Shield those at high-risk and release everyone else?

[Marty___Mcfly]

The OP is referring only to the risk of death. Younger fit people would still be exposed to the risk of catching the virus and to the possibility of becoming sufficiently ill to require medical intervention. The question would then be whether the NHS is able to cope with this demand and, to a degree, whether this is an appropriate use of NHS resources.

The Swedish head scientist chap said their data now shows that 98% - 99% of those infected have no symptoms or very mild symptoms. I do not have the figures for how many younger people with no underlying condition have needed serious hospital treatment but I am guessing the numbers are low, so these people leaving lockdown may not have a significant impact on NHS capacity, based on the charts below-

 

[darkwolf666]

Locking down the most vulnerable, such as my wife begs the question what does the rest of the family do? We all work, currently all furloughed, but especially my work involves a lot of travel and a lot of exposure to joe public. We could be my wife's death sentence.

I really worry about the future as it's impossible for me and my adult children to stay at home for ever! Added to which my son is going insane, not being able to see his girlfriend.

I so feel your pain and your dilemma. My wife is in the very vulnerable group - nothing will change that as she is on chemo based treatment for the next 2 years.

I am happy to stay indoors with her, supporting her, for as long as it takes. We get our shopping, we have a Portal so we can video chat people, we can keep in touch!

We also have a 3 year old, who is due to start Special Needs school in September - he won't be. At the very least my intention is that we will be keeping him back until he has to start school next year - if things still haven't changed, then we will be home schooling him!

Our problem is the 2 teenagers in our house, both of whom have learning disabilities. We took the girls on after they had been in care under a Special Guardianship Order.

The eldest has been working a zero hours contract in a children's nursery as a play assistant, while the younger one has just finished college.

At the moment I have told them they are staying in "shielding" with my wife, I and little one, until the end of June, the government's directed shielding time, but how long can I keep that up for?

They will not be able to safely go out, to work, or even just out, without the risk of them bringing the virus back into our house. They have little understanding of personal hygiene, and would have zero concept of social distancing.

The younger one's SGO finishes in July this year, when by rights we could ask them to leave - do I do that for the safety of my wife, or do I keep them imprisoned with us!

I really don't know the answer to this problem, and it is driving me mad...

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I agree but you need the safeguard the same as maternity leave where your job still exists. No one else does my job in the company in my area (the whole of the south of England and Wales) my worry is that the company would have to fill it in my absence.

Or if possible work should be offering complete 24/7 flexi hours if can’t get into office (it sounds like you wouldn’t be able to do that) but some jobs it really doesn’t matter what 9-5 you do

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I so feel your pain and your dilemma. My wife is in the very vulnerable group - nothing will change that as she is on chemo based treatment for the next 2 years.

I am happy to stay indoors with her, supporting her, for as long as it takes. We get our shopping, we have a Portal so we can video chat people, we can keep in touch!

We also have a 3 year old, who is due to start Special Needs school in September - he won't be. At the very least my intention is that we will be keeping him back until he has to start school next year - if things still haven't changed, then we will be home schooling him!

Our problem is the 2 teenagers in our house, both of whom have learning disabilities. We took the girls on after they had been in care under a Special Guardianship Order.

The eldest has been working a zero hours contract in a children's nursery as a play assistant, while the younger one has just finished college.

At the moment I have told them they are staying in "shielding" with my wife, I and little one, until the end of June, the government's directed shielding time, but how long can I keep that up for?

They will not be able to safely go out, to work, or even just out, without the risk of them bringing the virus back into our house. They have little understanding of personal hygiene, and would have zero concept of social distancing.

The younger one's SGO finishes in July this year, when by rights we could ask them to leave - do I do that for the safety of my wife, or do I keep them imprisoned with us!

I really don't know the answer to this problem, and it is driving me mad...

Really feel for you.

Puts the push for a restart to football in perspective.

Those that believe we should now "just get on with it" are very myopic in their thoughts.

 

[darkwolf666]

Really feel for you.

Puts the push for a restart to football in perspective.

Those that believe we should now "just get on with it" are very myopic in their thoughts.

I don't blame people for being myopic, it is human nature to be concerned about what affects the individual - clearly many people have decided this doesn't affect them.

 

[BeHereNow]

How many of these can you tick.

Able to go to work
Able to go shopping
Able to go outside for exercise

I would suggest if you can tick 2 or more of those then YOU aren’t under house arrest...

Sparkie used the term ‘house arrest’ first, but you didn’t take him up on it

 

[blue-shifted]

Yes, I think that if you're under 40, you should be able to go about your business and the lockdown should be entirely lifted. Some restrictions should remain for 40 to 65. over 65, full lockdown.

