Shielding list to be virtually doubled

[Bonsa]

And go from 2.2 million to 3.9 million.

Breaking news...

Thanks KaleJuicer very important post

@RuleWithAWoodenFoot re school staff - if they are at higher risk on the basis of this new risk assessment then they should now be vaccinated by the end of March (regardless of their age as they would have jumped up the prioritisation bands)

Thanks @Gonegrey31. It’s frustrating for me that this is in the press before all the public-facing comms were ready and in the public domain. Even just reading the comments here is making me worried about the misconceptions that will be out there 😟

@KaleJuicer

I know the some of the team whose idea this was (using the QCovid algorithm to add more science and recent data - on who ended up dead/in hospital from covid - to the vaccine prioritisation). It’s taken +/- 6 months to get to this point. It’s not political, it’s not aimed at vaccine hesitancy, it is designed to save more lives. Dozens and dozens of people have been working around the clock on this for months and have been completely removed from political machinations. Any coincidence on timing is just that - a coincidence.

Do you know why having asthma makes my risk less than without?

I’m not surprised there are misconceptions and suspicions about the purposes of all this.

I’ve looked in the BBC site and the Sky News website several times and the detail and reporting is extremely vague. It isn’t clear who exactly these people being moved up the lists are....it sounds like they need to have a medical condition (but not CEV as would already be done) and meet some other criteria such as deprivation postcode, ethnic minority, BMI over 40 etc etc. But people with a medical condition are already in Group 6 which is currently being done and they can be any age. So who exactly is being moved up and how can they be moved up if they are already in a group that is currently being vaccinated?

It clearly isn’t people who are purely BAME or in deprived areas, as there are vast vast numbers of those. The people must also have a medical condition too....and that must make them Group 6.

It doesn’t make sense to me. And there is no info in any of the reporting about it which clarifies it at all, so it is very confusing and leads to people speculating about the purpose behind it all.

I know people that has been working on this as well. Wonder whether we know the same people @KaleJuicer and at least they were aware that this was coming out today

This has been going on for months, the development of the algo and the reasons why should some people have priority over others. It’s based on what Oxford things is risky. Def not political. Bmj was already talking about qCOVID back in October.

@Hmmph because the data shows that fewer asthmatics have died or been hospitalised than a patient with the same profile without asthma. Surprising isn’t it. As other posters have mentioned the theory is that inhalers are protective but this is being researched.

@Hmmph, my risk goes up when I enter a "normal" weight and goes down the more overweight I am...

Is it essentially splitting Group 6 into 2 sub-groups?
Ie those with just a medical condition but no other indicator...ie from a white British, affluent postcode, and
Those with a medical condition who also have other indicators such as BAME, less affluent postcode etc?

Is this what it is doing....an upper and a lower prioritisation within Group 6, and because the various groups have already been established, it’s too tricky to change all the numbers as that would confuse people, if we now essentially have split 6 into 2 sections.

That’s the only way I can understand it.

But yes, if it’s been leaked before helpful comms, I can see why we get misleading info. It’s an ongoing problem and everyone seems to be looking at the news sites multiple times a day and jumps on any hint of information and blows it all out of proportion. Never mind fake news issues, these could be real news issues, but the way they are reported and leaked leads to lots of misunderstanding. Classic one is the thread running about the Sunday Times article which has a headline of All English Schools to Return on 8 March.....sounded like it was government policy and has caused HUGE confusion. Or what about the leaping on that report that suggested the Oxford vaccine wasn’t good for those with mild disease that caused a 2 day panic....why didn’t they emphasise that it worked well for severe disease or the study was tiny? It’s misreporting in my view.

And my other question about all this, is about them being asked to shield. I understand a more urgent push to get these groups vaccinated..and surely they will be in the next 2 or 3 weeks if they get their letters to book appointments quickly....they can easily do over that figure of extra shielded people in a week. What I do t understand so much is the request that they shield suddenly when not having been shielded before. It seems these are all people with moderate health conditions - they weren’t classed as CEV so not shielding before. Their medical conditions haven’t changed, but they have other risk flags of race or postcode deprivation etc...and the request they shield seems extreme to me.

Are they genuinely expected to actually shield? Is it expected that a large proportion will actually take up the request to shield or not really? Is it mostly about getting them vaccinated and the shielding thing is to make that feel even more important?

To me, it really hasn’t been explained clearly at all and doesn’t make sense to me in terms of the shielding element, more than the higher priority vaccination element, but given they were all presumably group 6 anyway, and that groups currently being done, it’s hard to see how that has pushed them up the list either.

@KaleJuicer please can you share that data re. asthmastics? Would be very helpful to see for many people.

@Juo

I doubt if they will extend shielding past 22 Feb. My guess would be that this is a way round the idea of offering vaccines on grounds of ethnicity. The government wants the next phase to be based on occupation but there is strong evidence that ethnic group and deprivation puts you at higher risk. So bump those groups up and they can then make the political decision to vaccinate on grounds of occupation.

I received a letter today saying that shielding is extended to 31st March.

Yes, 31 March is the date being given and was in the news reports along with the extended shielding group.

@WombatChocolate obviously all speculation at the moment without having the detail of who is being added to the shielding list, but it’s not the same risk profiling that has been used for the vaccine priority lists, it’s a result of a different separate exercise.

Group 6 for vaccination is not, by a long way, all people in the governments list of clinically vulnerable (myself for example, I fall within 3 things in the cv list but I am not in group 6 or any priority group for the vaccine), the groups are not the same so it is very possible that some of the new people being added to shielding group may not be in group 6 and have a different combination of risk factors that is now being picked up and moved to shielding.

They always said the biggest risk factor is increasing age, however nobody was asked to shield based on their age. It never made sense!
Perhaps some people would like to be re-assessed off the shielding list if they’ve had a vaccine, I imagine it could be a positive if you’ve had to be on ssp for shielding

I have been fiddling with that calculator. If I put in a BMI of 21 and then do it again exactly the same with a BMI of 35 it changes exactly 3 points only.

If I then put in a BMI of slightly over 40 it changes one further point.

It isn't obesity that is making much difference to the risk according to that calculator.

I scored 29.

And I'm not sure how because it was no to every question about medical stuff!

@method that’s because being overweight has a protective effect. Put an obese weight in and the risk will get higher.

@Nanuki its in the algorithm which might not be very accessible to non data scientists, but here's an example of some of the research : www.nursinginpractice.com/clinical/respiratory/people-with-asthma-less-likely-to-get-covid-says-study/

and this: www.nursinginpractice.com/covid-19/asthma-patients-not-at-higher-risk-of-covid-19-complications-research-suggests/

I changed my info of a 63 year old, white female, no medical conditions, BMI 22.1, to similar male black African and it went from 64 to 85

[quote CavernousScream]@method that’s because being overweight has a protective effect. Put an obese weight in and the risk will get higher.[/quote]
Here goes the diet

I scored 37, is that bad? I scored no to everything too

User7458 thank you, yes age seems to be a big factor. Not much we can do about that !

I had received a text message from my GP asking for my weight last week, and today, received an email from Waitrose that I had been added to their priority delivery list as I am a shielder....... news to me 🤷🏻‍♀️

So I found out from waitrose before my GP told me 😂. Anyway, 5 weeks pregnant but not informed them just yet so can't have it anyway .

It is all so bizarre!