No shielding: what to think?

[Jourdain11]

This is being presented as a positive thing: "We won't be asking people to shield again". But there seems to be a downside, that if someone is (for example) advised by medical professionals to basically shield, there won't necessarily be any support available.

It seems like the government washing their hands of the responsibility, to be honest.

Yes, because shielding was about keeping the exceptionally clinically vulnerable - especially the young ECV - from blocking all the hospital beds, not concern for the individual.

Blood Cancer UK has been campaigning hard about this, but it's WFH or ESA/UC, or take the risks of attending the workplace.

And DC in school.

Yep, that's pretty much it. I am having AML treatment, but my workplace are adamant that work (where I've gone back part time) needs to be at least one day a week face-to-face. So you either have to decide to accept the risk, or accept the sick pay. Likewise, my children will either go to school or be off the school roll. All the choices are bad!

It makes no sense that they're not allowing ecv people to shield of they feel they want to.

They can't afford to pay the vulnerable furlough and full sick pay again for another 12 weeks. That's the reality. No matter how they try and tart it up.

I wonder what the number of ECV people is nationwide? I can't imagine it is so huge and I'd have thought that money would have been a drop in the ocean taking into consideration everything else that they are splashing out on.

They had people shielding when cases were so much down that they had to do vaccine trials in another country because there weren't enough wild cases here, yet there's no shielding now it's rife.

People who need to shield - and I very much feel it would be optional are more likely to need hospitalisation. As it's about keeping numbers going into hospital to a level that hospitals can cope, surely it makes sense to protect the vulnerable ( should they wish) from that point of view.

That should say should be optional.

The people who I know who ought to shield really hated it and are happy to have their freedom.

We’re a family of asthma and autoimmune diseases and we are very very careful - 2020 has been our healthiest year ever! (I assume it’s because we wear masks and social distance)

I sometimes think the "No Shielding" policy = "We admit you can't be protected. You're on your own now."

They are selling it in a positive way in that, ‘we know how hard it was for you last time, so we won’t be asking you to do it again’ but that really translates to them saying, ‘we don’t want to pay your wages for being at home so just get on with it’.

He mumbled during his briefing 'ECV should work from home but if you can't then don't go to work' and to also take great care. Such poor communication yet again. Maybe more information will follow tomorrow?

They've realised that they can't shield people unless it's a full lock down including schools without throwing more money at the problem. So the best you get is being told to be careful.

If I had shielded to the extent people were asked to back in summer while cases were vanishingly low, I'd be feeling very cheated out of a summer and all the health benefits that the freedom would have provided.
I would not feel like shielding now either, but for there to be no shielding now seems ridiculous.

They can't afford to pay the vulnerable furlough and full sick pay again for another 12 weeks. That's the reality.

Yes, sadly these lockdowns have been very expensive. Government debt is already so high, exceeding GDP this year. It's a problem.

We have the same DH had a letter but works in manufacturing which is open and people to work - he is self employed

however it says vulnerable people should not go out to work, but nothing about finances

He has cut down a med to escape the ECV group anyway and the consultant was on about re-instating it recently but think that will need to change

also we have two in secondary school and had several emails about cases and son staying home due to that too, so lots of contact here

It’s in the guidance but you’re only entitled to SSP if you take it, by the looks of it.

They seem top be paying furlough in general don't they, not 'for the vulnerable'

ESA and SSP not available to self employed

Yes no way will dh shield again as our kids are in school as well me working in a school. He's also self employed and can stay away from people most of the time but needs to be on site. We are careful when we get back from school but tbh were becoming lax at the end of term.

Same, mine is over 50 as well so I worry although he seems Ok with it.

There is little choice for some of us

Yes mine was 54 yesterday but he looks fit and healthy (not biased I promise!). Even if we could afford it financially he's worried if he shielded again there'd be no work left for him to return to. As it was he only had 3 days work per week when he first returned. Not many of his colleagues had any clue about his conditions and he had some harsh piss taking. No one really always knows what people are going through.

Really goodness. People are not very kind at times. Mine just didn't tell anyone.

I do think telling people to flat out not go into work accompanied by "you may be entitled to SSP or ESA" is spectacularly shit.

Aside from the " may be entitled", both of those are a fucking pittance that won't pay anybody's bills!

I'd have thought that money would have been a drop in the ocean taking into consideration everything else that they are splashing out on.

And considering how much it will cost not to provide adequate financial support.

Homelessness, malnourishment, homes that are too cold to be healthy, people working because they can't afford to stay home and therefore becoming ill with all those costs (direct and indirect), mental illness caused by the stress of any combination of the above, all the other services that will need to become involved because of the damage caused...