Why can’t we shield the vulnerable?

[Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow]

Can anyone tell me why this wouldn’t work?

It’s been dismissed out of hand by the government as apparently it would still spread. As far as I can see, it’s spreading anyway - maybe restrictions only work for so long and we have non compliance?

But can’t we throw a pile of money at the issue (which would still be less than we currently are spending). Segregated medical appointments/dental etc. Home delivery o iu for shielders. Basically what we did in March but to the vulnerable or vulnerable households.

My mum is elderly and is pretty much shielding until a vaccine anyway. It’s dismal. The sooner the less vulnerable of us get it, then the sooner we can achieve some kind of community immunity.

We would have covid hospitals only - we would actually use them. We would still have restrictions so it didn’t spread so quickly but we wouldn’t paralyse whole sectors.

I appreciate long covid is a thing - but so is most chronic fatigue after a virus (I have had it).

The real issue might be households where the elderly lived with the young. Or the highly vulnerable. My friend is in this category and has spent months shielding. It’s dismal.

If we had adopted this strategy slowly from April we could have avoided hitting flu season.

People go on about antibodies but T cell immunity is repeatedly ignored and the cases where people demonstrate symptoms twice are something like five.

I just can’t believe we are going to save more lives with the current strategy compared to a change of tactic. Thousands will die through other causes as it is.

[Haffdonga]

Because many vulnerable people live with non vulnerable people.
Because many vulnerable people need to be looked after by non vulnerable people.
Because many vulnerable people need to go to appointments and see doctors in contact with other non vulnerable people.
Because many vulnerable people want or need to live a relatively normal life, see friends and family, go to work or take their children to school in the world with other non vulnerable people.

[RoseTintedAtuin]

Apart from the fact that ‘immunity’ from catching the virus seems unlikely to weak (possibly lasting a few months) therefore is not a realistic plan, what you are suggesting requires segregation based on age, health status, occupation(dentist treating vulnerable would not be able to treat others and would also need to shield) family status (those with children are more likely to infect those without due to schools and mixing in different circles)etc. And assumes that there is enough evidence as to what makes a person ‘vulnerable’. Children are unlikely to die or be severely affected but the young and fit are by no means risk free.
I would love to get back to how it was before but not at the expense of the elderly or infirm, that kind of society is cruel.

[AlphaJura]

It's not workable because if people are 'vulnerable' and being 'protected' they won't be allowed out to get food, prescriptions, pick their kids up etc. So someone has to do it. Who? They'll be coming into contact with them. People can have a 'co-morbidity' such as diabetes, such as my friend, a man in his 40s, who works and has a partner and 2 secondary school age children. What's he supposed to do? Keep his kids off school 'shielding' with him? Give up work? Never see anyone? Go and live alone somewhere? It's wrong to segregate society into 'us and them'. Remember when mentally ill patients were locked up out of sight from cradle to grave? Is that what you want. It's not 'just' elderly (even though they deserve to live their lives as much as anyone). It's a massive part of the population that could be classed as vulnerable. 'Shield the vulnerable' doesn't mean anything. It's just a phrase for people who can't be bothered to think about the complexities of the situation. Those people are humans to you know.

[LearnedResponse]

Vulnerable people of working age have jobs, they have partners (or cohabiting parents, or adult children) who have jobs, they have children who need to go to school. You’d need to pay for the entire household to quit their jobs (if they couldn’t WFH) and remote HE the children.

Vulnerable older people (and severely disabled vulnerable younger people) have carers, they have a lot of carers, both professional and family. All of those people may have spouses with jobs, and children who go to school. They may even have social lives, the family carers may have jobs. Are you suggesting we pay for full PPE for all family carers at all times? I’m unconvinced that that’s safe enough in a population where the virus is running riot.

[BiBabbles]

It is dismal for many and it's likely that other beyond the UK government options may save more lives across a range of conditions and situations, but it's most likely the best option is more complicated than just shielding those seen as vulnerable away & everyone else get the disease.

There is a lot of money already being thrown at this, it's more funding for a situation few other issues have ever had. It still takes time and being strategic with that money. While similar to many other viruses, research on immunity is all over the place, and many are hoping much like some of its relatives, it'll evolve towards less virulent, but again that takes time.

Also, while I'd never say 'just' chronic fatigue, 'Long Covid' "includes patients with symptoms variously deriving from direct viral damage, immune response damage, opportunistic bacterial infections, and post-viral/post-sepsis symptoms25–27. Additional post-traumatic and mental health symptoms might interact with physiological symptoms in complex ways. ‘Long Covid’ accounts for the possibility of persistent viral infection with low levels of viral shedding; protracted immune reaction; latency; or the presence of virus in reservoir organs or tissues." This is alongside those who suffer long-term damage from intensive care treatment. While these things happen with other viruses, that doesn't diminish that this can and has been tearing lives apart for years from those viruses as well. It's just now more in our faces and all of these should be taken seriously.

Just shutting the vulnerable away, I think that's too simplistic. It ignores how interconnected our lives are, that many do not want to be shielded and will not choose to do so, and that even if we had full economic and practical support, there would always be a grey area of those who don't make the cut off for that support for many reasons.

