"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!

@midgebabe

I know the the death rate does not go up drastically at 45. However it goes up enough so that if things went back to normal enough of them would end up i hospital so that the NHS would hav would be in trouble again ...

But they will be getting looked after by doctors and nurses and auxiliaries largely over 45. Makes no sense. I have relatives over 45 in the NHS who would be happy to be furloughed and paid to stay at home until this is all over, but that isn't going to happen as the NHS would collapse. In the first wave, many in the NHS caught it, felt dreadful, got better. Some staff over 60 at my relative's hospital died. That is why a much higher threshold for age is required. That is why working age is relevant to the threshold for shielding based on age.

2/3rd of households have someone over 45 in them
It's unworkable.

I predict this is one of a range of options and deliberated floated in Mail/Sun etc as a public taste test on the concept, in order to claw back to break us in to accept something that seems less extreme.

@MrsFezziwig

If it means we get rid of Boris and Piers Morgan I’m prepared to take one for the team.

Brilliant

@midgebabe

I know the the death rate does not go up drastically at 45. However it goes up enough so that if things went back to normal enough of them would end up i hospital so that the NHS would hav would be in trouble again ...

Which kind of comes back to my point, if the NHS can’t actually provide treatment for such a large proportion of the population, what is the actual point of it?

Don't the data show rises in risk for men after 55 and women after 65? So the 45 year threshold for women is including 20 years of women not at high risk.

I think the government would have a better chance of getting shielding based on age accepted if they set the threshold a lot higher, e.g. 65 and even then they will encounter some resistance, but I think if it meant shielders had access to regular online groceries and prescription delivery then they would be more likely to agree, especially with addition of daily exercise allowed etc.

For “some resistance” read “almost universal resistance”. Could you be any more patronising? I’m presuming you’re about 15 if you think the the average 65 year old’s idea of heaven is having their groceries and prescriptions delivered (assuming they even have a regular prescription, which speaking personally I don’t).

The point of the NHS is that under normal circumstances it provides some of the most cost effective health services for the whole population in the world.

There is a point that too many people have taken it for granted for too long and are reluctant to pay an extra penny in the pound taxes to help fund it better

There is also a point that too many big pharma etc are egging the government to cut money for aspects of the nhs that don't bring much financial reward to those big organisations ( social, preventative and mental health ) and as a population we either don't care enough or don't have enough of an impact on the government to get that changes

I'd be completely screwed, I'm 39, DD is 14, DS is 12, 40 minute drive to school from our village with no bus stop nearby, supermarkets miles away and DH is the only one who drives and is 51.
As he said, fuck that.

Lets not forget whether we are old or young fat or thin only a very miniscule number of people who catch corona virus actually die from it. Many more people die from the flu and pneumonia each year than from corona virus..............should we lock up all over 45s every winter so they cant catch the flu or pneumonia. I am 70 and I for one will not be shielding. I will be sensible and not mix in groups or go to the supermarket when it is busy. If you are scared to live you may as well be dead.

Im over 65 perfectly fit and healthy always been slim never smoked,walk miles.All limbs and bits working well and apart from my womb and ovaries i havent lost any body parts..

There is no way i would stay indoors for months or weeks on end getting my shopping delivered,and nor would many others i know of my age group.Looking at some of the obese smokers i see who obviously live on junk food 20 or 30 years younger than i, id say they are far more unhealthy than i am.I do not want to spend the rest of my life shielding indoors alone thank you,ill decide on my risk not Sage scientists or useless Johnson.

It's nothing to do with anyone's personal risk of death

It's risk of millions of people with your risk all getting ill at once and overwhelming services

A tiny percentage of millions is a lot of people, even if it's not you

I think it has come to the stage where government say we have given you the information on how to protect yourself, it is now time for you take responsibility and all they do is post Covid daily figures. It is time for us to take up looking after our own personal welfare.

My husband and I have done that right through since March. We don't go out except to work and we work together and had one staff member who worked through: two others we had to put on furlough. When the furlough staff came back to work in a social distancing environment we talked to them about their responsibility to look after themselves, family and work colleagues.
This is not going to go away and more people are going to die from cancer and heart conditions than Covid.

People need to realise the life is change and we all need to take responsibility, wear masks, clean hands .........just breath and take precautions to look after each other.
Wishing you Aroha (Maori for Love)
Kiwi @ heart and wish I was there

@midgebabe the idea can still fuck off

[quote countrygirl99]@midgebabe the idea can still fuck off[/quote]
This!

it waS 50 last week would not bother about it

I am in total agreement with that. Just stressing that anyone who says " just protect the vulnerable " is actually saying " lock up the over 45's" not "lock up a few thousand very frail people " ( I don't agree with that either to be fair )

There are people who want the vulnerable locked up and assume that's not them because they are fit hand healthy

I'm not that age yet but 45 - 65 year olds are in their prime surely? Making managerial decisions and becoming politicians etc, not sure how well the country would do with them all sitting at home.

I am being more damaged by the rules than the virus.
I'm 56 and will not be locked down or shielding.

It is unworkable for lots of reasons, which is why it won’t happen. But drawing the line at that sort of level of vulnerability, might well be the reality of ‘shield the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with their lives’ if we don’t want the healthcare system to get over burdened with covid patients.

I work admin in a GP surgery, both doctors, both nurses and 4 of the 6 admin team are over 45, DO WE CLOSE THEN?

Aren't most of the government over the age of 45? Perhaps there is a silver lining after all. No, it's just plain bonkers. Most people of this age group, particularly those in their late forties, are still in the prime of life but also have many years experience. In other words, the very people who are vital to the economy.

@thea543

Lets not forget whether we are old or young fat or thin only a very miniscule number of people who catch corona virus actually die from it. Many more people die from the flu and pneumonia each year than from corona virus..............should we lock up all over 45s every winter so they cant catch the flu or pneumonia. I am 70 and I for one will not be shielding. I will be sensible and not mix in groups or go to the supermarket when it is busy. If you are scared to live you may as well be dead.

Exactly The worldwide death toll hit over a million today which is genuinely awful and every death is 1 too many. That number is 4% of the total number of people who have had a positive test though. 4%. And yes I'm aware some people do have longer-term after effects. But to tell people over that age to shield is just unworkable.

Well If stupid people didnt get so close to others it wouldnt spread so god damn fast would it. I was cleaning my trolly before I went in shop and i kid you not, felt something touch my back, bloke sanitizing his hands was virtually in my pocket. I told him he was too close, it's ok was his reply. I also asked a woman in tkmax please dont get too close, well after a mouthful from her, the husband chipped in with piss off( in front of their children) apparently its fine with mask and its not two meters it's one, which is wrong wrong wrong. Its bloody two only one if two is not possible. Get the hell away from me

I’m guessing that most MPs will have fun then

DP is late 40s and we have a young child. I am a primary teacher of 7/8 year olds and, in our area, I’d say 70-90% of parents of primary age children are now 45+.