"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!

Fuck me-i'm 46! I can work at home (indeed have to as employer has made that decision for next 6 months). But I'm pretty fit-circuits, running, martial arts and if I am forced to stay home I do none of that and presumably my fitness goes down and my risk up?

Also, my kids have to stay home too? Or not? Because currently they are creating the most risk-particularly tbe 16 y/o with GCSEs next year. So what happens to their education if they can't go to school? And if they can how is me shielding in any way effective? I'm socially distant at my (outdoor) exercise class, never see anyone out running, and all our shopping is delivered atm. So I'm very low risk activity wise already!

I want to help lower the risk for society, but I think I am in the majority of people who are now wanting to be persuaded that any further restrictions will in fact be effective. The risk will otherwise be that the majority wont adhere, which is what we need.

I think a brief (2-3) weeks total and properly enforced lockdown with no exceptions save for essential workers would be more effective, followed by the current rules.

I think the title is misleading, I suspect it's a scenario they ran through to answer the question " should we just shield the vulnerable and let everyone else go back to normal"

The answer is clearly ...no, we can't shield all the people we would need to for this to work

Hahaha more bonkers than ever. Wtf. Who can take these things seriously anymore?

This is just a silly thought experiment.

What if... they modelled three situations:

-Nobody went into lockdown
-Half the country went into lockdown
-Everyone but strict keyworkers went into lockdown

And they found that the best outcome for the economy, amount of deaths, long term health etc was half the country going into lockdown.

If you were in charge, would you go for one of the worse options anyway, because it was fairer?

The government need to be more open with the public re risk. It really wouldn't take long to whip up a risk factor system whereby if you score highly you know you need to shield.

The research on obesity has been very clear but the government's stance on it has been awfully wishy-washy. I don't see why they can't just be HONEST for once!

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

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.

Why post about it then?

It just feels like shit-stirring, winding people up.

As a 48 year old with a 7 year old, how the fuck am I meant to shield unless they allow me to take my son out of school? He's already given the whole family a cold so he's clearly going to pass on Covid if he gets it!

I swear the bastards are being deliberately vague about all this so they can blame us when things go tits up.

I disagree. It's a suggestion that is being discussed. Therefore why shouldn't the discussion begin on here about it too?

I’m sorry but this sort of headline/article really annoys me!

It just feels inflammatory, that it’s being used to wind people up, or for click bait.

Obviously this is completely impossible and will never happen, so what is the point of reporting/printing it.

The media need to be more responsible for what they print, as they could send people over the edge! They need to just report facts, not what might or could happen.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

I disagree. It's a suggestion that is being discussed. Therefore why shouldn't the discussion begin on here about it too?

I know I don't have to read but I just think it's pointless as it's never going to happen. Are you that bored that you have to start a thread on it.

Maybe it is good that the public gets to hear of the crazy ideas being thrown around in university ivory towers.

Over 45? I've not read the whole thread but ha ha ha ha!

Well that sounds utterly fabulous, can all shield in Bermuda for instance??

**WE

@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 like this

Unless they want most of the kids to not go into school then sure, go ahead.
That being that a lot of parents are 45 or older. Same with teachers.
They are so determined to keep schools open and so this surely won't happen.

Well that's my workplace screwed, I'm the youngest at 47. We've stayed open throughout the whole shitshow so far as we're not geared up to WFH.

Of course it's ridiculous ...but I mean now it doesn't sound so good to everyone who have been shouting for weeks 'keep the vunerable at home so we can carry on with life' whenever they are now considered to be part of that vunerable group
Does it ?

@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.

@Cornettoninja if I am I am. What am I supposed to do, shield on the off chance there’s something wrong? If I knew I was vulnerable then that would influence my decision about whether or not to shield but as I don’t (and won’t unless I become ill) then nothing changes

This plus I’ve got 2 kids in a school of 1600 pupils so even if I’m a ticking time bomb if they get it, so will I, shielding or not. Even me being a big fatty the risk doubling is still only a very small risk. Not worth shielding for IMO.

The ides of shielding the over 45s is nothing to do with protecting those people, it's about protecting the NHS , keeping that running

@midgebabe

The ides of shielding the over 45s is nothing to do with protecting those people, it's about protecting the NHS , keeping that running

Apart from all those NHS doctors and nurses over the age of 45 coming face to face with Covid-19 everyday who presumably will have to soldier on even with their increased risk.

@midgebabe

The ides of shielding the over 45s is nothing to do with protecting those people, it's about protecting the NHS , keeping that running

If the NHS can’t function unless huge swathes of the country stay locked up in their houses it wouldn’t seem to be fit for purpose really

Well no, I suspect to make it work those people would also have to shield,,,which makes it unworkable , despite which people will continue to suggest just shielding the vulnerable and letting everyone else live normally

Christ on a bike. No. Just no.

I'm 45. I'm a healthy weight, I have an actve job in the open air. I'm as fit (fitter) than many people in their 20s. OH is 46, has a job where he is literally saving lives on every shift. We both play competitive sport 3 times a week....well, at the moment we're trying to.

It's laughable

No, no and no.

Over 45s are not "vulnerable" just because they are 45. It's slightly more nuanced than that.