And while some care homes have improved, far more people receive care in the community, involving carers going into other people's homes, including family carers who may themselves be vulnerable. Even with deliveries (which many who aren't on the vulnerable list rely on), there are other practical things that require having someone go in and out of the house.

[AlphaJura]

I think there was a suggestion in that 'great barrington declaration' that people who have already had the virus work to shield vulnerable. That sounds alright in principle but not workable because, it's not guaranteed how long you are immune, and what about the people who haven't had the virus who work in those professions? Are they supposed to stop work? Will they be provided for or lose their jobs? If they're not vulnerable aren't they supposed to be getting the virus to achieve'herd immunity' ? Are there enough workers to do all the work who have already been exposed?

[SleeplessGeordie]

MyPersona Because when you say shield the vulnerable what you actually mean is lock people out of society completely so that you don’t experience any loss of freedom at all. It’s monumentally selfish, utterly offensive and quite honestly you can just fuck of with your othering and discrimination

So sick of comments like this (not to pick on the this particular poster, plenty of similar comments here).

So it's ok that people who live alone were forced into solitary confinement? It's ok that single people can't date, or like me have lost their chance to meet someone and have a family? And can't even see neices and nephews any more? It's ok that people have lost their jobs, lost everything worth living for? But god no, it'd be inhumane to ask this of the people who are actually vulnerable to the virus! They're too important with their jobs and families, it's other people who have to miss out.

So so tired of battling to exist every day, having lost everything, being someone who is vulnerable but not to covid, doesn't matter that my life is ruined as long as it doesn't happen to these people. Frankly if you'd rather live like this than die of covid you're lucky.

[cbt944]

There is nothing 'okay' about a global pandemic. Stop expecting it to be otherwise. And everyone is 'vulnerable' to some degree, it's a lottery - some may be far more vulnerable than others, but don't imagine there is an 'us' and a 'them' with clear-cut delineations.

[AlexaShutUp]

OP, even if you could manage to shield the vulnerable effectively (which personally I don't think would be possible), how on earth do you propose we would cover the essential jobs of all the key workers who are either vulnerable themselves or live with someone vulnerable? Who is going to step in and do all of the work that these teachers, doctors, nurses and other essential workers while we presumably pay the shielding a full salary to sit at home?

I think the people who suggest this are invariably ignorant about just how many people fall into the vulnerable categories. We're talking about a significant proportion of the working population, plus their immediate families would have to shield as well. It just isn't workable.

[Evilwasps]

Because we vulnerable people need to work and live too. Many are 'key workers', parents of young kids and live completely 'normal' lives. You most likely know many more 'vunerable' people than you realise. We are all in this together, protect eachother and maybe we can find a safe way out of this

[Oliversmumsarmy]

Because some vulnerable people don’t want/can’t afford to lock themselves away for ever more.

[SleepingStandingUp]

You said twice it's dismal being shielded - your Mom and your friends child but still want to go ahead with it so you can go back to normal.

We shielded our son. By the end, I struggled to get even a couple of hours home school out of him. If we went back to being shielded until it's "safe" he would be massively behind because we just can't do enough with just me, him and two babies.
DH was fortunate that he's been able to work from home, but what would have happened of he couldnt.? It's pointless shielding DA for DH to catch 4 buses a day then sit on an office with people with no need for SD etc cos the rest of the country is back to normal. So either he'd move out or he'd have to quit.
Assuming he moves out I'm now in the house 24/7 for months with a 5 yo and 1 yo twins. I'm not sure that's good for anyone.

Now o get your point- that's just one family and doing this would mean lots of other families could go back to normal, so I'm just being selfish. But we're not unique. Your talking about locking the door and throwing away the key not just on the thousands of highly vulnerable individuals but in the families they within too.

So yeah, in ok that I'm selfish

[Turtleshelly]

Many vulnerable have been shielding since before lockdown. They still get ill.

Have you considered how many millions are classed as vulnerable, or the carers, family, parents or children of vulnerable?

Elderly, heart issues, diabetic, ME, respiratory issues, immune disorders, cancer patients, blood clotting issues and so on. It’s a lot of people.

Their family and carers would need to shield too.

You’re looking at a third of the country plus now.

They’d all need financial help.

The government wouldn’t even help Manchester!

They won’t even bring back shielding because they don’t want to foot the costs!

Shielding the vulnerable would cost a higher amount than you realise.

The government would not fund this.

What about those at borderline risk who get forgotten?

What about the healthy who get ill fatally or with long Covid?

It would also be impossible because many people, carers and family would be unable to do it.

It also creates an unethical two tier society that confines the unwell or disabled to an inferior life.

Let them suffer while the rest crack on?!

Sounds cosy but in reality it’s very cruel and unethical and impossible.

It’s irresponsible too because we don’t know the effects of long covid yet.

Oh yeah and as immunity doesn’t last it’s also a massive waste of time.

[Turtleshelly]

@SleeplessGeordie

MyPersona Because when you say shield the vulnerable what you actually mean is lock people out of society completely so that you don’t experience any loss of freedom at all. It’s monumentally selfish, utterly offensive and quite honestly you can just fuck of with your othering and discrimination

So sick of comments like this (not to pick on the this particular poster, plenty of similar comments here).

