Shield those at high-risk and release everyone else?

[Marty___Mcfly]

I understand the original objective of reducing overall demand on the NHS by locking down everyone, but we are well past that now. I also understand that if we had another spike we would be back in that situation, but I'm not sure that is likely given what has happened in other countries which have begun to unlock.


At this point however, it seems to be from the statistics that the virus is only a significant risk to the elderly and those with a pre-existing condition.

Recent figures showed 166 people under 40 had passed away. 91% of all cases have had a pre-existing condition. That could mean only 17 of the under 40's deaths were people with no pre-existing conditions. If the number is that low, I do not understand the logic behind not lifting restrictions for those who are at such a low risk.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692





I appreciate the impact of every deaths upon those involved, however, if we were looking at the impact on the younger and healthy alone as a problem, with those sorts of death figures, no lock down measures would be in place. In this context, it would seem reasonable to remove restrictions on those below a certain age with no underlying conditions.

The remainder of the population who may be at higher risk could be advised of that risk and advised to stay at home if they want to reduce their risk. This could be left to individuals to decide, e.g. some at the lower end of the age range who are fit and healthy may decide to get back out there.

Given the risk to younger / healthy people is so low it does seem that an approach more akin to the current Swedish model could work for them, i.e. some social distancing where practical but get all businesses other than those that involve large gatherings back open. And schools etc. I just can't see any significant risk in that, provided the overall spread is at a level which is not beyond HHS capacity.

I remain very concerned about those at high-risk, but I cannot see the logic of restricting the rest of the population at this stage.

 

[darkwolf666]

I understand the original objective of reducing overall demand on the NHS by locking down everyone, but we are well past that now. I also understand that if we had another spike we would be back in that situation, but I'm not sure that is likely given what has happened in other countries which have begun to unlock.


At this point however, it seems to be from the statistics that the virus is only a significant risk to the elderly and those with a pre-existing condition.

Recent figures showed 166 people under 40 had passed away. 91% of all cases have had a pre-existing condition. That could mean only 17 of the under 40's deaths were people with no pre-existing conditions. If the number is that low, I do not understand the logic behind not lifting restrictions for those who are at such a low risk.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692

View attachment 123378

View attachment 123379

I appreciate the impact of every deaths upon those involved, however, if we were looking at the impact on the younger and healthy alone as a problem, with those sorts of death figures, no lock down measures would be in place. In this context, it would seem reasonable to remove restrictions on those below a certain age with no underlying conditions.

The remainder of the population who may be at higher risk could be advised of that risk and advised to stay at home if they want to reduce their risk. This could be left to individuals to decide, e.g. some at the lower end of the age range who are fit and healthy may decide to get back out there.

Given the risk to younger / healthy people is so low it does seem that an approach more akin to the current Swedish model could work for them, i.e. some social distancing where practical but get all businesses other than those that involve large gatherings back open. And schools etc. I just can't see any significant risk in that, provided the overall spread is at a level which is not beyond HHS capacity.

I remain very concerned about those at high-risk, but I cannot see the logic of restricting the rest of the population at this stage.

Two things, firstly the word “Shielding” - this sounds warm and cozy, as if someone is looking after all these people with high vulnerability, when in reality it actually means locking them indoors 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in isolation.

My family have now been doing this for 7 weeks and have only been out of the house on 4 occasions, to go the hospital for cancer treatment. No jogs round the block in our household, or debates about what constitutes a reasonable amount of time for exercise.

This “shielding” is likely to go on indefinitely, either until a cure is found, the person shielding gets fed up of the process and takes their chances or they die...

Secondly, how many people are you proposing to shield. Anyone who has a health condition, my understanding is a high percentage of people who have died’s health conditions have been obesity and dementia... are you going to round up ALL fat people and those who have cognitive impairments?

It’s just so easy to talk about shielding the very vulnerable, which we have been doing for the last 7 weeks, yet people are still dying. Currently there are 1.5 million shielding, how big will that number be if you add on the less vulnerable, who are currently making up the highest percentage of the death figures?

***************************************************************************************************

As an addendum to my reply. On March 15th, Matt Hancock went on the Andrew Marr show and said the government would be asking those with certain health conditions AND the over 70s to shield for a period of 12 weeks. Clearly after this broadcast someone must have whispered in the government’s ear that this would result in many millions of people being locked up indefinitely.

This advice was changed within a week to the current shielding of the very vulnerable...

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

I don't think there are any simple solutions for those who are at high-risk. I suggest that Government provides clear, detailed and honest advice regarding the risks to various groups such as the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. It does appear that the latter may include the obese. It would then be for those people to decide themselves based on the information and advice, how they chose to live their lives. Some may decide to stay at home, others may decide to venture out.

I do not think these people should be legally restricted to staying at home for an indefinite period.

I think the more pressing issue is that there is no logical reason to keep everyone else at home and keep businesses, schools etc. shut, when the risk to everyone else is so low.

 

[RossyG]

Yep, we should do exactly that.

 

[darkwolf666]

I don't think there are any simple solutions for those who are at high-risk. I suggest that Government provides clear, detailed and honest advice regarding the risks to various groups such as the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. It does appear that the latter may include the obese. It would then be for those people to decide themselves based on the information and advice, how they chose to live their lives. Some may decide to stay at home, others may decide to venture out.

I do not think these people should be legally restricted to staying at home for an indefinite period.

I think the more pressing issue is that there is no logical reason to keep everyone else at home and keep businesses, schools etc. shut, when the risk to everyone else is so low.

I have to admit, for perfectly healthy people of certain ages, this does all seem like Much Ado About Nothing, which is why, I guess, we are having this discussion, as I’m guessing you fall into the healthy, good age range!

You are effectively reverting back to the (alleged) Cummings heard immunity discussion at the very outset of the virus and leaving it down to individuals to decide if they wish to live or die - continued financial backing from the government may make it easier for some to continue to “shield”, but fear some would be pushed back into the public domain on the grounds of economics...

**********************************

As an addendum to this - and making some large assumptions.

I am sure figures I have seen bandied about indicate herd immunity is created if 60%+ of the population contract the virus. I have also seen in those of senior school age, who contract the virus, a 0.2% mortality rate. So in a school of 1500 pupils there is potential for 2 pupils to die... is that acceptable?

 

[sparkie]

How long will the house arrest last for those being "shielded" ?

Years ?

Perhaps they will be conveniently forgotten about nice and quickly.

 

[darkwolf666]

How long will the house arrest last for those being "shielded" ?

Years ?

Perhaps they will be conveniently forgotten about nice and quickly.

This is my concern too.

As I alluded to, at the moment the government are playing ball financially, with things like Universal Credit, being paid, if needed, to anyone being told to stay at home by the government. Will that continue indefinitely? Who knows, but I have my suspicions and can almost hear the cries of “benefit scroungers” before this is all over, particularly when people “look” healthy.

To paraphrase (which I seem to be doing a lot of lately), not all illnesses are visible.

 

[RossyG]

How long will the house arrest last for those being "shielded" ?

Years ?

How long should everyone be under house arrest?

 

[sparkie]

How long should everyone be under house arrest?

Until the virus R-value goes low enough.

If it creeps above another threshold then Lockdown 2 for all.


We need to be all in it together to keep minds focused on a cure.

 

[darkwolf666]

How long should everyone be under house arrest?

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...

 

[Rugrat]

Have we got a good definition of obese in the context of covid deaths? Certainly from a pure medical perspective I thought the majority of the western world was clinically obsese

Are underlying conditions those that we are aware of? I feel perfectly fit but did smoke for 30 years and it's been a while since I had a full MOT so no idea if I have any underlying condition

Oh and what about the front line health workers? Is any consideration to be given to them? Nah f**k it bung them a £500 bonus when this is all over

Other than that I say let's just go for it ... increasingly people are anyway and it doesn't need Boris to come up with some infantile 1-5 alert system to tell me what I can and can't do

Edit: Feeling particularly pissy after 2 scheizer incidents yesterday

 

[RossyG]

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...

Lost my job over this - tick

Unable to visit family or have any kind of social life - tick

Liable to be moved on by police if I sit on the beach or in the park - tick

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Look at the spike celebrating the end of WW1.

 

[RossyG]

Until the virus R-value goes low enough.

If it creeps above another threshold then Lockdown 2 for all.


We need to be all in it together to keep minds focused on a cure.

The current record for developing a vaccine is four years.

 

[darkwolf666]

Lost my job over this - tick

Unable to visit family or have any kind of social life - tick

Liable to be moved on by police if I sit on the beach or in the park - tick

Not able to answer a direct question - tick

Yes what you and others are suffering isn’t nice, an infringement on your civil liberties, and I am sure everyone would like to be able to turn back time, to before the pandemic.

However you are neither under house arrest OR dead!

 

[sparkie]

The current record for developing a vaccine is four years.

And for developing drug treatments that turn a death outcome into 2 weeks ill at home in bed ?

 

[RossyG]

Yes what you and others are suffering isn’t nice, an infringement on your civil liberties...

And how blasé some people have come about them being taken away. Just took a few weeks.

Life isn’t clinically sterile. We live amidst death, disease, illness...

If we stay locked in until it’s safe to come out that means we just don’t come out.

In the meantime the economy crashes, mental health deteriorates for some, and natural immunity starts to lower. I actually think we’ve gone past the stage where the “cure” has become worse than the disease.

 

[RossyG]

And for developing drug treatments that turn a death outcome into 2 weeks ill at home in bed ?

The one that removed the death sentence from AIDS took about thirty years.

SARS, about ten.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

And how blasé some people have come about them being taken away. Just took a few weeks.

Life isn’t clinically sterile. We live amidst death, disease, illness...

If we stay locked in until it’s safe to come out that means we just don’t come out.

In the meantime the economy crashes, mental health deteriorates for some, and natural immunity starts to lower. I actually we’ve gone past the stage where the “cure” has become worse than the disease.

I haven't had any civil liberties taken away from me. I hope you don't have anyone in your family who is immuno compromised, suffering from cancer, COPD or diabetes.

Has it occurred to you, in your healthy state, that you could be a carrier?

 

[sparkie]

The one that removed the death sentence from AIDS took about thirty years.

SARS, about ten.

And when the full focus of society is on getting that cure ? When it is the daily number one priority and target ?


If you lock a part of society away then they will be conveniently forgotten and the focus and urgency on finding the cure will be lost.