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.

It's not as simple as the vulnerable needing to self isolate. What about the vulnerable people that have to work to earn a living ie key workers, furlough is not available for key workers so how do they pay their bills?!

Also, please remember it's not just those with under lying conditions that are affected, it can affect those that are perfectly healthy too.

I would like to say this never gets old but that is a fib.

@TillysMum02 yes you are absolutely correct because they should have been shielding!!!!

Just because I disagree with tier 4 doesn't mean we should be gathering in massive groups for Christmas.

So let me clarify, social distancing, no groups etc should all stay in place. I'm not saying we should resume as normal but we should let most businesses and schools continue but with very strict measures in place.

I'm saying there could be a middle ground, children's education should NEVER have to suffer.

@Truelymadlydeeplysomeonesmum

I would like to say this never gets old but that is a fib.

Agree you think people would do the most basic of research.

@outback81 they could easily change the furlough system to accommodate areas that have been dismissed.

Have a look at the long covid threads. People who are young and fit have been crippled long term by this. It’s not just deaths you need to be thinking of. This is an illness that could be like a mild flu, or or could absolutely destroy your respiratory system and leave you with breathing issues months and months later, or it could kill you. Honestly why people think they’re immune if they’re not old or CV boggles my mind.

FCS, obviously I know young fit people get it and die , that was quoted in my original post!!!! Geez,

There are many things young fit people die from, do we shield from everything then just in case we hey hit by a bus?? No we assess the risk and act accordingly

[quote nevereverplease]@AntiHop how the hell is it offensive?? FFS get a GRIP

Honestly, mumsnet is the strangest place - how have you managed to completely twist my words and interpret my post as saying I don't care about vulnerable people.

You have issues. [/quote]
I stand by my post @nevereverplease
Your argument is that we are overreacting due to only 300 odd deaths, therefore discounting the other 80,000 people who died, which as I said, includes plenty of people who had mild/non fatal/totally treatable conditions. Even for those of the 80,000 who has serious conditions didn't deserve to die.

I said nothing about vulnerable people in my post. I'm not vulnerable. I have mild asthma.

Perhaps if you think I have misunderstood your post, you could explain it to me. Please do, I'd like to understand what you meant.

The fact that you responded to my post literally 1 minute after I posted, suggests you didn't actually read what I posted properly.

Where do you get your statistic from?

fullfact.org/health/its-not-right-youre-more-likely-drown-die-covid-19-if-youre-under-60-no-health-problems/

And do you think that society can function without relying in people with health conditions? The underlying health conditions include things like asthma, depression and obesity. This is a huge proportion of the population. We would lose a lot of doctors, teachers, police officers, etc. Etc. If anyone with a health condition had to shield.

I wish that children's education and other elements of life didn't have to suffer, but this isn't a solution.

[quote nevereverplease]@User158340 the list is here, eczema is not listed;

www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk/whos-at-higher-risk-from-coronavirus/[/quote]
twitter.com/DrDomPimenta/status/1343272273663451136

people are not complying though!!! @nevereverplease

the store i work at is essential non food retai,tier 4. l but no! customers are carrying on as normal....today,swanning around browsing wallpaper with a costa in hand whilst the kids are tearing around on their new heelies,parents oblivious, kids bumping into other customers!!

i'd say 75% wearing masks.......soooo many 'exempt'....but we cannot challenge. our door counter counted 1,3016 people came into our store today!

boris needs to lock us all down properly. with consequences.

I'm saying there could be a middle ground, children's education should NEVER have to suffer.

The whole point of closing businesses etc is to limit the spread of covid elsewhere so schools could stay open.

Unfortunately, the measures in (particularly secondary) schools at the moment aren’t likely to get the R below one with the new strain being so much more transmissible. You can’t run schools with staff off ill, and those children are 7x more likely than another adult in their household to take covid home with them. The risk to children is low but it’s the effects on the community transmission that’s the major issue with schools.