However, this should be hand in hand with a massive increase in testing for those who are going to have to help our elderly and vulnerable, who will have to hide themselves away, many, most probably for the rest of their lives.

This is hideous, but the NHS and other support systems need to be paid for

 

[Wozza]

Yes, I think that if you're under 40, you should be able to go about your business and the lockdown should be entirely lifted.

All footballers back to work? Only under-40s allowed to attend?

 

[darkwolf666]

Sparkie used the term ‘house arrest’ first, but you didn’t take him up on it

No, because he used it in a different context, as someone who is “shielding” and effectively under house arrest.

Not as was used by the other poster who believed his civil liberties had been taken away and he was under “house arrest” even though he was able to go out for shopping, exercise and work, although unfortunately he had lost the last option.

There is a very clear difference in the use of the phrase!

 

[blue-shifted]

All footballers back to work? Only under-40s allowed to attend?

Well, I'm not actually making the rules, but go on then. Yes. Under 40's can do anything they could before, should they choose to do so, including football.

Your 40th birthday would make for quite a depressing event.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I don't blame people for being myopic, it is human nature to be concerned about what affects the individual - clearly many people have decided this doesn't affect them.

Having to go back to work is because it’s affecting them.

 

[blue-shifted]

I'm personally of the view that we probably won't have the medicines to get this under any proper control for 5 to 10 years.

This means a choice.

I don't think it's reasonable or sensible ask the young to give up their freedom and opportunities for anything like this length of time. The young are the ones working, spending money and moving the economy along.

It's completely unfair. But that's just the nature of the Coronavirus

 

[darkwolf666]

Yes, I think that if you're under 40, you should be able to go about your business and the lockdown should be entirely lifted. Some restrictions should remain for 40 to 65. over 65, full lockdown.

However, this should be hand in hand with a massive increase in testing for those who are going to have to help our elderly and vulnerable, who will have to hide themselves away, many, most probably for the rest of their lives.

This is hideous, but the NHS and other support systems need to be paid for

At the last census that was 10 million people - is your current job giving the government advise...?

 

[darkwolf666]

I'm personally of the view that we probably won't have the medicines to get this under any proper control for 5 to 10 years.

This means a choice.

I don't think it's reasonable or sensible ask the young to give up their freedom and opportunities for anything like this length of time. The young are the ones working, spending money and moving the economy along.

It's completely unfair. But that's just the nature of the Coronavirus

Say it, go on say it, you know you want to...

 

[blue-shifted]

At the last census that was 10 million people - is your current job giving the government advise...?

These 10m people will have to lock down for the entire duration of the crisis anyway.

The rest of us, (i'm 43 for full disclosure) could be allowed to make a choice. This would keep the economy going to the level that if these elderly people do need hospital care, there's a reasonable well funded health and care system to take care of them.

 

[blue-shifted]

Say it, go on say it, you know you want to...

I've no idea what you're talking about.

 

[darkwolf666]

I've no idea what you're talking about.

Die, death, all those other nasty words that people don’t want to use...

You want the young to be able to go about their business, because they spend money and keep the economy going, while all those over 65 should be locked away - to what, yes, die...

There you go, said it for you.

Enjoy your life...

 

[darkwolf666]

These 10m people will have to lock down for the entire duration of the crisis anyway.

The rest of us, (i'm 43 for full disclosure) could be allowed to make a choice. This would keep the economy going to the level that if these elderly people do need hospital care, there's a reasonable well funded health and care system to take care of them.

Why have 10 million over 65s got to be locked away? How would that be managed?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Die, death, all those other nasty words that people don’t want to use...

You want the young to be able to go about their business, because they spend money and keep the economy going, while all those over 65 should be locked away - to what, yes, die...

There you go, said it for you.

Enjoy your life...

You are so dramatic.

No one has said that.

Like it or not we need to get people back to work and at the moment it makes sense to get people back that are least affected by it and work from there.

Stop taking it so personally.

No work, no taxes = no nhs

 

[blue-shifted]

Die, death, all those other nasty words that people don’t want to use...

You want the young to be able to go about their business, because they spend money and keep the economy going, while all those over 65 should be locked away - to what, yes, die...

There you go, said it for you.

Enjoy your life...

If I wanted them to die, surely i'd be advocating they come out of lockdown? No. I want them to be safe. As said, we'd need to have meticulous testing for those shielding them, but I think it is possible to have an almost complete separation of young and old. To me, this is the least worst outcome in the medium to long term.

The thing is, if it were possible to run the furlough scheme indefinitely, or there was some imminent likelihood of a medical breakthrough which could end all this, then i'd suggest that solidarity-wise it would be good for old and young to have the same rules apply. This isn't the case though, so we're faced with stark choices like these