Shield the vulnerable and get everyone else back to normal.

Use the money needed to shield the vulnerable and their close contacts. Make sure any Carers are regularly tested even if asymptomatic. Get the community motivated to help those who cannot get out by: shopping, phoning, chatting from a distance. Everyone else under 60 could return to work and school. If that means the virus spreads amongst the fit and healthy we will cope with it as we do the flu. Herd immunity is okay as long as it’s not a threat to life.

Why the contribution is important

It turns the idea of shielding almost the whole population on its head. We can get most people back to work and rebuild our economy and way of life.

by lynr on May 10, 2020 at 11:38AM

Current Rating

Average rating: 3.9
Based on: 20 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Shabbyhouse May 10, 2020 at 11:46

    I'm waiting for my idea "Ditch the New Normal" to pass the moderators, but it says pretty much the same. Full agreement.

  • Posted by petermuir79 May 10, 2020 at 11:47

    100% agree. We cannot wait for a vaccine, it may never come.

  • Posted by fja1980 May 10, 2020 at 11:54

    I'm in agreement with this. The risk for those under 60, particularly under 45 is very low. Even if this increased with relaxation of lockdown it still remains relatively low. I know every life is valuable but as a result of this lockdown we have people not going to hospital and dying of other untreated illnesses. The number of deaths daily due to cancer in this country is huge and this stands to worsen due to lack of treatment over these last month's.

  • Posted by Scotswede May 10, 2020 at 11:57

    This forgets that many 'healthy' people do get the virus and although may not die, have the potential for long term poor health outcomes. Worth a read of "The emerging long-term complications of Covid-19, explained" Potential for a significant % of covid suffers developing health issues in longer term. And ofcourse, more and more emerging data of Kawasaki disease in children.

  • Posted by lynr May 10, 2020 at 11:58

    I should have also said the vulnerable should self select if they want to be shielded. It should not be forced on them.

  • Posted by ProudBIL May 10, 2020 at 12:13

    I agree with the basic premise: shield the vulnerable to the extent that is possible and allow everyone else to get back to normal with reasonable safety measures still in place. There needs to be some evidence to support where the line is drawn on who has to remain shielded. Significant resource would be needed to work out the best way to support the shielded during that time.

  • Posted by AnnMac May 10, 2020 at 12:20

    The vulnerable should continue to be shielded for quite some time yet and supported where possible, particularly those on the listed conditions. Those caring for them should be in the same position as their carers. I think those over 70 should not be forced to ‘stay at home’ but should be a decision they make themselves, particularly if they are very fit over 70 year olds. This shouldn’t be an immediate thing for them but certainly something to be considered for the weeks to come as the cases go down even further.

  • Posted by Broaderpicture May 10, 2020 at 12:33

    I agree with shield the vulnerable and get the rest back to normal which includes back to school as the risk to children from Covid19 is negligible. We cannot afford to risk the livelihoods of future generations by unnecessarily prolonging this lockdown.

  • Posted by AJClubb May 10, 2020 at 13:04

    The measures in force are very blunt instrument, more thought and sense needs to be used

  • Posted by lynr May 10, 2020 at 13:25

    I wanted the lockdown to start sooner than it did. The time should have been used to develop shielding for the groups China and Italy told us clearly were at risk. When that was in place we should have moved back to a more normal way of life.

  • Posted by lynr May 10, 2020 at 13:27

    I wanted the lockdown to start sooner than it did. The time should have been used to develop shielding for the groups China and Italy told us clearly were at risk. When that was in place we should have moved back to a more normal way of life.

  • Posted by JLMBD May 10, 2020 at 15:58

    There seems to be a misconception that because children are generally less affected than adults then it's safe for them to mix freely. Their hygiene is usually poor because they act unconsciously and they are highly likely to carry the virus to families and so transmit it into wider communities. It will be very difficult to keep the R value under one if C19 is travelling "silently".
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas