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.

That's because it's an unworkable solution though. If shielding was the thing that worked, and would halt the virus then I'd be for it.

And I have been isolating even from my family most of last year as I'm ECV. It sucks for everyone.

But the point I'm trying to get across is we don't want this for the long term for anyone, so we must do all we can to suppress it until vaccines start to work. And many, many of the most vulnerable are not in families or even bubbles, and these restrictions hurt them as much as anyone. Everyone is in this together, sadly.

The ableism refers to the 388 narrative.

@TheSilentStars haha yes to adding that subgroup in!

@Madhairday yes at the start dh, me and the kids didn't shield together as we couldn't get supermarket slots and had to get different foods from different shops for my autistic dds.
Instead we socially distanced in the home. I slept in the sofa etc etc.
It is a Pandemic. Everyone suffers in different ways.

Our own PM needed hospitalisation with covid at some point. It’s not just the deaths it’s the hospitalisation. You want everyone over 50 to shield?

@Hearwego I would be able to get by not seeing my parents if it meant I knew they were safe and well yes. The fact that you even had to ask me that is quite scary. I thought that would of been a given. I would put my parents needs before my own any day. As well it's not like I dont live in a fortunate time where I can still communicate with them and see them safely over a video call

@Hearwego

But if this is a forever virus that mutates itself making vaccines ineffective what’s the answer? Lockdown forever? The world would collapse? Surely no one would want to live like this forever? If covid cannot be cured as it mutates, surely we at some point have to live with it? How many people will die from poverty ,or abuse,domestic violence, mental health suicide or cancers? If we had permanent lockdowns the only people working would be the NHS and other services that could work from home. I’d hazard a guess that the majority of people can’t work from home.... There wouldn’t be any tax payers left to survive!!

I find this post unhelpful as you are massively hypothesizing. At the moment, there is nothing to suggest that the new mutations won't respond to the vaccines. If that changes, then obviously we will have to rethink.

Do you watch the news at all? We are not in lockdown because it’s ‘fair’, we are in lockdown to reduce pressure on the NHS which in many areas of the country is grinding to a halt. This means they will not be able to treat anyone - road traffic accidents, cancer, whatever - because they are so overwhelmed with Covid.

Once the figures reduce the lockdown will lift, but while they are so high, shielding the vulnerable is not enough.

This isn’t hard to understand, do a bit of reading/watching of news.