Isolate the vulnerable and let the rest get back to work whilst following social distancing

It's clear that there is no definite link between any nation's lockdown methodology and the results of that lockdown. The country must get back to work to fund the nhs and other vital services etc as well as to avoid a catastrophic depression which will cost many lives. Isolate the vulnerable and let the rest get back to life, whilst following sensible social distancing measures.

Why the contribution is important

It would save lives in the medium to long term whilst not losing lives in the short term. If one is not in a vulnerable group and the vulnerable are isolated properly, there will be little risk, but a huge amount to gain.

by geraldwiley on May 05, 2020 at 04:27PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 3.6
Based on: 77 votes

Comments

  • Posted by JackWhyte49 May 05, 2020 at 16:33

    Incorrect and discriminatory !!! The lockdown has been successful in driving down the infection rate and should only be lifted gradually when we are sure that new cases are minimal and can be traced and isolated.
  • Posted by lindyloo May 05, 2020 at 16:34

    We need to get back to work to pay for the nhs through our taxes. It seems the goal posts are constantly changing in lifting this lockdown. Let us be adults and decide if we want to get back to work, have a coffee with friends and get a haircut. The financial impact from this lockdown will be felt for decades to come. Nevermind all the increase in domestic abuse and mental health problems.
  • Posted by Davemac1960 May 05, 2020 at 16:35

    We need to get back to work or the long term effects will be worse than the short term impacts
  • Posted by Scotswede May 05, 2020 at 16:48

    I urge caution with this approach. The 'vulnerable' cannot be isolated forever, or even for a long time, and there will be extremely significant physical and mental health implications for this group of people (for example, lack of decent exercise, fresh air, families with children/ loved ones with severe behavioural issues being restricted to their homes.) Also many of the vulnerable may have underlying health issues - but are actually generally very well. They may miss out on valuable education, lose employment and will also likely be affected by lack of social engagement. These people will very likely be disadvantaged long term by an arbitrary 'vulnerable vs healthy citizen' policy. Better outcomes for all, including our vulnerable members of society, benefits our economy in the long run. A sensible slow and steady restart to the economy, with support services prioritised to the most vulnerable to ensure they remain an important and included part of our society is the approach needed. It will take us smoothly (as smooth as possible) out of lockdown, reduce chances of multiple lockdowns in the future and both save and enhance the quality of lives in the longer term.
  • Posted by Tonyretals May 05, 2020 at 16:49

    I think this comment is incorrect and there is a clear link between lockdown and the decrease in the rate of infections. I think lockdown should be maintained until we have an acceptable level of control over infections and then slowly released to keep it under control. I think that if we relax to early a second lockdown will be inevitable and that this would be far more detrimental than extending the current lockdown by a few more weeks. Let’s get it under control this time and not lose the gains we have already made.
  • Posted by ljk84 May 05, 2020 at 16:53

    we must regain some sort of normality for a variety of reasons, physical health, emotional health, for people financially, for businesses to survive. What sort of country will we have left if those goes on too long? Completely agree those shielding should be protected but in line with social distancing good hygiene etc people have to return to some sort of life or I worry what we will have left.
  • Posted by Singingbike May 05, 2020 at 16:54

    As someone in the shielded group, but remarkably healthy considering, I already feel I have been imprisoned for a crime I have not committed. The support that has been put in place is all very well (and welcomed) but it doesn't do anything for the feelings of hopelessness - the prospect of being imprisoned at home until a vaccine is rolled out is just horrendous. I haven't broken the rules at all but I can't help feeling that the risks associated with my catching the virus are no greater than the risks of my physical and mental decline if I cannot ever leave my house for the foreseeable future.
  • Posted by mwsutherland May 05, 2020 at 16:59

    Getting back to work is really important but let’s not forget that many who were not classed as vulnerable have died including many Nhs staff. The country can’t risk another huge rise in cases and choices can be selfish. A phased return to work and socialising seems more sensible.
  • Posted by Rosie May 05, 2020 at 17:15

    We must not alienate the vulnerable. They have done nothing wrong. They are the ones who will actually do everything they can to protect themselves. It’s the covidiots we need to worry about. A phased return, to include the vulnerable with adequate support, is the most sensible way forward.
  • Posted by codenamev May 05, 2020 at 17:16

    Given what we now know the lock-down is completely disproportionate to the threat faced. Non-lockdown countries, various variables aside have done better ! I've not seen any evidence from the Scottish government that lock-down has done anything to stop the spread of the virus. It's all guesswork with fancy models. How do we know non lock-down wouldn't have had same or better results ? It's time for common sense to prevail, as the original poster saids to shield the vulnerable, give advice to healthy 70+ people, the rest of us can get back to work. This lock down policy is social and cultural suicide and i am truly struggling to be a part of it, it's like being assaulted everyday and taking it ! I won't be doing this for much longer personally now i know the facts 1 The chances of dying from covid-19 is around 0.3%. Stanford University in new York said for age groups 18-45 the chances are 0.01% ! Lock-down, life change permanently for THIS ? It's utterly absurd !
  • Posted by TheRaven May 05, 2020 at 17:17

    Has anyone who has commented on this idea read of the situation in Sweden who have no lockdown and are doing far better than us in terms of cases. This is a fact so it is a correct comment.
  • Posted by Bella2 May 05, 2020 at 17:30

    It is important to start looking to get people back to work - everyone at home having lost their job or being furloughed (with potential to lose that work) - each one of those numbers represents a family that will be under enormous stress to pay the bills and put food on the table. We can't underestimate the health impacts that unemployment has on people, both physically and on their mental health. Insist that companies take non-contact thermo readings of their staff on arrival at work - and anything untoward, action can be taken.
  • Posted by Islander May 05, 2020 at 18:02

    we need to return to some form of normal, This lockdown has had me close to tears, I think mental health is soaring. People need to return to work before there is no job to return to.
  • Posted by Ruth May 05, 2020 at 18:15

    Care home residents have not had visitors for a long time now but are still dying. Our most vulnerable citizens are in this along with the rest of us. If we are suffering mental health problems through this, they certainly are. We can't just build a wall round them and leave them to live or die, we will be patient for a while longer.
  • Posted by sl806e May 05, 2020 at 19:49

    The vulnerable should only be isolated if they choose to be isolated.
  • Posted by LAM May 05, 2020 at 22:05

    Totally disagree with anything that looks like forcing some people to be isolated due to health. We must allow people to make their own risk based decisions - we cannot morally carry on expecting people with more serious health conditions to be forced to stay in their homes indefinitely. That is not a life. We have to find a better way - some other threads on here have some positive suggestions
  • Posted by cresswell May 06, 2020 at 12:43

    If we do not get back to work soon, there will have been no point in this lockdown as the whole UK (and world) economy will be ruined. Forget the nanny state and allow people to make their own minds up about the risks of catching v the risks of not having a life worth living anyway.
  • Posted by John1911 May 06, 2020 at 20:38

    The desire of so many people to keep drifting in this very unpleasant limbo is unnerving. We simply cannot continue with an indefinite slow crawl towards this new normal, as real world economics will ultimately destroy those plans. We must get people back to work soon, so that the country can *attempt* to generate the wealth we need as a nation to pay for our future NHS and every other public service we depend upon. I emphasized the word attempt, because I genuinely feel it's already too late, and those countries that didn't enter a lockdown, or those leaving theirs before us will have an economic advantage over us that makes our nation's economic recovery that bit harder. I'm not optimistic about our future.
  • Posted by ZoeK May 06, 2020 at 21:33

    This virus will NOT just disappear.  We must learn to live with it. Who is anyone to say a person is vulnerable they should be able to decide this for themselves! Social interaction between loved ones must be reinstated with immediate effect.  Mental health and domestic/child abuse is on the extreme rise. As is violence in communities. We must think what is best for us and our own.  NO ONE is in control of anothers life.  Our economy must rebuild! We can NOT be kept as virtual prisoners no more. Restore our freedom!
  • Posted by fja1980 May 06, 2020 at 23:06

    I completely understand the reasons for this lockdown and concerns in overwhelming the health service, however, as time progresses the indirect deaths in relation to this virus I fear will be of staggering proportions. The economy is suffering and it's currently predicted around 900000 of the Scottish workforce will be unemployed as a result of this lockdown. This will lead to many deaths due to poverty, suicide not to mention the deaths due to domestic abuse and for a whole raft of other reasons of which I am sure the Scottish government are completely aware. Let those at minimal risk as confirmed by statistics worldwide get the economy up and running again, and yes I am fully aware the lockdown has resulted in fewer deaths but even if you increase my risk tenfold it still holds true that statistically the under 45 age group are at minimal risk overall. If we add in the number of unknown positive cases it would dilute this risk even further.
  • Posted by mags14 May 07, 2020 at 10:10

    Many vulnerable people have carers who would also have have to isolate under this approach. We must do what is best for all our community and this should not mean isolating on grounds of health or age unless individuals choose to do this
  • Posted by snapier May 07, 2020 at 11:43

    Now we are getting more information on who is vulnerable, we should be able to shield these people and let those with a low risk get back to school, university, work or retirement. Social distancing would still be required and the track and trace app would help to manage. Also consider the areas with the highest rate of occurrences eg Inverclyde and put in place more assistance and shielding for these areas.
  • Posted by VikingL May 07, 2020 at 20:02

    There are so many degrees of 'vulnerable' , some of whom may be the only responsible, wage earning adult in the household. We need to consider who is going to pay their mortgages, bills etc if they are prevented from going to work - not everyone has had the luxury of being furloughed. If this type of vulnerable person is evicted due to non payment of rent or mortgage, they will be far more vulnerable when both they and their family are out on the street and/or suffering mental anguish. Yes, I do believe we should come out of this very gradually but companies, corporations, authorities and public bodies need to take steps to 'shield' their workforces - then we can help them and Scotland get back on her feet.
  • Posted by NH May 07, 2020 at 20:46

    People are forgetting how quickly this virus could start spreading again if we lift the restrictions too soon. it wouldn't take much to lift R above 1 and it rises rapidly from there. You would be risking the economy even more as well as people's health.
  • Posted by MikeJohnston May 08, 2020 at 08:54

