Presumably these people left the home before Covid?
There seems to be a disconnect between understanding the actual risks vs the media hype. Data shows Vaccination generally gives good protection against serious illnesses, even in imunocomprimised individuals
While I do see why they’d feel like this, I fail to see any alternative. Making these few changes will not really make much of a difference to how safe it is outside. Keeping covid cases low would, but that would require much more than plan B and we can’t live with lockdowns forever. And the UK truly is trying to help these people – like with the great emphasis on antiviral treatments.
>Angela Steatham, who is 54 and has chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, says a recent test showed even her third vaccine dose had produced no antibodies.
>The ongoing isolation has been a drain on her finances, preventing her from resuming her international consulting work. And she says it has taken a psychological toll, undermining her sense of confidence.
Genuinely curious to understand how such people were able to carry out international work, filled with all sorts of diseases. Does their body only fail at generating covid antibodies?
I have sympathy but I’m not sure what else can be done apart from heavy restrictions which are not tenable.
Covid is here to stay.
You can’t lock the world down over a tiny group of people.
Whatever happened to “greatest good for the greatest number of people”?
Whatever happened to generals making ruthless analytical decisions about how many lives X you lose to save number of lives Y? Even NHS administrations have to make these dispassionate cost-benefit decisions.
This lockdown addiction is self-serving, because it disproportionately benefits the middle class in work-from-home jobs and it harms the so-called “key workers” who are obligated to go in every day, with no change to their pay.
The Guardian’s hypocrisy is obvious, because they are not reporting all the people who have been killed as “collateral damage” of the lockdown. There is a huge link to depression, for example, which will take an inevitable toll. But The Guardian does not choose to run with this story as it does not further their narrative of middle class desire to prolong the lockdown indefinitely.
If you can do your job from home, employers shouldn’t force you back into the office.
That being said – her gripe should not be with the government but her employer.
We can’t be expected to maintain lockdowns and such just because some people are immunocompromised. They can stay home. Viruses and diseases were around pre-COVID that would have posed a similar risk to this group of people.
I’m struggling a bit to understand how they figure that expecting the entire country to suffer because of a tiny minority is selfish. I actually think it’s selfish to expect people to indefinitely keep protecting you at great personal cost.
It’s galling to keep seeing tweets from people calling the public selfish for desiring normality. It’s been TWO YEARS of giving up almost everything in life for the sake of vulnerable people. I’ve also been stuck at home and doing very little and now I’m being demonised for wanting my life back?
There are jobs you can do entirely remotely – more now than ever before. Is it not reasonable to expect Julie to find a job she can do from home rather than expect the general public to wear masks indefinitely? I’m disabled myself and have always had to find jobs that work for me rather than demand that a job not suitable for me is tailored to me.
As the article says, even during the times when there have been restrictions, she’s had to hole up inside “like a hermit”. So the existence or otherwise of restrictions for everybody else is quite irrelevant to her position.
It’s unfortunate but people who are really at genuine risk of serious illness, and unable to be vaccinated, are going to have to take personal protective measures for the medium term. Covid isn’t going away.
But the risk from Covid is likely to be on a similar level to that of flu in terms of the chances of getting it and the severity of it, once the Omicron case surge goes through. So people who were happy with the risk of flu in the before times should consider whether the risk is actually higher enough to justify isolating themselves.
They should have protected the vulnerable and let everyone else live their life.
But vaccines are doing well aren’t they?
Okay. I agree they are in a shit situation.
So, plan?
New rule, covid complaining only works if you have an alternative.
The idiots moaning about lockdown in 2020 had no alternative, the alternate was overwhelmed hospitals.
Now, what is the plan? Covid is never going away so your only solution as a vulnerable person is to die before you get it
So precisely, what are we to do?
I have a close friend who is immunocompromised. We both agree that people shouldn’t be expected to live in a full lockdown, as people deserve to live their lives.
However, my friend (and others in similar positions) should be able to go to the shops, on public transport etc., which is why I think masks and social distancing (to an extent) should be kept.
Unfortunately, our government seems to swing between heavy lockdowns and cancelling events, to freedom day-esque PR stunts where all of a sudden, all safety measures are removed.
I personally feel a middle ground, where masks are properly mandated in public places, social distancing is kept in shops, but pubs and clubs etc stay open, would be the most sensible and fair approach.
Just because the rules are being dropped doesn’t mean you can’t self isolate if you wish….
Scaremongering again☹️
As much as I feel for people like this, COVID is not going away and will be one of those winter illnesses that goes around, just like the flu and common cold, which they are almost certainly vulnerable too as well. People should stay home when ill (self-isolation, if you will) out of courtesy to others, not just the clinically vulnerable, however the vulnerable must also have been aware that this day was coming sooner or later. The timing may be a shock to them, however the fact that it is happening at all should not be.
