@SqidgeBum
Here is what I dont understand.
To keep vulnerable people safe, vulnerable people who are being told to shield, we all have to live by restrictions and we are being told those restrictions are going to be increased. Surely if the vulnerable are shielding, they wont be in softplays or on the high street or going for dinner.
Or am I supposed to not go to see my family, go to softplay, feel bad for going shopping, go for dinner, so they can go out without fear of being infected? I sit in so they can go out?
Why are we all not living? Is it some form of equality thing? I honestly dont understand. I sat in throughout the whole of lockdown, as did majority of us. I dont know anyone who is highly vulnerable. I dont see any old relatives because they are shielding by choice. Most of us sat at home during lockdown, and we are still here, so what is the benefit of doing it again?
Firstly, because we're
not doing all this just to keep vulnerable people safe - we're doing this to keep
everyone safe - from all the things that would happen if we let the virus spread widely, fill up hospitals and so on. This is something the government haven't emphasised nearly enough.
Secondly, because shielding has stopped and vulnerable people are not safely at home, they're out in the community carrying out all sorts of vital jobs. They're not all frail 90 year olds or people with advanced cancer; there are vulnerable people of all ages out there. People with kids at school, people who are kids at school. Teachers, surgeons, social workers, cleaners, scientists, waitresses, plumbers, nurses, checkout operators, care workers... people medically vulnerable to covid are spread throughout our society, inextricably linked with everyone else.
Now you may not care about their actual survival as individuals compared to your own family's, but it makes sense to care about whether they are still able to carry out their jobs as normal, and aren't ending up in hospital (along with quite a few people who aren't known to be vulnerable but who could end up in hospital anyway). The only way to be sure of that is to keep the rates of infection in the community as low as possible.
We just need to keep infection levels at a stable level where as a society they don't cause too much disruption, in a way that also keeps as much as possible of the economy going. That's in everyone's interest - not just the people who are likely to become the most ill. So yes, we're going to be constantly adjusting - opening up, then closing down if infection levels start to go up fast again, then opening up again. Don't make the mistake of thinking any of this would be able to stop if we just decided sod it, let vulnerable people get it. We'd still have to work to keep a lid on infections, because as a society we just can't afford the consequences of that much illness all at once.