"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!

The primary risk group is older men - 55+, particularly those who are carrying extra weight.

Shield them. 🤷‍♀️

Nope. I'm a zero hours "contract" nursery assistant, I've already lost out on almost £1000 the past few months because of constantly having to take my.kids taken out of school to quarantine whilst we wait for the negative result of their winter fucking cold. I don't work, there's no back up for me. I had to end up going for this zero hours contract last year as it was ideal.for my family life. Pre-covid, the role was in constant high demand. Now I'm frantically.job searching again for something contracted and permanent and therefore protected, but, who the fuck is going to hire a parent right now? We just get constantly called to pick up our kids.

@Boredsilly and that's exactly how everyone who was young and shielding felt.. I'm 36 and had to shield. Well not by law but I didn't want to risk going out

So for anyone who says why can't the vulnerable just stay home, that is why!

They are pointing out that the vulnerable are a large group of us.

Well we are in our 50s and wont be shielding Im afraid .The Virus is to be feared obv ,but if we cant go out our lives wouldnt be worth living!This is ridiculous and unneccessary

I think it would be a great idea because my sister would have to shield and I wouldn’t and I’d have hours of fun winding her up about it.

No bloody way! I've had covid, have had far worse colds quite frankly. Dp is in 50's his only moan is his smell never fully returned. Neither of us had breathing problems or even a cough. We have these things called jobs and something called a mortgage you know. Over 70's fair enough but I've got too much living to do to be locked up.

@movingonup20 so do the extremely vulnerable have mortgages and jobs and family and want to live

@MrsMayo

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

I think some people just enjoy stirring the big ol pot of indignation and watching the drama It's the equivalent of letting your dog shit on a path, then hiding in a bush to watch everyone step in it

I think some people just enjoy stirring the big ol pot of indignation and watching the drama

Either that or they are simply trying to discredit scientists for some reason known to themselves.

@movingonup20

No bloody way! I've had covid, have had far worse colds quite frankly. Dp is in 50's his only moan is his smell never fully returned. Neither of us had breathing problems or even a cough. We have these things called jobs and something called a mortgage you know. Over 70's fair enough but I've got too much living to do to be locked up.

So you can say no for you but fine for others, and you get to draw the line? You can fuck off quite frankly.

And this is why shielding just the vulnerable whilst the rest of us get on with things wouldn’t work.

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.

All right for them to do it though, eh?

It makes me laugh when the suggestion is that larger numbers of people are locked down there is an uproar, but having vulnerable people, many of whom have active lives, shield for as long as is necessary to let everyone else carry on is entirely ok.

They can cock off. Our age group have to work else the country will grind to a halt

Anyway a lady never admits her age so I shall say I'm 40 ;)

All right for them to do it though, eh?

It makes me laugh when the suggestion is that larger numbers of people are locked down there is an uproar, but having vulnerable people, many of whom have active lives, shield for as long as is necessary to let everyone else carry on is entirely ok.

That’s not what I’m saying and you know it. That situation is completely different to shielding over 45s who may or may not have health problems. If I had serious issues then yes, I would most likely shield. As I presume I don’t then I won’t.

I'm mid fifties and not doing this! Ridiculous. Plus I have to work and buy food and hate on line shopping!
Who would police this then?

If they would actually pay me for it, fine
But I have bills to pay and food to buy and if I don't work, I don't get paid. I can't afford to isolate.

What’s your link for this OP? 🤨. Or just bored so a bit goady this fine Saturday morning?

from what I'm reading, SAGE discussed the idea but rejected it for kinds of reasons ppl are saying here.

It is RIGHT that SAGE discussed the idea. They should not reject every idea without discussion.

Also, shielding has always been voluntary not compulsory in UK. Most members of SAGE are themselves age 45+. Of course they appreciate all the issues mentioned here.

I'm 48, a parent to a 6yo and 10yo (plus 4 adult children) grandparent to a 2yo.

I've also done the risk calculator thing and am at very low risk, as I am normal weight, no under lying conditions etc

@PinkSparklyPussyCat but at 45 your creeping into the age group where chronic conditions start emerging. You could well be walking round with an as yet undiagnosed condition that puts you in the at risk category.

Based purely on numbers and data if the aim is to preserve health care resources and we take the view that isolating potential admissions is better than suppression of the virus amongst the whole population then you just fit into the category you fit into without consideration of personal circumstance.

I don’t agree with this and suspect this is a wind up but it does illustrate that some people don’t realise what isolating the ‘vulnerable’ actually means.

I recall that the death figure rose substantially from around 20k to 40k (approximately) once community deaths were added in. 20k in a couple of months was enough to have the NHS and government shitting themselves. If we implement the method of isolating only known vulnerable groups we still have an awful lot of people who are susceptible to needing intervention and I suspect that would still be enough to push the NHS very near to breaking point.

I'm only 41, but and at a greater risk than my colleagues a few years older than me, because I have health conditions they don't. Yet this recommendation is that they shield and I don't, yay!! My school would have to shut though, all the senior leadership team are over 45, lol (not far over, but they are over). And because we're a relatively nice school to work at, people don't leave, so we've got a higher proportion of over 45s than any other school in the area.

Just released!! A photo of the members of SAGE. Patrick Vallance second from the left at the back and Chris Whitty second from the right.

I'm 48, overweight with rheumatoid arthritis. Like fuck will I shield if asked - apart from anything else I live in a small 2 bed flat with DH and DD 23 so it'd be impossible. What planet are these people living on?!

If you are told to shield because you are 45+ this puts you at some risk "medically" regardless of how fit and healthy you are surely?

Being "at risk" shouldn't be a blanket policy because well blanket policies never take into consideration individual needs.

Those at risk and working shouldn't automatically be sent home. Instead the company and person should make risk assessments just like in any other medically related working life situation.

And tbh, if I was still working for someone I would have loved the blanket policy. Would have questioned the hell out of it and driven the boss a bit crazy though. I could have still done my job but the blanket policy would have had me at home on full sick pay lol.