Low risk people getting on with things as normal

[PaperLaperRock]

Why is it that low risk cannot go out and go to work as normal if they are ONLY mixing with low risk?

Of course some from that group will need treatment. But less than 1% will. I think more from the low risk group are suffering and using the NHS for metal health reasons than they ever would be if they could go about as normal.

I’d happily not see those at risk until the vaccine is sorted. Which, newsflash, it certainly won’t be anytime soon. Bet good money we will all be living like this in autumn at least. I’m not inclined to follow this further, my career has nearly been destroyed from all this and I doubt the government will be picking up the bill when I can’t afford my mortgage.

@Embra it is not easy to just shield the vulnerable.

OK so dh us ECV. We have like maybe 30% ( forgotten exact % but that ballpark) school aged dc who must be in school or we will be fined. All our dc have had at least one bout if self isolation but thank God we are all OK.
So to protect him they would need homeschooling. DH can work from home so he is OK. But I have to work. More risk. DH has regular blood tests so more risk. His Consultant appointments are thankfully online. I have health conditions too so yet more appointments.
We are just one family so surely you now see the problem. It is virtually impossible to protect the vulnerable if the Virus isn't controlled.

Sorry that was about 30% ECV have school aged dc.

@Northernsoulgirl45 I think that being ECV isn't such a great risk as being old. If you think that only 10% of deaths have been in under 65s and that working age people have been far less able to avoid the virus. You have pointed out yourself the difficulties.

I still think voluntary home education and furlough should be an option for working age people who are ECV.

I have been looking at a table of death rates and it seems to me that unless you manage to suppress transmission completely the death rates are similar in countries regardless of what they do. So Spain has had a similar number of deaths to Brazil even though at one point they had a very severe lockdown.

I am worried about the economic impact of lockdown and think we could be doing a lot of economic damage without really reducing the number of deaths.

@Embra

I think we should shield vulnerable people for 2-3 months and encourage socializing of everyone else. We need around 60% to go through covid to get the immunity. This is not going to happen through vaccine. After 2 months, we can start vaccinate all the vulnerable people.

So 2-3 months of back filling all the teachers, shop assistants, hospitality staff to enable everywhere to function as normal? And 2-3 months of back filling all the nurses and doctors whilst people out living normally get back to is Ng hospitals fully and all those who don't realise they have an underlying vulnerability get very ill with covid. Where do you think all these qualified people are hiding?

Plums how do I home educate dd who is doing GCSEs in 3 subjects I have no qualifications in? And she's light years ahead of my ability in another subject.
As people keep saying 'just shielding' the vulnerable is impossible. It isn't that easy.

I can’t believe what I read on here sometimes. Is it seriously being suggested that vulnerable people should be locked away in a life of misery for an indefinite period? I’d rather be dead than isolate myself totally for 2-3 years.

Notwithstanding the ethics of this, what do people think would happen if we just let people get on with their lives and let the virus circulate unchecked? The NHS would be even more overwhelmed than it is now - that possibly means no care if you have a stroke, heart attack or a car crash. It’s not just the older generation who are hospitalised with this virus.

The whole purpose of the restrictions is not to make sure nobody dies but to ensure that we can have a functioning health service, which is shaky even despite the lockdowns.

Letting the virus blow through would not be pleasant.

@Embra

I think we should shield vulnerable people for 2-3 months and encourage socializing of everyone else. We need around 60% to go through covid to get the immunity. This is not going to happen through vaccine. After 2 months, we can start vaccinate all the vulnerable people.

You know we did this?! From March to August. Tier 4 are shielding again until 18 January.

@PastMyBestBeforeDate I did say as an option. And I meant remote learning anyway not home education, probably messed up my terminology.

My understanding was that some people with health conditions would like to be able to do that but they can't because they will be fined. And they can't deregister because they will lose their child's school place.

OK Plums that makes sense and I would indeed like the remote learning option. Yes if I keep my DC off I may be fined and I fought long and hard to get one a place at the school they're in. Deregistering isn't an option.

@Florelei yes I agree with you. MN often surprises me but I can’t believe what some people are like. Also amazed people still use the ‘but I’m young and healthy’ Argument to suggest we should just let the virus spread. My local hospital are rammed and have ambulances queuing outside whilst they choose who to treat, and that’s people of all ages there for a number of reasons that are effected. Also all procedures cancelled which again affects those of all ages. It’s short sighted and ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude that gets me most

The reason we have so many variations in the virus is because it has been allowed to spread so widely. This time, it looks like the variation (although more easily spread, probably) is not more dangerous, and vaccinations will likely still be effective. We may not be so lucky with the next variation

@Embra

I think we should shield vulnerable people for 2-3 months and encourage socializing of everyone else. We need around 60% to go through covid to get the immunity. This is not going to happen through vaccine. After 2 months, we can start vaccinate all the vulnerable people.

Have a read up on mutation of viruses, and how many people don't know they have conditions like high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Then explain how your idea would work.

Remote learning won't work as Teacher's can't be forced to do it.

By that,I mean Teams type video classes.

If you think that only 10% of deaths have been in under 65s and that working age
@PlumsAreNotTheOnlyFruit I though the risk increased from about aged 50.

OP are you saying everyone low risk resume life as normal and the rest “shield” or work from home?
As phase 1 vaccinations include everyone over 50, I’m presuming anyone over 50 isn’t low risk.
How would this country function if everyone over 50 was told to stay home and everyone under 50 and no underlying issue was told to go about life as normal?
As a low risk person myself I couldn’t work anymore as my boss is over 50 and so are all the main “bosses”
A lot of staff in schools are 50 and above, so are people who work in retail, hospitals etc we couldn’t go abroad on holiday as there would be pilots who are 50 or above.
So life couldn’t still go on as normal could it?

@Northernsoulgirl45 That is basically what the table you just posted shows as well though that table groups 60 to 79 year olds together. I will post the bbc news report I found my figures in.

It says that more than 9 out of 10 deaths are in the over 65s.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-54908177

Please not that I am not trying to say anything other than that it looks like age is by far the biggest risk factor. Perhaps more than people realise.

I don't want anyone of any age to die and I understand that many younger people have also died.

I meant to say it would be nice if 60 to 79 group was broken down more. Also of course death is not the only bad outcome

Thanks for link. Will take a look.