Wtf is going on??!!

[NearlyDown]

I actually think it’s quite scary and a bit strange the amount of people who are happy to have their human rights taken away.

For the record I’m fully vaccinated and I think that the vaccine is brilliant, but it is a medical procedure and I don’t think people that have made the decision not to have said medical procedure should then not be able to participate in society.

This is not at all normal, I can see the hospital beds are getting overwhelmed but this is likely because of viruses that haven’t been able to run through the population normally are making people very poorly.

Which means that this will happen every winter forevermore if we don’t let humans, vaccinated or not just get on with life.

It's been an incredibly distressing time for sick and disabled and elderly people; we've felt more and more that we are burdens, we are the problem, we should just get out of the way and die already so everyone else can crack on

Agree with this 100%. There were many threads expressing those sort of views and many posters were absolutely vile.

Also, many disabled and vulnerable people people have been unable to access the cate and other support services they need during the pandemic, and their conditions have deteriorated because of that.

Care not cate, typing in a bit of a fury there!

Yes, it's a nightmare with care. I've not been able to get vital liver function tests or other bloods (due to certain meds I'm on) since March 2020 when they should be every 6 months. My consultant was upset when I spoke to her the other day that it was things like this slipping through the cracks. For those of us on the ground it's been such a worrying time, hardly getting to speak to our specialists on the phone let alone in person. And for people in care it's been appalling 😢

@Dishhh

*@XenoBitch*

It can still mutate in vaccinated people. It could also mutate in animals.

The vulnerable were never mandated to lockdown. It was advised, but ultimately their choice.

It can mutate in vaccinated people, but it has less opportunity as vaccinated people are less likely to be infected in the first place. The virus also replicates more in the unvaccinated; this can lead to mutation.

The unvaccinated are also not mandated to have vaccinate, either. They have a choice. The vulnerable do not and have never had a choice about their condition, yet they were required to shield for many months. You know that on here there were many calls for them to just stay at home while every else "got on with life" - as if they did not also deserve a life.

The vulnerable were never mandated to lockdown. It was advised, but ultimately their choice

It was made pretty clear that the most vulnerable to serious outcomes from Covid would be bottom of the queue for a ventilator if it came to it. I understand that wasn’t a moral imperative, but nevertheless it was a compelling reason to hide away.

What @Madhairday said
Told not to go outside, or to the supermarket so I had to go without a food shop for 6 weeks while they sorted the slots out and rely on the "boris boxes"
I was advised not to stop shielding, and not to stop wearing a medical grade mask
Asked about a DNAR age 36
Had to tell my parents what I wanted to happen if I was admitted to hospital

I haven't been to a pub, restaurant, club, family/work/friends gathering or back to work since march 2020
My week is - WFH, go to the library after work to get books out when it's v quiet, go to a supermarket maybe once a month or somewhere like TK maxx first thing in the morning. That's it. No socialising, nothing, no events unless they're outdoors, I see nobody

The vulnerable were never mandated to lockdown. It was advised, but ultimately their choice.

Wow, talk about sympathy, as if they had a choice.

give me just one example of how the groups you mentioned were treated any differently at all during the pandemic

I can give you plenty. Let’s start with the fact that thousands of disabled and elderly people were put under a DNR, before they even became unwell. People with learning disabilities were told they would likely need extraordinary measures if they became unwell with Covid so we’re placed under a DNR and yet were not deemed vulnerable enough to be priority for vaccines.

During lockdown rules which allowed “exercise” did not allow for any of the services which provide this for disabled people to do so. Many ended up with more severe disabilities because of a lack of available therapies. My daughter’s therapy being cancelled resulted in her needing surgery this year. Something we have avoided for a long time.

The lack of toilet provision meant going out anywhere for anything was impossible. The services which helped people to be able to live independently were stopped. Many previously independently living disabled people have to move back home with their family for their own safety.

