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.

[Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow]

Yes but that’s just it.

T cell immunity is thought to play a far higher role and so antibodies are a red herring. Many scientists saying this.

There is more than one way to respond to a virus in the human body

[Cableknitskirt]

I understand that but in reality it's just too soon to know how this virus will act. We need more time before making any such decisions and even then its not practical to ask every vulnerable person to sheild without restrictions on the rest of the population. Vulnerable people are not just the elderly but some of them are children, doctors, nurses, teachers, bus drivers, shop workers and so on. Its a neat and tidy idea I grant you but it just doesn't work like that.

[FuzzyPuffling]

Aren't you really asking this because "I want to get my life back...and this is not me?

[SexTrainGlue]

This piece in the BMJ from mid-September about the role of Tcells already looks dated, as the increase of transmission rates since then undermines a number of the hypotheses

www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

It's an area which is being actively studied, but which does not (yet) have sufficiently reliable evidence to use as a basis for public Heath policy

[SexTrainGlue]

@FuzzyPuffling

Aren't you really asking this because "I want to get my life back...and this is not me?

Exactly!

As OP has not defined 'vulnerable' for this purpose, it's difficult to know who she has sorted into Eloi and Morlock

[MereDintofPandiculation]

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. @SleeplessGeordie, it seems to have passed you by that this is being asked of the vulnerable. Single people who are vulnerable are losing their chance of dating, they can't see nieces and nephews any more, or even their own children. Back in April, what was being asked of the extremely vulnerable was far more than what was being asked of the rest of us; and they were in lockdown for longer. Now you're being asked to undergo some restrictions so that their lives are not completely unsustainable - not out of any concern for them but so they don't over-run the NHS so that it's still available for you.

You are not being asked to limit your life in order that the vulnerable or extremely vulnerable can carry on as normal without any restrictions. Their lives will still be more restricted than yours.

[Turtleshelly]

“It would be like putting the while country in tier two.”

The same tier two that parts of the north have effectively been in for months and the hospitals are filling up and deaths rising so much that they’ve had to move to tier 3 and start talking about tier 4?

Or are we comfortable with approaching 200 deaths a day and that figure doubling every fortnight?

[Turtleshelly]

@MereDintofPandiculation

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. *@SleeplessGeordie, it seems to have passed you by that this is* being asked of the vulnerable. Single people who are vulnerable are losing their chance of dating, they can't see nieces and nephews any more, or even their own children. Back in April, what was being asked of the extremely vulnerable was far more than what was being asked of the rest of us; and they were in lockdown for longer. Now you're being asked to undergo some restrictions so that their lives are not completely unsustainable - not out of any concern for them but so they don't over-run the NHS so that it's still available for you.

You are not being asked to limit your life in order that the vulnerable or extremely vulnerable can carry on as normal without any restrictions. Their lives will still be more restricted than yours.

Agree with this.

[Topseyt]

I'm considered somewhat vulnerable as a type 2 diabetic. I have not shielded and never will. I didn't even receive notice that I should have considered shielding into about 7 weeks into the first lockdown. Even then it was just a short NHS text, and seeing the effects of shielding on people like my elderly parents, I chose to disregard it.

I am 54 and I am perfectly able to make my own decisions. That decision was to go about my life relatively normally and to get out to the supermarket for my own shopping.

Whether or not you intend it, or whether you just aren't able to think this through, I find the opinions expressed in your OP to be extremely patronising.

People spout "shield the vulnerable" as though it is them offering something magnanimous, charitable and selfless. Doing "good" for us vulnerable basket cases. They are almost always people who do not come into any clinically vulnerable category, so would themselves be barely affected by shielding as they wouldn't be asked to do it. They are safe in that knowledge and can continue with their lives. They would not be the ones made to feel like prisoners in their own homes.

Your alternative solutions also assume that anyone considered vulnerable would agree to shield, even if they could afford to (others have already detailed the ins and outs there). We are capable people who can risk assess for ourselves. Some might shield, but there are many who wouldn't want to or who did it first time around and would now refuse point blank to countenance it again.

I didn't want to shield. I didn't. I still don't want to, and I won't. Ever.

[Oliversmumsarmy]

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

All the more reason for everyone to go out and get on with life and get it at the same time.

Yes people will die but having it rumble on stretched over years and years more will die.

I do think T Cells have a part to play in immunity but there is no test to see.

There seems a lot of dramatic reporting over people who have had Covid twice.
Very little is mentioned about those who got it again but it was very mild against a news headline online about a woman having died of Covid the 2nd time she got it. Can’t remember the exact details but it said the woman as being 89 years old and going through chemotherapy and having had a terminal diagnosis of 6 months, 4 months before.
I think any infection would have killed her.

Countries that had hard lockdowns I think will be worse off in terms of deaths than places that had everyone go out with sensible precautions and get on with life.

No idea what New Zealand and any other countries who have closed the boarders are going to do if we never get rid of this virus. Just on here there are people living there that want to leave but can’t.