So it's ok that people who live alone were forced into solitary confinement? It's ok that single people can't date, or like me have lost their chance to meet someone and have a family? And can't even see neices and nephews any more? It's ok that people have lost their jobs, lost everything worth living for? But god no, it'd be inhumane to ask this of the people who are actually vulnerable to the virus! They're too important with their jobs and families, it's other people who have to miss out.

So so tired of battling to exist every day, having lost everything, being someone who is vulnerable but not to covid, doesn't matter that my life is ruined as long as it doesn't happen to these people. Frankly if you'd rather live like this than die of covid you're lucky.

No I don’t think this is ok at all.

I don’t agree with shielding the vulnerable.

I don’t agree with extreme lockdowns forever either.

It’s not a binary option!

During the first lockdown we should have figured out better ways to open safely and set up an adequate test and trace system.

We didn’t.

I don’t back the tiers because they’re pointless tickling around the edges and restricting people’s lives with little effect,

I would support another short lockdown to end these stupid tiers but only if we used that time to fix test and trace. It’s crucial.

Our government are failing all of us.

Let’s not turn on each other.

Hope you’re doing ok. I should add I also hope that single households and single parent families are allowed to maintain a support bubble whatever happens.

[tanqueray10]

@Northernsoullover

Its a bit of a cuntish attitude really. Lock up the 'vulnerable' so all the ' non vulnerable' can get their freedom back? What makes you so special? How can anyone be so selfish as to blanket demand that the vulnerable stay home so the rest of us carry on whooping it up? Why don't we all take our turns with restrictions so we can all get our lives back?

This.

When did everyone become so selfish?

[Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow]

I don’t want to “lock” people up! This language is unhelpful. I don’t think it’s selfish to consider another route. You could equally argue we are all selfish for trashing the lives of the young, and especially students. People who are losing everything: it’s horrific and I don’t think we are doing it the right way.

No one would be “Locked up” but they wouldn’t go indoors anywhere else unless distancing guaranteed.

We do know that many people at risk before are at less of a risk. So even older people with no health conditions are unlikely to suffer badly. The stats are there. And the very obese middle aged do seem at a much greater risk. We would have to risk assess.

And even then it would go through slowly whilst distancing and masks etc used.

It’s really what is happening now in tier 2 areas.

[notevenat20]

There are 8.8 million people over 70 in the country. How could you make sure none of them ever go near someone under 70? That would mean they couldn’t leave the house, see family, have anyone live with them or go to their house.

[Sostenueto]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-54696873

This is why shielding won't work.

[nether]

It would perhaps help, OP, if you would define who in your scenario will be defined as vulnerable, and what measures you actually mean by 'protect'

Because without that, it does sound as if you want to lock away millions of people, leaving them to put up with the ongoing hard lockdown so you have no restriction. It will create a very unequal society, without removing any of the inequalities we already have - unless of course you can explain a different vision rather than relying on slogan.

The vision needs to include how the 'protected' will function, not just how they get their shopping. Will it involve whole parallel 'clean' and 'regular' premises and staff for things like dentists, opticians, medical services, social workers, police (the list could go on and on)? What about education fir ECV children - will those delivering it have to be protected for the duration as well, or will education just never be F2F, and university not permitted?

[Clandestiney]

Even the tories think it would be cruel.

[tanqueray10]

It’s not just the over 70s though is it? Do we shield anyone who is over weight ? Anyone who is BAME?

I would be really interested to see the figures for those who have not died from covid but have been seriously unwell possibly ventilated. If anyone has them? People whose lives have been destroyed by covid and will spend months or years recovering but who don’t appear on the number of deaths. Death, unfortunately, is not the only awful outcome from this virus.

I strongly feel that we need to work collectively in this. If everyone took more responsibility for their actions then I would hope that the measures would not have to be so draconian.

[cbt944]

The sooner the less vulnerable of us get it, then the sooner we can achieve some kind of community immunity.

Herd immunity is not achievable without a vaccine. Your plan is silly.

[Thatwentbadly]

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

Yes but none of these things are insurmountable are they?

We have spent billions and there is no real end in sight.

Carers are especially problematic but we already have to manage that issue in nursing homes. Something like weekly tests, full PPE would reduce spread. My friend’s child has had this since March - it’s a nightmare but do-able.

It would be like putting the whole country in tier two, and keeping safe those most at risk.

Please do explain how you suggest we deal with the issues that I raised. Perhaps that will help us come round to your way of thinking if you want suggest some solutions.

[QueenStromba]

By the time you shield all of the vulnerable and the people they live with you're getting on for nearly half the population. Then you need to take into account that these are people more likely to need personal care and medical attention. It would be easier and cheaper to go for total eradication in the UK.

[Cableknitskirt]

Well in the press today they are saying immunity is unlikely to last very long as antibodies are dropping after a few months. So population immunity isn't going to work. A vaccine may be more effective than previous infection but we just don't know yet.

So no OP just sheilding the vulnerable won't work.