Once opened up the distancing rules meant spaces normally reserved for disabled people disappeared in favour of providing spaces for non disabled people. When children returned to school, enhanced provision places were seriously reduced so most got half a day a week, many got none at all. Kids sports opened up, disability sports did not. My daughter has only just been able to return to a sport she was competing in. It’s been nearly 2 years.

It is astonishing that people can say, with all good conscience, that this pandemic has not hit disabled people much, much harder.

Scope have done research on it. But I suppose that would mean you actually look at something and educate yourself before making such ridiculously erroneous statements.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57652173

Oh and the roll out of the third vaccine was a shambles
https://bloodcancer.org.uk/news/how-did-the-third-covid-vaccine-dose-roll-out-go-so-badly-wrong/

The vulnerable were never mandated to lockdown. It was advised, but ultimately their choice.

So you agree then. That if a group of people go against government advice, and that choice means they are restricted from going about their daily lives because of rules the government puts in place or not, then that is ultimately the consequences of them making that choice and they have to live with it.

Vaccine passports, restricting where the unvaccinated can go and work, those should all be ok then, by your argument. Yes?

That man is 100% not to be trusted, and I don't mean Mark Drakeford.

Mark Drakeford caught out telling the truth

He’s right that if true it’s not good. I question the veracity of the video, easy to over dub something and make it seem like that’s what’s said. Have you ever seen Bad Lipreading?

I might not have been so quick to question it but when posted with someone who uses the term “Kung flu”, I’m immediately sceptical.

That man is 100% not to be trusted, and I don't mean Mark Drakeford.

I have no idea who he is, but seems my initial thought has been confirmed!

Oh and the roll out of the third vaccine was a shambles

In some areas. It’s worked quite well on the whole where I am. The only issue is people being wrongly turned away because they don’t meet the criteria, except they did.

@BoredZelda

That man is 100% not to be trusted, and I don't mean Mark Drakeford.

I have no idea who he is, but seems my initial thought has been confirmed!

Indeed. Jeremy Vine is suing him for defamation.

@BoredZelda

The vulnerable were never mandated to lockdown. It was advised, but ultimately their choice.

So you agree then. That if a group of people go against government advice, and that choice means they are restricted from going about their daily lives because of rules the government puts in place or not, then that is ultimately the consequences of them making that choice and they have to live with it.

Vaccine passports, restricting where the unvaccinated can go and work, those should all be ok then, by your argument. Yes?

You’ve put into words exactly what I wanted to type.

You’re all mad. Vulnerable people were advised to shield for their own protection. In the end it was probably too extreme considering the detriment to mental health and vulnerable were not exactly who it was thought at the beginning. Nobody forced them, many (most I suspect outside of mumsnet actually didn’t shield or not for very long) police wouldn’t have escorted them home. In the early dark days there were some scary predictions about ITU’s being over run. Luckily that never happened. Many people in this country would be considered too frail to benefit from an ITU bed in any circumstances, this is not new but the pandemic brought it home to people.

Comparing this to the idea that the government has the right to restrict your normal freedoms if you don’t comply with medical treatment when the treatment doesn’t even stop transmission is crazy. Crack on if you think the government is to be trusted with that kind of power but I don’t.

The vulnerable were strongly advised to shieldand shielding was far more severethan Lockdown. Hell the Govt even paid for crappy food parcels and toy vouchers for the children. You don't seriously think that a Tory Govt would throw money around like that if there wasn't something in it for them and that was to stop the vulnerable clogging up beds so idiotic 50 something males had an ICU when they needed it Yes Boris.
The shit thrown at the ECV on this board was horrendous. I remember a particularly nasty thread when in tiers where I explained what shielding entire. I was accussed of being a Lockdown Lover..
Some other person suggested the vulnerable stay at home temporarily to avoid everyone else being locked up.
Yeah very clever use of language there.

restrict your normal freedoms

Normal freedom is for normal times, not in pandemic. It's same for everyone, vulnerable or not. Vulnerable people need to take extra precautions. Choice for them not to mean danger to their life.
On the other hand, us healthy people have a choice. We don't even need to get vaccinated if we don't want to. Great, isn't it, even though it may delay us getting out of this pandemic.