I also know far more people who have died because of hard lockdown restrictions in the country they were living than through Covid.

[sonnenscheins]

No idea what New Zealand and any other countries who have closed the boarders are going to do if we never get rid of this virus. Just on here there are people living there that want to leave but can’t.

Good question.

I agree that we need to learn live with the virus long term.

[Aragog]

For how long?

What do you mean by vulnerable? There were two categories - extremely clinically vulnerable (who were shielded) and clinically vulnerable (who were advised to reduce contact and take extra care)?

The CV make up a huge amount of the work force. We can't afford to protect them in any meaningful way.

[rorosemary]

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

Yes but that’s just it.

T cell immunity is thought to play a far higher role and so antibodies are a red herring. Many scientists saying this.

There is more than one way to respond to a virus in the human body

So what's your plan then? Because up till now you're just saying that you don't like this.

[Turtleshelly]

“All the more reason for everyone to go out and get on with life and get it at the same time.”

This would overrun the NHS and cause a high number of Covid deaths AND deaths of many other causes.

[Turtleshelly]

The T cells issue is interesting and I’ve read a few studies on it but not enough is known about it (by a long way) to rely on it and go for herd immunity.

[Useruseruserusee]

It’s impossible to shield the elderly. I teach in a deprived area and many grandparents are doing the school run. The parents simply can not afford private childcare or a childminder and are on irregular hours due to zero hour contracts. They have no choice but to use grandparent care or give up their jobs and homes.

My own DC is looked after by his Nan as he has a health condition that requires one to one supervision. No nursery will take him at the moment and I can’t work from home.

[Oliversmumsarmy]

Turtleshelly

All the more reason for everyone to go out and get on with life and get it at the same time

This would overrun the NHS and cause a high number of Covid deaths AND deaths of many other causes

But ultimately less deaths in the long run.

Dp has cancer. He was supposed to go for a scan and blood test last November.
He has gone and got the scan and blood test but because they lost the blood test he went again and again etc etc they kept losing his blood test.
It has got to the stage that he has given up going.
The NHS isn’t operating even without a mass of people with Covid so what would the difference be?

[midgebabe]

Chris whitey has explained that Shielding the vulnerable to prevent hospital overload means defining vulnerable as anyone aged over 45

Who teaches the kids?
What happens to children with slightly older parents ?
How do we keep the nhs and bins collecting with the over 45s shielding?
How do we keep those people fed?

Yes, I know , it's not very fatal to people under 60 with no underlying health conditions ( that's about 1 in 3 people at that age, just on obesity alone) but if a even only a small fraction of that population get ill at the same time, we run out of hospital beds

Because a small fraction of a large number is a big number


Your initial question of why is no one looking at this is thus flawed. They looked at it and so rejected it.

[midgebabe]

No, there is no guarantee that killing everyone off quickly would lead to fewer deaths long term

The resultant economic crash would be worse than the mess we are already in.

This was proven in the Spanish flu , and the economy vs death rates charts in covid are telling the same story. The more deaths, the worse it is for your economy short and long term

[Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow]

This says it all.

[Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow]

midge Age is but one factor. Far less risk for a 75 year old with no health conditions than a 55 year old with a multitude of problems.

[rorosemary]

The swedish people have complied with the advice of distancing though.

So again, what is your plan?

[BiBabbles]

Yes, there are multiple ways for a body to respond, we still don't have enough data to know for this one even when we look at related viruses - hence the long list in my previous post. There isn't a magic answer right now of what exactly the best route to take will be, even with the additional funding this is getting we may never know, but there is a balance in there somewhere (likely involving a far better track and trace than we've got, as previously mentioned).

My spouse would be in that middle age significantly obese category, along with having respiratory issues. He worked all of lockdown. He still works now in a people facing role, and while he has a mask and a big screen when he's behind a desk, he hasn't had a night on in over a month that hasn't involved breaking social distancing or another rule due to having to deal with the behaviours of others. While looking forward to his holiday coming up, he has no desire to stop working & stay home and many spaces would grind to a halt if people like him were shielded. The only way people can shield is if there are enough people working to keep things going.

[Badbadbunny]

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

midge Age is but one factor. Far less risk for a 75 year old with no health conditions than a 55 year old with a multitude of problems.

But it's easier to "shield" the 75 year old as they're unlikely to be a worker or parent of school age children. The one we should shield is the 55 year old, but they're probably working and looking after their kids, so can't shield anyway. See the problem yet? Millions of "at risk" people are workers/parents/carers - who'd do their work/care roles if you lock them up and who'd look after them?

[midgebabe]

Yes age is only one factor, but if you do the sums based on admission rates and hospital beds, you are looking at around half the population needing to be shielded.

And whitey stated anyone aged 45 or older. Yes, most of them admitted will have conditions. But if you look at the "covid age" criteria rather than a simple age criteria, there are not many over 50's with a covid age below 45 anyway