Is social distancing an issue if the vulnerable are shielded?

I don’t know the answer to this. I’m still grappling with the idea. Initial thought is if the vulnerable were shielded and their contacts were limited and tested could the rest of us just resume life as we knew it? Covid would increase in the community but amongst a mostly healthy population. Those who wanted to shield could choose to do so. It shouldn’t be forced on anyone.

Why the contribution is important

We would resume normal life without the restrictions and complications of social distancing.

by lynr on May 10, 2020 at 01:39PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.0
Based on: 4 votes


  • Posted by Lmcd May 10, 2020 at 13:58

    No, I don’t. The number of people under 50 (who have no underlying conditions) who become unwell with the virus is so small that we should be allowed to get back to some semblance of normality.
  • Posted by MikeJohnston May 10, 2020 at 14:15

    Please see my idea about the Acceptable Level of Death. Social distancing itself is clearly going to be with us well beyond the foreseeable future (and how long is that?) and is something we're just all going to have to cope with. There are many other aspects of the lockdown which might be relaxed for those willing to take the risk - and who are deemed to be less vulnerable There must also be a way for the more vulnerable to have some sort of life while shielding themselves and it needs everyone around them, i.e. the whole population, to respect this in practice, 24x7. (Some hope?) The self-shielding might be based on a personal risk-acceptance which is mentioned elsewhere in the conversation.
  • Posted by MikeJohnston May 10, 2020 at 14:16

    Regret that there will be no such thing as normal life for a very long time.
  • Posted by emwpaisley May 10, 2020 at 14:20

    No it’s not an issue ! but apparently the British public cannot be trusted to even know what 1 metre is , so the distancing was doubled to 2 ? Now to go on the aforesaid statement should be trusted to decide for ourselves? Personally I think YES. Shield the vulnerable as we should have done from day one, instead of emptying the hospitals into nursing homes with no testing ! We can now tell by Ms Sturgeon’s FB comment today - we are not following science (if ever we were) not even ambiguous Math used in ‘theoretical’ modelling ! But as usual we are following the politics! We are Not Independent yet and from the results of devolved decisions I hope never will be !
  • Posted by JLMBD May 10, 2020 at 16:31

    You can't effectively shield anyone if a high percentage of the population are carrying C19. It would be on every handle, rail, door, food item and everything else that is touched by more than one person. Vulnerable people need care and those carers have homes of their own and families of their own. Unless you plan to lock the vulnerable in prison and feed them sterile food through a flap in the door you can't keep them safe. Younger healthy people do get it and they do die of it sometimes. More mixing of the general public will increase the infection rate and also the death rate, and then there is a risk of the NHS not coping all over again. There is no point in us all making sacrifices, missing people we love and risking our businesses all these weeks if you are going to throw it all away.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas