What should be put in place for shielders if we go down lock vulnerable down and carry on

[Someonetakemebackto91]

We are a shielding family ( DD 7 ) is the vulnerable one.

I see more and more people are moving over to the idea it’s better to protect the vulnerable and allow the others to go back to semi normal and carry on until vaccine or herd immunity or whatever people think the outcome will be.

If this was even an idea there will have to be more support than a box of fruit delivered on a Monday.
If everyone can else can carry on as usual there should be

• job protection ( on the same level as non shielders, so basically can be use against them in the work place )

• full wage coverage

• for parent carers an increase in carers allowance. ( loss of respite as-well as increase in bills ) shielders only.

Seperate hospitals
Open the nightingale hospitals etc and use these got covid patients and have hospitals for the shielders to attend safety for medical treatment including transport.

• education for kids in shielding households needs to match full time education.

Thoughts ? What do you think they should do for shielders if they decide yo go down this route !

Free holidays and cash as rewards for staying at home to protect yourself and/or family members?

If the ECV are to shield once more then they need realistic and fair wages/benefits, priority access to online food deliveries, schemes for the delivery of medicines and other essentials and access to online leisure activities and mental health support.

Triangularbubble, we're talking about shielders here, a new defined ( and very varied) group, not generally children with SEN. Not denying that's an issue at all, but not the one we're discussing here.

-Ability to opt out of shielding without penalty on understanding that others will be prioritised for Covid related health care (except for those over state pension age)
-Make shielding a condition for receipt of the state pension for all receiving it
-Allow those living with those shielding for age alone to follow the rules for the rest of society as long as social distancing is broadly maintained within the household but expect household members of those following shielding advice for medical reasons to shield with no financial support (on the basis that the shielder is offered alternative accommodation that would allow the rest of the household to go about their lives)
-Review on 1st April and unless vaccine is available or imminent declare the vaccine a part of live and end shielding regardless of impact

If you have to stay in your house for months, there is so much more to it than just food shopping and getting medicine delivered. Considering things on this very superficial and simplistic level only doesn't take into account that the ECV group are part of society, not some other society. It's just too easy to say " oh give them a priority slot at Tesco and an online chat once a week and leave them to it". That's the sign of a very uncaring society. Once you start that level of callous othering you're on the road to ruin.

Nobody is shielding for age alone. Shielding is a list of very specific conditions; age is not one of them. The over 70s were deemed to be clinically vulnerable, not ECV.

Review on 1st April and unless vaccine is available or imminent declare the vaccine a part of live and end shielding regardless of impact

This bit for definite. I’m all for proper protection for shielders, including fair money for the whole household, for now but if there is no imminent vaccine then the virus is just a new risk we all will have to live with unfortunately. There has to be a time limit on protection.

And you'd really offer shielders alternative accommodation? Seprating them from their partners or families and support systems. Bit like prison then. Jeepers!

Allow those living with those shielding for age alone

?? there were no age categories for shielding

It is solely those with significant other medical conditions (eg most cancers, those who have had transplants etc)

There has to be a time limit on protection

Why?

Does someone's life really have a time limit as a matter of public policy?

@FuzzyPuffling

And you'd really offer shielders alternative accommodation? Seprating them from their partners or families and support systems. Bit like prison then. Jeepers!

I agree that’s really inhuman if it’s mandated. There should be the option of that for families that want it, and protection for the whole household for those who don’t want it.

@RoseAndRose

There has to be a time limit on protection

Why?

Does someone's life really have a time limit as a matter of public policy?

Because the type of protection we are taking about is quite extreme. That can’t carry on forever. Where would the money come from long term? What about people vulnerable to other diseases? Many reasons. What should be available long term is disability benefits if a person is deemed unable to live normally long term, same as everyone else. But not the enhanced protections discussed here.

@SexTrainGlue
Shielding needs to be about keeping the NHS functioning rather than trying to avoid every single death. We are in a pandemic and unfortunately that means some people will die and to try and pretend there are options in which deaths aren't inevitable is ludicrous. Shielding all of those of state pension age, who do not have to work for a living and who have a guaranteed income substantially higher than those of working age relying on benefits, will significantly reduce the demand on the NHS to the extent that it should be possible to offer treatment to all of those of working age.

