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.

No op you are daft in thinking that all those bad things won't happen if we pretend the virus isn't here

@nevereverplease - the massive flaw in your reasoning is that vulnerable people are the very ones who cannot really isolate - they are the ones needing to make regular trips to hospital or GPs, to be in school, to see social workers, to have carers visit them, etc. Only the strongest and fittest are actually capable of isolating and they should stop pretending it would work to lock the vulnerable up and throw away the key so that they can carry on as usual.

SAGE modelled what you're suggesting.

They came to the conclusion that to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed (i.e. what the lockdowns/tiers are supposed to do), you would have to shield everyone over 45, plus everyone younger who was vulnerable.

Shielding is not tier 4, or even lockdown. Shielding rules are much stricter.

If everyone over 45 (plus younger people with severe asthma, on immunosuppressants, etc) shielded, there would not be enough doctors, or nurses, or care home workers, or teachers. Hospitals, schools, shops - everything - hugely understaffed. And that's before the effect of younger people being sick and off work, even with "mild" symptoms.

That is why this solution was never seriously suggested, in any country anywhere. It was thought through, and it wouldn't work, because there are just too many people who are vulnerable.

Hope that helps.

As others have already said, the 377 statistic (or whatever it is) is widely misleading anyway. Because (a) their "underlying conditions" were not life-threatening or even life-limiting, (b) it's not just about deaths - young people can be seriously ill, hospitalised, and experience long-term effects, and (c) most of us care about those with "underlying conditions" and whether or not they die or get seriously ill.

@Forgetmenot157 totally agree.

Thank you for your post because it's spot on. People are breaking the rules MORE because they are mentally struggling.

All I hear is people slating the government - but I never hear solutions, ever.

So let's talk solutions instead of discussing how stupid my post is and telling me how my suggestions won't work.

I think most of us agree current models are not working so what are the answers?

@ilovestickers

Thanks for your post. That's actually really interesting.

I'm going to stop posting on this thread now though, because the OP contains the statistic that I find so offensive and unsettling. Nothing personal OP, as I think you believed it when you wrote it. Which is one of the most horrific things about the way people use that stat - that others come to believe it.

“So let's talk solutions instead of discussing how stupid my post is and telling me how my suggestions won't work.”

We vaccinate. Obviously. But that is clearly not the answer you want.
Your post is stupid and you are ignoring the posters kind enough to explain why.

@ILoveStickers thank you I appreciate your post.

I am someone with ‘ an underlying condition ‘. It is a congenital heart deformity that will not significantly affect my lifespan. I get the flu jab yearly. A large percentage of the population have underlying conditions. I am a lone parent to 2 children. Even if I got sick and ended up in hospital, it would be incredibly traumatic for my children who lost their dad a few years ago. Worse, they could be left orphans. Many of us are parents so we can’t shield. Your point is ignorant and simplistic.

Agree, @50but17inside - the lack of ability to think laterally, to understand the implications of exponential growth and the fact that a small percentage of a huge number is still a huge number has become so evident through these months. Just when you think people must surely get it along comes another post telling us we are not thinking about those with MH issues, businesses going under etc, like this is some new perspective no one has ever thought of before.

OP, you talk about being concerned for those missing cancer referrals, and yet you completely discount people with cancer as being of any importance when it comes to counting covid deaths. Do you see the dissonance here? They are not in the 377, because they have cancer. Please think about the natural consequences to people like this if we eased restrictions at this critical stage.

[quote nevereverplease]@Forgetmenot157 totally agree.

Thank you for your post because it's spot on. People are breaking the rules MORE because they are mentally struggling.

All I hear is people slating the government - but I never hear solutions, ever.

So let's talk solutions instead of discussing how stupid my post is and telling me how my suggestions won't work.

I think most of us agree current models are not working so what are the answers? [/quote]
I don’t really get the point, are you going to take suggestions and send them to the government as solutions or something? Don’t you think if there was some magic solution the civil servants etc would have thought of it? They have risk assessed and weighed up pros and cons of every possibility. And then the politicians decide what they want to do which also balances political/economic factors etc. I don’t agree with the way things are happening at the moment but presenting your plan as some kind of solution is just a bit dim and pointless.

And why do you not reply to people’s questions anyway?

OP look at the bloody state we are in with several months of harsh restrictions right now.

Imagine how bad it would be if we didn’t have the restrictions.

That’s why shielding the vulnerable won’t work.

The only way it would be possible too is to give carers huge amounts of money to agree to live in care home for say 3 month periods and then switch them over after tests etc to make sure there is no virus coming in or out.
This actually was the strategy implemented by my grandparents' care home (not in the UK). The care home owner gave 50% of staff 24 hours to pack and move on premises for a month; the other 50% were managing deliveries, admin and logistics outside. Then swap. No huge amounts of money involved though, it was that or no job. They did not have a single case of covid, but I am not sure that would be an acceptable solution in any western democracy.

People have been breaking rules ever since Dominic Cummings was not sacked. One rule for us, one for them.

Has it occurred to you that people who are extremely clinically vulnerable may need to see rather more healthcare workers than those who are not ECV?

Or other support workers such as carers?

In the past month my DH will have seen over thirty different healthcare practitioners whilst going through chemoradiotherapy. Quite possibly significantly more. The ECV cannot avoid contact with people. If no attempt is made to keep community cases in some sort of check there is a huge risk that accessing the treatment he needs to save his life will instead result in him dying and me becoming a widow at 33 years old.

It isn't just about deaths from covid either...hospitalisation rates are also a significant issue. If you want an even semi functioning health service, again covid needs to be managed. As bad as it is now, it would be a lot worse without restrictions in place.

Several reasons:

1. Because you can't have one group isolate exclusively. Once you give them a support bubble, unless that support bubble also isolates, you introduce the risk of covid, which is increased because everyone else is living "normally".

2. excess deaths. I'll simplify the numbers, but the % are about right- our hospital aims to operate at around 85% capacity, this includes both elective and emergent cases (so people having planned procedures and those coming in unexpectedly). Let's say that's 100 people in our hospital at one time per week max, so we aim to have 85 people. We never meet that and almost 93% us our average outside of covid. Covid during lockdown 1 increased our admissions by 60 people but because of cancelling our elective lists and reduced numbers doing risky activities (e.g. driving!) we had significantly fewer 'normal' admissions. So let's say 50 normal admissions at 60 covid admissions, and we have space for 100 admissions total.

See the problem? No? Simply, in lockdown, we needed 10 MORE hospital beds than outside of covid because of covid.

If we have no lockdown, we increase "normal admissions" (e.g road traffic accidents, work injuries, sports injuries etc) back to pre covid levels but because COVID is spreading faster (as more people acting normally = increased transmission) we increase the covid numbers in hospital as well so 85 admissions as 'normal' PLUS 60 covid admissions PLUS an increase in covid admissions, let's conservatively say 3 = 148 beds needed, when we have 100 available. So who do we turn away? Bob having a heart attack, Glenda with Covid, Ernie who is pissed out his head (because it's A&E on a Friday night and the pubs are back open), Tina hit by a truck or Sally choking on a grape? Or cancel all elective procedures? Because we cannot cater to everyone.

By having lockdown we slow covid admissions AND reduce normal of admissions.

[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]
So OP currently we have quite strict rules and the NHS is not coping because the hospitals are full of covid patients. If you remove the rules and say actually only one tenth of people have to follow them, do you think you will have more or less people in hospital?
If you fall ill or require medical assistance, who are you suggesting will supply it to you? The hospitals are full and there is little room at the inn - with tight restrictions.

Part of the problem with this argument is the data manipulation.

'Underlying health problems' include eg common mental health problems like depression and anxiety that you've been to your GP about.

The actual number is multiples higher than that.

Just because the Daily Mail and Sun say that it's 344 doesn't mean that it's true.

@nevereverplease

The long term damage is running rife anyway. Over 50k tests positive A DAY!!

Do you think that there are 50k tests a day because of lockdowns - as in you think there would be less without them??????

Op I agree.

@DontBeShelfish why are you here commenting then?

I think it does make some sense to keep the vulnerable/shielding at home whilst others carry on with life but it isn’t as simple as that.

Dh is shielding and how can we safely manage that if dc are at school? If they then stay at home with us and do school work online whilst others are at school that puts them at a great disadvantage both in terms of schooling and socialising. Not that I want everyone to stay at home because dh has to but what is the best solution?

We run our own business and are ok so far as those that work with us are amazing and have gone way beyond what was asked of them in order to keep dh safe and at home. However other shielders may not be so lucky...

Probably the best option is to lockdown completely for a few weeks whilst they enlist everybody who can to help with vaccinations to roll them out faster than they are currently working.

[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]
She literally explained in the same post Op how it was offensive! You are writing off 'the vulnerable' even though what makes them vulnerable isn't likely to kill them?