14 comments
Presumably these people left the home before Covid?
There seems to be a disconnect between understanding the actual risks vs the media hype. Data shows Vaccination generally gives good protection against serious illnesses, even in imunocomprimised individuals
While I do see why they’d feel like this, I fail to see any alternative. Making these few changes will not really make much of a difference to how safe it is outside. Keeping covid cases low would, but that would require much more than plan B and we can’t live with lockdowns forever. And the UK truly is trying to help these people – like with the great emphasis on antiviral treatments.
>Angela Steatham, who is 54 and has chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, says a recent test showed even her third vaccine dose had produced no antibodies.
>The ongoing isolation has been a drain on her finances, preventing her from resuming her international consulting work. And she says it has taken a psychological toll, undermining her sense of confidence.
Genuinely curious to understand how such people were able to carry out international work, filled with all sorts of diseases. Does their body only fail at generating covid antibodies?
I have sympathy but I’m not sure what else can be done apart from heavy restrictions which are not tenable.
Covid is here to stay.
You can’t lock the world down over a tiny group of people.
Whatever happened to “greatest good for the greatest number of people”?
Whatever happened to generals making ruthless analytical decisions about how many lives X you lose to save number of lives Y? Even NHS administrations have to make these dispassionate cost-benefit decisions.
This lockdown addiction is self-serving, because it disproportionately benefits the middle class in work-from-home jobs and it harms the so-called “key workers” who are obligated to go in every day, with no change to their pay.
The Guardian’s hypocrisy is obvious, because they are not reporting all the people who have been killed as “collateral damage” of the lockdown. There is a huge link to depression, for example, which will take an inevitable toll. But The Guardian does not choose to run with this story as it does not further their narrative of middle class desire to prolong the lockdown indefinitely.
If you can do your job from home, employers shouldn’t force you back into the office.
That being said – her gripe should not be with the government but her employer.
We can’t be expected to maintain lockdowns and such just because some people are immunocompromised. They can stay home. Viruses and diseases were around pre-COVID that would have posed a similar risk to this group of people.
I’m struggling a bit to understand how they figure that expecting the entire country to suffer because of a tiny minority is selfish. I actually think it’s selfish to expect people to indefinitely keep protecting you at great personal cost.
It’s galling to keep seeing tweets from people calling the public selfish for desiring normality. It’s been TWO YEARS of giving up almost everything in life for the sake of vulnerable people. I’ve also been stuck at home and doing very little and now I’m being demonised for wanting my life back?
There are jobs you can do entirely remotely – more now than ever before. Is it not reasonable to expect Julie to find a job she can do from home rather than expect the general public to wear masks indefinitely? I’m disabled myself and have always had to find jobs that work for me rather than demand that a job not suitable for me is tailored to me.
As the article says, even during the times when there have been restrictions, she’s had to hole up inside “like a hermit”. So the existence or otherwise of restrictions for everybody else is quite irrelevant to her position.
It’s unfortunate but people who are really at genuine risk of serious illness, and unable to be vaccinated, are going to have to take personal protective measures for the medium term. Covid isn’t going away.
But the risk from Covid is likely to be on a similar level to that of flu in terms of the chances of getting it and the severity of it, once the Omicron case surge goes through. So people who were happy with the risk of flu in the before times should consider whether the risk is actually higher enough to justify isolating themselves.
They should have protected the vulnerable and let everyone else live their life.
But vaccines are doing well aren’t they?
Okay. I agree they are in a shit situation.
So, plan?
New rule, covid complaining only works if you have an alternative.
The idiots moaning about lockdown in 2020 had no alternative, the alternate was overwhelmed hospitals.
Now, what is the plan? Covid is never going away so your only solution as a vulnerable person is to die before you get it
So precisely, what are we to do?
I have a close friend who is immunocompromised. We both agree that people shouldn’t be expected to live in a full lockdown, as people deserve to live their lives.
However, my friend (and others in similar positions) should be able to go to the shops, on public transport etc., which is why I think masks and social distancing (to an extent) should be kept.
Unfortunately, our government seems to swing between heavy lockdowns and cancelling events, to freedom day-esque PR stunts where all of a sudden, all safety measures are removed.
I personally feel a middle ground, where masks are properly mandated in public places, social distancing is kept in shops, but pubs and clubs etc stay open, would be the most sensible and fair approach.
Just because the rules are being dropped doesn’t mean you can’t self isolate if you wish….
Scaremongering again☹️
As much as I feel for people like this, COVID is not going away and will be one of those winter illnesses that goes around, just like the flu and common cold, which they are almost certainly vulnerable too as well. People should stay home when ill (self-isolation, if you will) out of courtesy to others, not just the clinically vulnerable, however the vulnerable must also have been aware that this day was coming sooner or later. The timing may be a shock to them, however the fact that it is happening at all should not be.