Remove all children from the shielding list as the evidence no longer supports shielding children whatever their condition
Not true.
Also not as cut and dried as this presumes...e.g. we have been told that ds should be 'as shielded as possible' especially in certain conditions ...cases rising locally, positive cases in school (obviously we won't know either of these things if the Barrington gang get their way)

Blocks of subsidised flats available for those living with others to enable the rest of the household to continue to work and go to school etc/Allow those living with those shielding for age alone to follow the rules for the rest of society as long as social distancing is broadly maintained within the household but expect household members of those following shielding advice for medical reasons to shield with no financial support (on the basis that the shielder is offered alternative accommodation that would allow the rest of the household to go about their lives)
Ok - so I guess, ds and I would love out, in this scenario. What about elderly that live with their family who provide care? Single parents who are vulnerable?

Ability to opt out of shielding without penalty on understanding that others will be prioritised for Covid related health care
Hahahahahajaha....fucking hell.

This is absolutely the route we should be taking imo while leaving general restrictions at their current level.

I’d like to see shielders and their family members offered the opportunity to shield from Monday on full pay up to £2500 per month each.

Food deliveries should be provided and it should be made clear that shielders cannot be made redundant in a discriminatory way.

Imo this is how we will get through the winter without a lockdown that would be catastrophic for the economy.

There would though need to be a degree of compulsion though for those accepting furlough payments- I think figures show fewer than 50% of shielders complied fully last time. You would possibly need to implement fines and eventual withdrawal of funding from shielders repeatedly seen outside.

@Bupkis
Unfortunately some doctors are unable to consider the likely impact of continued isolation within children when considering the overall risk profile of shielding compared to getting on with things. While ending shielding of children may cost a handful (at the very most countrywide) of lives in terms of children dying of the virus it is likely to save a greater number of other lives in terms of the mental health impact and other effects of continued lockdown.

And those too disabled to work who are already struggling on ESA? Trust me, it’s nowhere near a living wage..

Right. That's me done.

Bye

It’s not going to keep the NHS going if you don’t enforce shielding & reduce the shielding criteria while allowing circulating levels of virus to take off.

They probably won’t die, but you’ll end up with an awful lot of CV & people over the age of 45/50 in hospital. There’s a very good reason why one of the rebuttals to the petition going around today is estimating the shielding group could be about 20-30% of the population and iSAGE used over 45s as one of their models.

Logistically HOW can it work.

You say separate hospitals, but if someone is asymptomatic how would they know and keep someone visiting that hospital safe? What about carers who go in? Do they have to shield too to enable them to go visit vulnerable? And then the carers families? I bet we are all within two or three steps of someone shielding or vulnerable, it simply wouldn't work.

@Ecosse
It would be completely wrong to offer a level of financial protection to those being shielded for their own benefit that is greater than that whose jobs have been destroyed for the supposed benefit of the country as a whole. Society needs to pay for the choices made by the government for the benefit of society but choices (that are entirely optional) made for the benefit of the individual should be paid for by that individual.

It does sound a bit like putting people on house arrest then insisting they should be grateful for it.

@Carrotgirl87
One option to provide care would be to dedicate entire blocks of flats to those shielding with those requiring care receiving care from others in the same block. This could also address the financial impact of shielding on those of working age as it would provide opportunities of work to those shielding. As those shielding shouldn't be having visitors those other considerations are irrelevant.

@StatisticalSense

Shielding is for the benefit of society in that is would allow the rest of us to get back to something more like normal and keep the economy going without having hospitals overwhelmed.

I don’t think shielders should be immune from redundancy but employers shouldn’t be allowed to make them redundant because of their shielding status.

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay

I agree that it would be difficult to stop the virus from reaching shielders if you just open everything up and go back to normal.

But I think keeping measures like social distancing and masks in place and restricting gathering sizes etc would be sufficient alongside shielding to prevent hospitals being overwhelmed.

How about making them wear a yellow star on their coat while you're at it!
A little social disruption for everyone is a small impact compared to locking people away.