about buying things. if all the student hadn't returned to their uni towns, those towns would have economically suffered. We might feel ok about that now, but the effects of furlough/loss of jobs haven't truly been felt. Lots of over 45's are quite wealthy, they have higher salaries. If they are encouraged not to shop, use restaurants/go out for coffee, spend in their local areas (even if not in city centre work) then economically this would be devastating. A one off online shop from Waitrose doesn't begin to cover what my mum spends in an average week just pottering about in the local economy.

Re learning, we need to make as safe as possible and then as good as possible.

There are various ways of doing that. Zoom tutorials with 1-4 students, for example, could be excellent (and could be much better than lectures)

The social aspect for the poor students is unfortunate, we need to see how we can support them.

Also, I think that it would be very good to have generous sharing of on line resources by world class institutions right now.

Re shopping, Xmas is coming up. Huge problem / opportunity for retail business. We can't browse easily. However, we will really want to spoil ourselves and have a lovely time. There are certainly opportunities there to sell stuff to people at home.

I haven't broken a single rule yet, but I wouldnt obey this. Me and dh are 45. We have 4 kids, youngest is 6. It would mean writing her education off. I'm no more likely die now than if I was 42, 43 etc

I'm 61 and won't shield. I'm fit, healthy and extremely active, no way would I shield.

This is never going to happen. To be honest why start a thread about something so ridiculous?

I'm sure SAGEand other agencies have modelled all kinds of different scenarios This one just happens to have ended up in the papers

Of course it's not going to happen, honestly have we not got enough actual things to think about without wasting time on stupid stuff

Well, at least have an answer for the people who say “why can’t we just let the vulnerable shield and get back to normal”

@OneofPansPeople

It'll never happen. Firstly no one would actually have the balls to announce such a ridiculous policy and secondly they'd need riot police to enforce it.

Most of the riot police would be shielding

Crap like this is why people have problems listening to scientists. Most of SAGE hardly seem in the first flush of youth either.

UK flu season is usually December-ish to March-ish, with Jan and Feb being the worst IME. So even if you need to wait a few months for the flu vaccination, it's not "useless".

@lifesalongsong

I'm sure SAGEand other agencies have modelled all kinds of different scenarios This one just happens to have ended up in the papers

Of course it's not going to happen, honestly have we not got enough actual things to think about without wasting time on stupid stuff

Exactly. This story has been reported mainly in the right-wing press and it's part of a concerted effort to discredit government scientists IMO.

Title is totally misleading!

They haven't advised this at all. They looked at it as a possible policy then ruled it out as unworkable.

Get your bloody facts straight

You know, it might not have been such a daft idea after all (read on, I'm not saying we should do it).

Don't look at it as an alternative to what we have now, look at it as an alternative to full lockdown.

Let's say they have done some calculations, and realised that actually, you can get R to safe levels whilst only locking down 40% of the population rather than the 90% or so we had before (I'm making the exact figures up, obviously). Wouldn't it make sense to lock down the 40% that are most likely to end up in hospital or require costly resources if they get sick? They may have also worked out how many nurses/shop workers/ etc are under and over a certain age and how many they can afford to do without, which age groups are most likely to be able to continue working from home, etc.

Obviously, it won't work, because no-one wants to be in the 40% that are locked down and it would be too complicated a policy to sell to the public, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't actually make sense both from a health and an economic point of view, if it was what was needed to avoid a full lockdown.

@belowradar

The article talks about the reasoning being the risk of long Covid in the over 45s. I had something exactly like long Covid a few years ago following a terrible chest infection. I first got ill in February (couldn't leave house for several weeks, in bed, needing ventolin to breath despite not being asthmatic, then could barely walk down road for weeks), and was still coughing and regaining strength and stamina in August. This phenomenon, while horrible and serious, can happen with other viruses, not just coronavirus.

Same. I've had chest infections and flu and some have taken months to fully recover from going back to my teens.

I refused to shield last time. I wasn't staying locked up with an hour of freedom outside. I hadn't committed a crime.

Because of my crap. immune system I was always at risk of catching whatever from people who were ill and still going out. I always got on with things, took whatever I could do to protect me and cross my fingers.

And before anyone says I wouldn't say this is I had it, icu experience etc, well you would be extremely wrong.

Schools would definitely close then...three-quarters of the staff (teaching and non-teaching) at my school are over 45. I'm 56 and I'm the Deputy 😂

And our Head is 52 🤷‍♀️

I am 57, dh just turned 60 ,both healthy and exercise, youngest dd is 16 so we live in household of others who go out and about. There is no way i will shield, we are still both working and to be honest i would be worried about my mental health if i was shut in all winter with dh.

It wouldn't be practical for all over-45s to shield, alongside all of their families who would also have to shield with them, unless they were able to live separately. It would affect a huge proportion of the population and essential services would grind to a halt.

This is why people need to stop banging on about shielding the vulnerable while everyone else gets on with life as usual. It simply can't be done.

Come to think of it, last school I worked in most staff and pupils would love the over 45's not there. The school would still be able to open without the slt they all hate lol.

I'm 45 there is no way in hell I will be shielding, I have an 8 year old dd and 38 year old dh, I can't just stay at home I mean wtf!