*1,316

I think you're confusing those at higher risk and underlying health conditions. The point PP have tried to make to you is that plenty of people have minor ailments (underlying health condition) which they would not be expected to die from so the 388 is a grossly misleading figure if you're using it to assess risk. I think someone mentioned eczema earlier (an underlying health condition) , would it change your understanding of the risk if for example 50% of those dying had eczema listed as an underlying health condition? Yes this is implausible but I'm not sure how else to explain the point many here are making but you seem unable to understand.

[quote nevereverplease]@User158340 the list is here, eczema is not listed;

www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk/whos-at-higher-risk-from-coronavirus/[/quote]
That's not the same list used for the stat in your Op.

So, underlying health conditions which are reported on in relation to Covid include: asthma, diabetes, hypertension, heart problems, lung problems, kidney problems and that's ignoring all the things like suppressed immune systems and cancer.

Almost all of those things do not result in people shielding. They still have to go out to work, just like normal. Then we have the over 65s as well, including those that are perfectly healthy.

20% of the UK is over 65, 12% have asthma (so 9.6% to ignore the 20% of those over 65), 7% ISH have diabetes - let's round that down to 5%. That's 35% of the population already and we haven't even been through the other risk factors.

Then you've got the families and households of everyone with risk factors. And the fact that lots of those who are elderly or very ill will have carers coming in. Do they isolate too? If they don't then we can't let Covid rip through the population or we'll undo our isolation. Do we have enough delivery slots to provide over 1/3 of the population with access to food? That's at first count ignoring the fact that it will in reality be many more.

It also ignore the fact that death isn't the only risk with covid - plenty of younger people get sick and if hospitals don't have enough beds to treat them then they are likely to die too.

The answer to this now is vaccination: as hard and as fast as humanly possible.

Please can you provide a verifiable source for the number of deaths being 388?

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.

What are the current figures of this category in hospital?

What would happen if we let everyone loose and this number multiplied?

What would then happen to fatality rates?

Ok, question here;

Do you think the current system works?

If not, what do you think we could do to change it?

Your dismissal of death is worrying OP, as is your lack of empathy.

One day you might look back on this thread and regret it.

@ScarletUnderkill

Hello Julia.

Does nobody else want to know Julia who?

At the moment, only people classed as clinically extremely vulnerable are being told to shield. You are suggesting extending that to all people with any kind of pre-existing medical condition - so hypertension, diabetes, previous heart attack, asthma, bit of kidney or liver disease, high cholesterol. Do you have any fucking idea how many people that is?

There have been 10,149 people admitted to ICU since 1st September. Mean age 58. 90% fully self-caring, the others requiring only minor help (which might mean problems climbing stairs, walking with a stick, etc). Less than 10% with any significant comorbidities (p23 on report below).

I link to this a lot on here, but apparently Covid deniers have trouble googling the actual stats, or more likely can’t be bothered reading anything longer than a slogan:

www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/9dc99e38-964b-eb11-912d-00505601089b

Locking up CEV people will not help. We do not have the resources for even 1% of our population to need ICU all at the same time - a small percentage of a massive number is still a massive number, and the NHS simply cannot cope.

We would need to lock up the majority of people aged >50. And no, they couldn’t “form bubbles” with their school-age children or anybody younger. That is basically a lockdown.

Take a look at this example list of ‘preexisting conditions’ OP and see how confident you are that you don’t have one...

[quote nevereverplease]@outback81 they could easily change the furlough system to accommodate areas that have been dismissed. [/quote]
I'm not sure how, my workplace would be running on less than half the staff we have if that was the case, we would not be able to run

Do you know what would be amazing OP. If you use this energy to push for all the kids with Sen who are out of education to be given access to the correct provision. My DS has missed over a year of his education. We’ve been to court and we won and zero people give a shit. If you want to talk mental health and interruption of education take a look at the kids with SEN who are being royally fucked over by the system.