But like any choice in life we make, there is a consequences. Those vulnerable choose not to take precautions, maybe a death. Those who choose not to get vaccinated, some inconvenience of can't get vaccine passport to travel abroad, or maybe restriction to entry to certain places.

Some other person suggested the vulnerable stay at home temporarily to avoid everyone else being locked up.

I heard that a lot, right from the start. Still hear it now. It is frustrating (but not in the least surprising) that despite people having had the lived experience of what it is like to be prevented from going about your daily life by society, and really not being able to cope with it, these people still insist it’s fine for disabled people to do that, for the benefit of the non disabled.

Vulnerable people were advised to shield for their own protection.

Sure. You believe that if you wish.

In the end it was probably too extreme considering the detriment to mental health and vulnerable were not exactly who it was thought at the beginning. Nobody forced them, many (most I suspect outside of mumsnet actually didn’t shield or not for very long) police wouldn’t have escorted them home. In the early dark days there were some scary predictions about ITU’s being over run. Luckily that never happened.

Those who were thought vulnerable are still vulnerable to it. The reason you think they weren’t is because they didn’t die in large numbers. Because despite your anecdata, those who were supposed to shield actually did. It wasn’t “luckily” that ICUs weren’t over run, it was because enough people did what they were supposed to. But the situation in hospitals was very, very dire. If you think it wasn’t, you weren’t paying attention.

Comparing this to the idea that the government has the right to restrict your normal freedoms

But it’s ok for the government to put rules in place (or not to) which restricts the normal freedoms of other people? Just not those who choose not to vaccinate?

Thank you for the brilliant explanations, @BoredZelda!

@BoredZelda

Some other person suggested the vulnerable stay at home temporarily to avoid everyone else being locked up.

I heard that a lot, right from the start. Still hear it now. It is frustrating (but not in the least surprising) that despite people having had the lived experience of what it is like to be prevented from going about your daily life by society, and really not being able to cope with it, these people still insist it’s fine for disabled people to do that, for the benefit of the non disabled.

Vulnerable people were advised to shield for their own protection.

Sure. You believe that if you wish.

In the end it was probably too extreme considering the detriment to mental health and vulnerable were not exactly who it was thought at the beginning. Nobody forced them, many (most I suspect outside of mumsnet actually didn’t shield or not for very long) police wouldn’t have escorted them home. In the early dark days there were some scary predictions about ITU’s being over run. Luckily that never happened.

Those who were thought vulnerable are still vulnerable to it. The reason you think they weren’t is because they didn’t die in large numbers. Because despite your anecdata, those who were supposed to shield actually did. It wasn’t “luckily” that ICUs weren’t over run, it was because enough people did what they were supposed to. But the situation in hospitals was very, very dire. If you think it wasn’t, you weren’t paying attention.

Exactly this, @BoredZelda - as a CEV person I am in touch with many other shielders and whole shielding communities. We did take the advice seriously, the vast majority of us did shield as much as we could.

Tbh I lost a whole load of faith in humanity through this. I still feel traumatised by so much of the rhetoric I heard about how 'the vulnerable' were othered and counted as lesser. Also blamed for everything. Basically being a burden on society, a nice reflection of all the rhetoric the welfare reforms of the 10s were based on. :(

Vulnerable people now have access to the vaccine if that is there wish.

A friend of mine had leukaemia years ago. It's something you're never entirely free of.

She's had two jabs and is due a third (not booster)

She has no antibodies. None.

So if everyone else that could be was vaccinated she would stand more chance of being protected.
Sadly, never going to happen.

@BoredZelda

The vulnerable were never mandated to lockdown. It was advised, but ultimately their choice.

So you agree then. That if a group of people go against government advice, and that choice means they are restricted from going about their daily lives because of rules the government puts in place or not, then that is ultimately the consequences of them making that choice and they have to live with it.

Vaccine passports, restricting where the unvaccinated can go and work, those should all be ok then, by your argument. Yes?

Well put