Why is the whole country in lockdown?

[nevereverplease]

Millions of children are having their education interrupted severely, suffering mental health problems and people are losing their businesses and livelihoods for a disease unlikely to affect them.

Why can it not be that instead, vulnerable people shield (which most are doing anyway) instead of everyone?

People I’m sure will come with the counter argument to say it’s not fair leaving people on their own etc. They could still have a support bubble and it would mean that the whole country isn’t suffering severely as a result.

Is it not logical to have fewer people be locked down as opposed to everyone? Surely that’s just basic logic. I would rather no one suffer from this horrible disease but at the moment it feels like it's 'everyone suffer' because that's the 'fair' way to do it.

Could we not have used the money from furlough and all the other grants to fund the vulnerable whilst shielding.

I say this because 388 people have died aged under 60 with no underlying health conditions. If we go by 34% mortality rate of people admitted to ICU then we are talking about 1141 people under 60 with no underlying health issues needing ICU treatment Since March.

Crikey this again. Millions of people have invisible illnesses .

Just think about it .

Yes but those people would have gone down as having no underlying health issues if they were not aware they had the surely?

Fuckksake. Away and give yourself a shake.

It’s not just the people who die. It’s the long term effects on those who survive.

How do you "shield" the elderly and vulnerable when most of them are catching covid in hospitals, care home or their own homes?? They're catching it from their carers, deliveries, etc. If nurses, delivery drivers, carers etc are living life normally, they'll have a much higher chance of having covid and passing it on to their vulnerable patients/customers.

Or do you have a better idea as to how people could be shielded properly??

I agree with you OP but sadly common sense seems in short supply at the moment!

Hello Julia.

Really?! Have you missed the other billion threads where it has been explained thoroughly why your plan wouldn't work?

I haven't got the energy to go through the main points again.

Use the search function

And have a

Have you missed that the hospitals are full to busting at the moment? How are we supposed to care for those who fall ill if there are no beds or staff?

And being in a support bubble doesn’t make you immune from passing on covid to the vulnerable version you’re supporting.

Really ill thought through arguments.

Do you know how insulting your post is? My daughter is CEV and has been shielding since March without a single complaint. She is 18yr old. Should she be locked up alone? You do realise if you or any one of your family develops cancer etc you will be one of the vulnerable. Would you be so keen to be locked away then?

@Kazzyhoward If you're vulnerable you are still at risk lock down or not.

I appreciate vulnerable can't live in a bubble but if you're minimising the risks as much as possible then of course it would/could work as a strategy.

The current strategy IS NOT working.

[quote nevereverplease]@Kazzyhoward If you're vulnerable you are still at risk lock down or not.

I appreciate vulnerable can't live in a bubble but if you're minimising the risks as much as possible then of course it would/could work as a strategy.

The current strategy IS NOT working. [/quote]
No it isn't because many hospitals are now full which means anyone without Covid cannot be seen. Let alone those younger ones with Covid who need a bed.

I think you must be a little stupid. So they have their support bubble. Are THEY immune to covid? Or are they not allowed to leave the house too?
The whole point is that people are mobile. They don’t have to be quite as mobile. This will stop it spreading so fast so YOU don’t get it and die because there is no ambulance to pick you up so you can get some oxygen (because the hospitals are full) An underlying condition can be something like high blood pressure which a large proportion of the population over 50 have. It’s not people bed ridden with end stage lung disease they are talking about.
If it was that easy to “shield” the vulnerable then nursing homes wouldn’t be full of it and people with only one outside contact wouldn’t have it

@flowers12 YES, if I had health conditions I would because I would be shielding anyway surely if I'm sticking to the rules??? So what difference would it make

No the current strategy isn't working as cancer treatment is being cancelled due to lack of space in hospitals, you are quite right OP, guess we need a complete lockdown ? Is that what you are saying?

And to posters saying they don't want to explain this again, you really don't have to join the discussion if it's that much of an issue that I've posted in the coronavirus topic area about this!

So why on earth do you think letting it rip among those not shielding would work? People would still get sick and this thing would stretch out even longer and more people die.

Seriously, does anyone still think this rubbish is a good option? It's been soundly debunked a million times. Hospitals are utterly overwhelmed and that is with tier and lockdown measures. Do you seriously think that without things would magically improve?

Critical thinking seems so lacking at the moment.

@Mrbob why have you come on this thread being so rude? There is absolutely no need to call me stupid for posting. If you don't like my post don't read it and don't comment.

@nevereverplease

Yes but those people would have gone down as having no underlying health issues if they were not aware they had the surely?

Not necessarily. Maybe when they are admitted they get bloods done or display clinical signs which indicates a condition.

In theory, this sounds great - however, just because you are not dying from it does not mean that you are not critically ill. A lot of people aren't dying from it because they have access to hospitals and their intensive care units who would be overwhelmed even if the elderly and all those with underlying health conditions were to shield.

And let's be honest, do you think all employers would let you stay at home if you were diagnosed with asthma?

What about nursing homes and assisted living for the elderly, how are they supposed to shield?

I see where you are coming from but it's not feasible and let's not forget, all those with an underlying health condition also have the right to a life like any other person, don't you think?

We can't do that because it won't work. A small but significant percentage of those people who know they almost certainly won't die, will still need hospital treatment for a while so they can get better. The more people have the virus, the more people like that will end up trying to get into hospitals.

Even if the most vulnerable have locked themselves away, hospitals still won't be able to cope as more and more people arrive at their doors in ambulances, needing oxygen or possibly intensive care. Even if most of those people would ultimately survive, there will still be a crisis if there's simply no more room in hospitals and they have to start turning people away at the door.

The people they'd be turning away would include quite ordinary middle aged people, along with people with all sorts of non-covid conditions.

Then on top of that you've got the problem of long-term damage from even mild cases, which means we should be trying to keep cases of covid as low as possible, not just saying to ourselves that it doesn't matter if people got it provided they don't die.

Fairness doesn't even have to come into it. It can't be done because it just won't give you what you want. It won't work.

I see where you are coming from but it's not feasible and let's not forget, all those with an underlying health condition also have the right to a life like any other person, don't you think?

I'm confused - how would those with underlying health not have right to life by shielding?? They are shielding anyway so nothing would change.

In theory, you need to shield everyone aged 45 and over if you want those cancer treatment to be restarted

You can work it out yourself based on hospital admission rates by age, or just trust sage who also estimated this

But my point is - if people are sticking to the rules we are all shielding anyway? So why would vulnerable people be any worse off by shielding?