Shield the vulnerable whilst allowing healthy people to go out and build up their own and heard immunity.

The NHS in Scotland has not been overwhelmed and to avoid a second peek in the winter months I suggest letting healthy people go out and about whilst shielding vulnerable groups, maintaining hand hygiene and practice social distancing. if they do contract the virus they will be less likely to require hospital services and should build up individual and herd immunity, thus benefiting all. Please enable these individuals to exercise free will whist equipped with the new skills and knowledge we have all obtained in recent weeks.

Why the contribution is important

I don’t believe that locking down everyone is going to produced the best outcomes, we must find a way forward that reduces the risks for all that includes people suffering and dying from covid 19, poor mental heath, domestic abuse, child abuse, suicide, poverty, starvation and those not receiving or coming forward for critical health care services. There is going to be risks moving forward which ever way we go but please let healthy people volunteer to in the same vain as those who came forward to support the NHS or take part in drug trials.

by Mosley on May 07, 2020 at 09:41PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 3.9
Based on: 29 votes


  • Posted by VMcCann May 07, 2020 at 21:55

    This seems like the most common sense idea. Using a bit common sense
  • Posted by MaighstirTodt May 07, 2020 at 22:21

    This seems pretty sensible but we must remember that seeming healthy people have also succumbed to the virus so we need to be very careful.
  • Posted by Lingirdy May 07, 2020 at 22:37

    Even “healthy” people can be killed by this virus. No one knows yet why some people get it worse than others. Also people with no symptoms who think they are well could still spread it to others who are more vulnerable. Mass testing could help.
  • Posted by MarionY May 07, 2020 at 23:53

    Is there enough evidence to support herd immunity I wonder? Young fit people have died from Covid 19. Lots of we older people go out for our own shopping now because we have no choice or do not want to put added stress on our family's, but if a large section of the population were free to go out a lot more, thereby spreading the virus more, we would feel more vulnerable than we already do.
  • Posted by Aonghais May 08, 2020 at 05:02

    We know from the statistics who are the most vulnerable but all ages are dying when contracting this pernicious virus and those in the black and Asian ethnic groups are almost 4 times more likely to die, are we saying that these are expendable for the benefit of the majority. Are you happy for your middle aged sons or daughters to be exposed to the risk?
  • Posted by Zendog May 08, 2020 at 06:46

    The underlying premise that the virus is ‘safe’ for the majority of the population is false. Even healthy adults and children have died, and many are suffering what could become long term health conditions as a result of contracting the virus. From a whole population perspective, maybe this is ‘common sense’, but not at the individual level.
  • Posted by AK May 08, 2020 at 07:01

    There is as yet no evidence that having the virus gives you immunity or for how long if it does. Indeed the evidence from other coronaviruses is that immunity after contracting it doesn't last. So I find this idea dangerous until we have more science on how immunity to sars-cov-19 actually works.
  • Posted by ant27 May 08, 2020 at 07:04

    I like this idea: focus our energies protecting the vulnerable while still getting life back to normal
  • Posted by Allybell123 May 08, 2020 at 07:11

    100% agree, consistent with all the science and would allow our economy and daily lives to breathe again.
  • Posted by macmac May 08, 2020 at 07:20

    Need to consider how to fund these people shielding for an extended period. If they work for a non-Scotland based employer their job may not be protected. Should all under state retirement age get a set amount each month?
  • Posted by davidcoffield May 08, 2020 at 08:15

    You can't keep locking old folks up. The damage you're doing mentally to them and their families is significant. If everyone is practicing social distancing etc, and for the most part they seem to be, and what we're being told about the transmission of the virus is true, then everyone should be treated the same. To safety and commonsense, please add some practicality and reality, while staying as safe as we can in doing so.
  • Posted by RucksRus51 May 08, 2020 at 18:58

    Absolutely NOT!!! Anything which has herd immunity as it's base is a death sentence for thousands, let's remember that it was so-called "Healthy People" who have contracted and spread Covid-19 around the world. Furthermore, people of all ages, genders, ethnicities and without underlying conditions have caught and died from this virus, so who are these "Healthy People?"

    There is no evidence that once you have had the virus you won't get again, indeed our experience with other Coronaviruses suggests that any immunity is very short-lived, so herd immunity may not be possible to achieve.

    In addition, if we only shield the most vulnerable we are inadvertently putting their health at greater risk because members of their household and family may become carriers of Covid-19 and unwittingly bring the virus into the home. Once people are given that "freedom" again they will start to believe that they are "Invincible" and they will slowly stop following the hand hygiene and social distancing will start to slip.

    Finally, the UK government took a series of bad decisions at the beginning of this crisis, had we initiated lockdown on or around the 1st of February and followed a similar approach to that of New Zealand, thousands of people would still be alive today. We are on an Island and it's not difficult to keep a virus or other disease out. Please look at what the nations with a very low infection/death rate are doing and see what we can copy here.
  • Posted by GA May 08, 2020 at 20:08

    I’ve got a similar thread. Feels like the best way forward.
  • Posted by moray11 May 10, 2020 at 11:28

    I think this is a sensible option. Unfortunately we cannot protect everybody indefinitely. We need to balance health against economic damage at some stage. I think that protecting the vulnerable and high risk should be a priority whilst trying to get people back to work (with a strong emphasis of social distancing and hygiene/protection)
  • Posted by Cathol May 11, 2020 at 18:02

    Common sense, thank you.

    Why should the entire population be subject to one set of rules?

    You will never please everyone so those you wish to continue lockdown indefinitely then let them.

    Everyones circumstances differ and have different attitudes and perception of the risks.
  • Posted by Kgal May 11, 2020 at 21:51

    Agree. I have put related comments elsewhere but essentially it is about weighing up risks. There is also a concern that lockdown and social distancing is not good for the functioning of healthy immune systems which need regular exposure to bacteria and viruses. It potentially puts the average healthy person in a worse position for fighting the virus when restrictions are lifted than if there had been no restrictions at all. It would be good to see some evidence about this.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas