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 !

You realise this is pretty much the fight the Cabinet are having internally right now. Those who worry first about the economy and those who worry first about the vulnerable, in a situation where we STILL don't know exactly how vulnerable most people are or are not, or how much a crashing economy will also kill. It's no wonder the government sometimes seems to be fumbling...

ONS have published some interesting information about ECV. Actually 15% live with kids under 16 and about a quarter worked prior to shielding.

So in other words @Northernsoulgirl45, three quarters of shielders are retired or not working and 85% do not have school age DC?

Still potentially 328 thousand families with school age kids is alot of extra support required to enable these kids to continue to receive an education. Add on to this the shielded children.
In our case we have 3 children in three different establishments.
Providing support for shielding families is never going to be simple.
We are lucky as my ecv dh can wfh so no need for any furlough support but I can't wfh so maybe he should go and live in a flat along with all the other pesky ECV who don't live alone.

Also 3/4 live with other people.

90,000 were themselves children

(though they’ve revised the paediatric list considerably by individual review over the summer, so current number could be very different)

So has any one that wants us to shield

worked out how the carers that come in are going to keep us safe while numbers rise since carers be back to normal and numbers rise

how we go to essential appointments lot go by public transport as no choice

Also in my house has 2 Shielders (Both undrr 18 )and myself who is just vulnerable how my house set up can't separate.

Means that 2 can't work one as a carer and one in police and he won't be the only police officer .

[quote StatisticalSense]@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.[/quote]
Where are we finding these mythical empty blocks of flats for shielders to move into?

Cohort study of 1.3 million residents in Greater Glasgow & Clyde (UK’s largest health authority area)...Of these, 32,533 (2.47%) in the official ‘shielding’ category but a further 347,374 (26.41%) were classified at moderate risk. Compared to low risk, the shielded group had a higher risk of infection and death associated with Covid19. The moderate risk group had intermediate (medium) risk of infection & death compared to the general population, but similar death rate to those classified as shielding.The moderate risk group made up a higher proportion of deaths. If we want to separate and protect higher risk groups from hospital admission and Covid19 related deaths, this is not just those who were recommended to shield during the early stages of the pandemic. It is actually over one in four of us. Linda Bauld (chair of public health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh)

ie - if the idea is to 'protect the vulnerable' - we are going to have to get a bigger boat.

I can't believe how many people are quite happy to just shut away members of society, simply because they have a medical condition or because they are older. Well, it's how we've dealt for centuries with those with physical or mental disabilities. It's only during my lifetime that we've started making any effort to enable them to belong to society. So hardly surprising that so many people are advocating this (confident in the knowledge that it won't apply to them).

Make shielding a condition for receipt of the state pension for all receiving it No need. Widely publicised criteria for eligibility for Covid treatment which excludes the extremely vulnerable does the trick quite well.

Where are we finding these mythical empty blocks of flats for shielders to move into?

I don't know, it's a tricky one. I guess we could build camps of some sort, where you could have a concentration of people who fit the criteria? I don't know if anyone has thought of that before, but I mean.... what could possibly go wrong?!

Can't believe the responses here. Don't people realise how many lives have been ruined by these restrictions? I didn't see you complaining when they condemned people to solitary confinement for the first few months. Oh, but that's just people vulnerable for reasons other than covid, they don't matter. Fine to torture them. And demand to be paid for shielding, what those who have lost their jobs because of lockdown, oh they don't matter they can just rely on state benefits.
To believe this life is worth living is a privileged position. Death is better than what is being inflicted on so many people now.

Why are people suggesting full pay? I live in a household. Should dh be paid? Ds? Should dd stay home from school indefinitely?

It’s all crap and the message should simply be, “Dear X, you are more at risk from Covid. You may want to take extra precautions” - just as someone undergoing chemotherapy is advised to avoid sick people/public transport/planes/cinema etc.

And what’s this “carers” and “food parcels” business? If you were disabled/ill pre-Covid you would presumably have had assistance. If you are only a “Covid shielder” (as I am) you are not suddenly a Victorian lady lying weakly on a chaise longe. I don’t need care or food parcels. I was at work and in and out of shops just before lockdown. It’s just that I am likely to be felled if I get Covid.

I am surprised at how some people have now cast themselves as disabled, when they are not. People I know in real life who were told to shield are not like this. It is a bit offensive, tbh, people demanding special this and special that. Covid is a bastard and I feel very nervous, but I do not think I’m at the top of the tree entitlement wise.

What a vile, revolting thread!
So much selfishness and inhumanity!

This thread gets worse as it goes on.

Are employers going to continue to pay full pay for the next 6 months?

My niece is mid thirties. Got made redundant a few weeks back. Has 2 autoimmune diseases, one in the process of being treated. There is no way she could shield for months on end just so everyone else can 'get on with it.'
There does seem to be a theme of ''I'm alright Jack" going on here.

So everyone should stay at home for months and we should shut down the economy then @PinkAndFabulous?

@Ecosse

So everyone should stay at home for months and we should shut down the economy then *@PinkAndFabulous*?

Well obviously as there are only 2 choices allowed, I'm afraid.

Its a totally binary choice, you have to get into your correct box, no room for nuance here.

By and large it is not the shielded suggesting full pay and food parcels. I certainly don't want them. But if wider society wants to lock up a significant number of people for 6 months AND expects them to comply, then anyone without a significant safety net will say bollocks to it and take their chances.

And some will catch Covid and clog up ambulances and hospital beds and mortuaries. And all the lovely 'normal' people won't be able to get an ambulance for Uncle George when he has a stroke or a bed for little Timmy when he gets appendicitis. Or the unlucky totally healthy who get Covid badly and die at home because 111 says they're fine because they're not yet turning blue.

But if wider society wants to lock up a significant number of people for 6 months AND expects them to comply, then anyone without a significant safety net will say bollocks to it and take their chances.

But wouldn't you WANT to protect yourself from catching the virus, especially if you're at higher risk of complications? You make it sound like you are forced to shield.

You may decide that the risk of death is less problematic than the risk of homelessness

You may decide that you would rather live what you have of life left then spend it locked away... I can see this being particularly tempting for older people

I think there are different types of shielders, as with everything.

There are the hang it, I don’t care types, who don’t realise that they may want to get out and live their life, but if they get ill they will be potentially occupying a hospital bed for ages. It’s not about protecting them personally , it’s about keeping the system running.

Then there are the super shielders, demanding that they have all sorts of adjustments that were never available to compromised people before Covid times. I strongly suspect that a lot of these are not even “official” shielders, but have latched onto the term “extremely vulnerable” and seem to actually have extreme health anxiety.

Third group are somewhere on the scale of scared to terrified of virus, but know that hiding is not practicable when you have a family and that pie in the sky ideas of isolation or special times at the shops or going on the bus (!!??!!) are ludicrous.

@Sunflowers247

But if wider society wants to lock up a significant number of people for 6 months AND expects them to comply, then anyone without a significant safety net will say bollocks to it and take their chances.

But wouldn't you WANT to protect yourself from catching the virus, especially if you're at higher risk of complications? You make it sound like you are forced to shield.

Nobody wants to shield, it's shit. But most would probably choose to if they could, at least for a short period. But if they have to choose between taking their chance with the virus or not being able to pay the bills/feed their families, what do you think they will do?

Even if people can afford to shield, they might choose not to because they have a 'seize the day' mentality. Or because they're worried about the impact on those that have to shield with them. Or because they found it too hard last time - 4 months of isolation was pretty tough.