    AGREE WITH ROSIE "We must not alienate the vulnerable. They have done nothing wrong. They are the ones who will actually do everything they can to protect themselves. It’s the covidiots we need to worry about. A phased return, to include the vulnerable with adequate support, is the most sensible way forward."
  • Posted by Kim May 08, 2020 at 11:29

    comment is very good. I agree those who can should be allowed back to work. we can make informed decisions if we want to go for a coffee or haircut on our own. The government should not continue to keep us in lock down when there is no pressure on the NHS. The new hospitals are not even being used and can be called if we need to. They weren't even used when we were at our peak.
  • Posted by Alasdrum May 08, 2020 at 13:57

    Great idea!
  • Posted by FM79 May 09, 2020 at 12:58

    Blanket approach is destroying the economy. Those who can need to get back to work to kick start the economic recovery before it's too late. If people think the government can continue to pay furlough money and business grants on top of all existing services paid for by tax, NI, Vat etc for a sustained period without the majority going back to work to earn and actually pay in the tax, NI, vat etc. they are kidding themselves. The longer term impact of a sustained lockdown is much more frightening than the current covid situation if people take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
  • Posted by lynr May 10, 2020 at 11:54

    I agree. Get the healthy low risk people out of lockdown and back to work. Offer the money and services to shield any vulnerable person who wants it. But as adults vulnerable people should make that choice and not be forced into seclusion.
  • Posted by Invicta May 10, 2020 at 20:28

    Totally agree. What goes on in the hills of the north Highlands or the Angus glens has nothing to do with the situation in care homes.
  • Posted by HelloScotland May 11, 2020 at 09:52

    Perhaps this is not what was meant, but this sounds like a very selfish and ill conceived idea idea. The whole point of forced isolation is that many people just wont follow rules and unfortunately this puts many more people at risk. Rules will be relaxed as cases drop and the NHS is equipped to deal with volumes, however it is likely a rushed plan to exit lockdown will see cases soar. Any plan to resume normal life will likely see those shielding continuing to do so for a period longer, but what happens when those that are resuming normal life become complacent? Are the shielding group to remain indoors until a cure is developed? Instead, a set of progressive steps are necessary with adequate controls in place around testing, tracking and treatment. Other ideas in this forum are very good and designating certain days/times for at risk groups to exercise for instance may be something we all need to adapt to, at least for a while.
  • Posted by highlandgal May 11, 2020 at 10:43

    It seems that according to the statistics , the risk of the virus are minimal for the majority of people in the population, just as flu is not life threatening for most. A bit of balance and common sense is needed rather than this indefinite 'lockdown' . Other countries have shown sensible individual precautionary behaviour is just as effective.
  • Posted by Portypotter May 11, 2020 at 11:23

    Given that only 1% of deaths in Scotland (19 deaths to date I think) are in the age group under 44, while 75% are aged 65+ is it possible to unlock in age/stages? So young people first, especially as they are probably suffering most from mental health issues? Teens and college & uni students etc? Obviously no-one wants the R rate to go shooting up but it seems that healthy people under 44 - if they get it - do not die in large numbers. Young people with underlying health conditions (diabetes etc) could choose to continue to isolate/shield and we could have (greatly) enhanced shielding for older folk, people with underlying health conditions and testing focused on care home and NHS workers?
  • Posted by Zaffarella May 11, 2020 at 15:35

    I fully appreciate there are difficult choices, however, social distancing continued much longer will ultimately kill more people than Covid 19 and certainly kill society. Government must be greatest good for greatest number. Now that lockdown has gained the time to put capacity in place the “stay safe” narrative will need to change to reflect; Fatal for less than 1% Vast majority (over 80%) asymptomatic or mild; relatively few have required hospitalisation. Current strain is fairly narrow in its target. People die; in Scotland 4,700 people, on average, each month every year (average 2001-2019 per NRS). There were 1,559 Covid deaths in Scotland as at 2 May. Many of those dying with Covid 19 on the death certificate (but not necessarily a contributory factor) would have died in any event this year. May never be vaccine; it would wrong and very costly to society at large to wait for one – accordingly we must manage this. Covid 19 now endemic and should be dealt with like any other perennial virus. Going forward Covid 19 can be managed by creating capacity (Infectious diseases hospitals?). Unfortunately, those in care homes are amongst the most susceptible to the virus, some form of gateway regime or system for entrance to care homes will be required. Fitness (substantially issues caused by obesity) makes a massive difference to outcome; this is an opportunity to reinforce that being fit will save lives and the NHS I am glad to see that the Swedish approach has now been commended by the WHO as an exemplar for moving forward. Although it has controls, it has allowed more social interaction. This approach will certainly have reduced any “future wave”. As at 11 May, the UK (with a population 6.56 times that of Sweden) has had 31,855 deaths. Sweden has recorded 3,225 deaths. That is 66.4% of the UK total. The Swedish approach has to be considered, as it is less damaging to society and the economy at large.
  • Posted by Jem May 11, 2020 at 17:25

    I agree. Social distancing can be maintained while allowing people to begin to put their lives back together.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas