Everyone should get back to normal and just protect the elderly?

[terreyyy]

What's people's opinions on this?
Everyone get back to normal and if your elderly or vulnerable then shield or take precautions.
We just can't go on like this.
Should everything return to normal?

@YorkshirePuddingsGreatestFan

And it is totally unacceptable that shielders are being expected to put themselves at risk now. I’d reintroduce shielding on a voluntary basis, with full pay for those unable to work from home up to £2500 a month.

If it worked, I'd do it. I'd stay inside so my friends and family could get back to normal. But tens of thousands died while I was inside last time, why would this time be different?

I’d reintroduce shielding on a voluntary basis, with full pay for those unable to work from home up to £2500 a month.

But it's not all about money, although that's important.
It's about being able to see other human beings, have conversation and support; it's about mental health; it's about access to food and other shopping; it's about access to society and to being a contributor. It's not about being othered, infantilised, shut up and forgotten about, whilst watching everyone else being allowed to "get on with it"

There are loads of threads already on this...

I agree to an extent. The average age of covid death is 82. Our kids futures are being destroyed, every day they miss school is another step towards deprivation (where I am teaching at least).

Absolutely @FuzzyPuffling. That’s why I would absolutely reintroduce shielding on a voluntary basis and no one would be pressurised to do it.

While it is preferable imo to isolate individuals at risk for their safety than locking everyone at home, I would ideally like to see testing capacity used to allow shielders’ family and friends to visit safely.

Over 70's should shield. I went to Liverpool city centre last week and I was surprised how many eldetrly there were in shops, Wetherspoons and busses. My parents are over 70 and avoid these in a country that has very low covid rate and no restrictions.

I get that people are frustrated and wildly looking for solutions to their own personal misery. But isolating anyone for the sake of others isn't fair. No life is worth less than others.

I get what you're saying here but this can also be flipped on it's head.

Right now the young are being isolated for the sake of others, COVID poses no more risk to them than seasonal flu and yet their lives are being grinded to a halt for the sake of older people. They aren't living anymore, just existing, it definitely isn't fair to them either.

There is far too much ableism and ageism when it comes to cv. Horrible.

It’s not just older people who are at risk.

Just protect the elderly? Or do you mean the elderly, those with asthma or other health conditions, the obese, and pregnant women. What about those of African heritage? Where do you draw the line?

By protect, do you mean ask them to stay at home on their own? For how long? And where should their families go while they are isolating?

We are one community. However we act, we have to act together.

Hasn't this been done to death many times already? It doesn't matter what the minority of the public think. The Govt decide on what action to take and it is agreed by Parliament if it is to be law.

ohreallythen there is a huge difference between asking the vulnerable to self isolate for many months and asking people who may be carrying infection to self isolate for a couple of weeks

Well, we ARE taking precautions for my vulnerable DH - we aren't going to the shops or socialising. We both WFH. We're taking as much personal responsibility as we can.

However we have a child at school, so there is a risk. What should we do, deregister her? Mind you I suppose it would be a moot point if all the vulnerable and their families permanently shielded, because there wouldn't be enough teachers to keep the schools open.

If the government want elderly & vulnerable to shield, then they should pay them to & provide proper support for getting food delivered, medical matters, extra funding towards utility bills. It isn't cheap shielding at home, everything costs more, you have to pay delivery charges, be it from the supermarket, Amazon, Ebay or your local independent shops. I worked out that we spent over £150 a month on delivery charges during lockdown & ever since, not only that, everything you have delivered comes with packaging, our paper & cardboard bin is emptied once every 4 weeks but is completely full after just over 2 weeks mainly due to excess packaging on things that are delivered. We are told to avoid public transport for essential journeys, Taxis cost money. You want us to shield, then please sort out the services to be able to do so without putting us in a worse position than everyone else who isn't shielding.

@OhReallyThen

I get that people are frustrated and wildly looking for solutions to their own personal misery. But isolating anyone for the sake of others isn't fair. No life is worth less than others.

I get what you're saying here but this can also be flipped on it's head.

Right now the young are being isolated for the sake of others, COVID poses no more risk to them than seasonal flu and yet their lives are being grinded to a halt for the sake of older people. They aren't living anymore, just existing, it definitely isn't fair to them either.

Their lives don't matter more than the older generation. They can suck it up like the rest of us.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-cant-we-talk-about-the-great-barrington-declaration/amp

It doesn’t make sense to shield everyone when vast majority aren’t vulnerable. If we were hitherto in Eden with zero other illnesses and diseases and this was the first ever respiratory illness in the world, it would be more understandable. But 1400 people die every day in the U.K. from a smorgasbord of reasons, and stopping the world to accommodate one objectively not that deadly virus is absurd now that we know more about it ie average death age “with” covid is older than normal life expectancy in the U.K.

@Lucindainthesky

However we have a child at school, so there is a risk. What should we do, deregister her?

We have , we see little point wfm etc and sending our dc to school.

It’s not as simple as just locking down the old, the frail and the otherwise vulnerable, though. We all need to be doing everything we can to limit the spread of the virus and stop the hospitals filling up and/or loads of health workers getting sick. Every young, fit, unconcerned person who gets Covid could be part of a chain of infection leading to someone more susceptible (or just unlucky), even if they themselves don’t have a single symptom. And that person could end up needing a hospital bed.

If the NHS gets overwhelmed then every strata of society will be affected, not just those who are vulnerable to Covid. If every ICU bed is occupied in your city, if half of the nurses and doctors are knackered or sick, what type of care will you get if you have a stroke, or a ruptured cyst, or burst appendix? And right now is a high risk period because we are heading into flu season, so the hospitals will be busier than usual anyway.

Come the spring the pressure will ease a bit and we will be closer to having a vaccine. It’s simply a case of making it as hard as possible for the virus to spread until then.

during the Spanish flu the average life expectancy was 60 today people survive with many more illnesses for a lot longer. It could be argued that we shouldn't hold back people who are low risk from going about their lives because medical science has painted us into a corner. Catching a disease like covid is a natural part of life some are more dangerous than others. there is no nice way of saying this but there is a limit on how much can be done to preserve a life. The NHS has guideline on spending the government should look at how much this will cost our economy in the same way and make a hard nosed rational decision. That may be to say to the country lockdown is best (and properly enforce it China/Vietnam style) or it may be to look the 2% least healthy people in the eye and say sorry you aren't worth saving (which to be honest is what the back to normal people want).

So we took medical science giving us an aged population with many people surviving but compromised, we embrace foreign travel and globalisation allowing virus to spread. Now we need to make our next move. Either we ruin our economy/mental health but save some or we let it spread and hope it doesn't affect our granny or disabled relative whilst accepting 2% of the infected people will die (maybe more if the hospitals get overrun).

Neither is a great outcome, having a healthier younger and less globalised population would have helped though but we are where we are.

@AldiAisleOfCrap

That's great if homeschooling works for your family but it really wouldn't for us. DD is an only child and from a social and emotional point of view, really needs to be in school. She went 6 months over lockdown literally not seeing another child - I couldn't do that to her voluntarily. We have to take the risk.

@terreyyy

I don't have a clue about any solution to this ..this is just something I've seen people saying all over Facebook /Twitter I just don't see a way of this ever sorting itself out,I can't see a vaccine even next year. It's all just depressing

There's an easy solution then..... stop reading/believing/buying into what the twerps on social media post!

The elderly & vulnerable have just gone nearly 6 months with little or no medical treatment. Clinics cancelled, no face to face or home visits from doctors, treatment postponed. Mental health support has been withdrawn, waiting lists for essential surgery for conditions inuding cancer put on hold, CCG are making decisions against Nice guidelines to withdraw treatments which then mean patients suffer multiple other conditions that cost the NHS more money than the original treatment would have cost. The list is endless. We should be fighting against this but the elderly & vulnerable don't have much fight left in them, in real terms the government count them as disposable.

it may be to look the 2% least healthy people in the eye and say sorry you aren't worth saving (which to be honest is what the back to normal people want)

Don't be diagnosed with cancer during the pandemic then.

For all those on active treatment, including people with eminently curable, suppressable ones are ECV. And that viewpoint says you may as well die, because hospitals won't be safe, so it'll be uneconomic to use expensive treatments on you.

And the suspension of the screening programme also wouldn't matter, because even if something were found, you'll be ECV and may as well be dead

Is that really what anyone wants?

Their lives don't matter more than the older generation. They can suck it up like the rest of us.

I'm not saying they do. But realistically if it's a choice between total lockdown or lockdown the older generation why should the younger generation suffer a lockdown when they're realistically very safe? Let it get through younger people so they build some immunity, can also keep the economy going a little and have their life back, and then slowly open back up to older people as cases start to drop.