Gransnet forums


Shielding list to add extra people

(136 Posts)
MissAdventure Tue 16-Feb-21 16:41:41

It seems strange, considering the end is (sort of) in sight.

People added will be because of factors such as ethnicity and bmi.

suziewoozie Tue 16-Feb-21 16:51:45

It’s much more than this and in fact, it’s been a disgrace that some of those now added have had to wait this long

MissAdventure Tue 16-Feb-21 16:54:11

I was thinking how awful it would be to have lost someone to covid and then found that they should (?) have been shielding.

Lillie Tue 16-Feb-21 17:01:14

It does seem strange. The more the cases drop the tighter the restrictions become.
Do you know how many extra? What if lots of them are school teachers, NHS workers or people who might lose their jobs if they don't work?

suziewoozie Tue 16-Feb-21 17:03:15

Here’s the link that explains it.

Some people on this list have been scandalously ‘invisible’ upto now in the .system.

suziewoozie Tue 16-Feb-21 17:06:16

These are people who have greater risks of adverse outcomes from COVId but were not considered previously because age - whilst clearly crucial - was maybe over emphasised to the exclusion of much else.

NellG Tue 16-Feb-21 17:15:39

But... they all, we all, have had the choice to shield from day one. No one has been forced not to stay home and protect themselves.

I can't see how it is a disgrace or a scandal tbh. In what way is it sooziewoozie? Maybe I'm missing something.

AGAA4 Tue 16-Feb-21 17:25:27

Some in ethnic groups may not know they are at more risk from covid so it is a good thing that they are being asked to shield.

Casdon Tue 16-Feb-21 17:28:50

As 93% of deaths in the UK have been in people aged over 60, age is still the crucial factor suziewoosie, and it’s not the case that the clinically extremely vulnerable list was age based, Here’s the list, and it covers people of all ages. It’s been amended a number of times previously since the first version, as the evidence has emerged regarding risk for specific groups.
I’m not in any way saying that it is inappropriate to add more people, just that it’s an evidence based approach, and they didn’t know at the beginning exactly how different groups of people would be affected.

Dorsetcupcake61 Tue 16-Feb-21 17:32:02

It does seem to have taken a long time to get round to this,although I suppose more is known about the disease now.
This time last year it was on Gov.UK and a medical website that everyone in receipt of fluja b would be asked to shield. I'm a diabetic and was waiting for the letter that never came. Looking at the numbers who were entitled to the flu jab or those with high BMI it's an awful lot of people!
There have been all sorts of issues with shielding, who should be on the list and who not. The support was variable.
Although after having my first jab I feel more optimistic there are a few little red flags. The vaccine cant give total protection although hopefully I would be less likely to be seriously ill/die. Theres the affect of new variants on the vaccine. I'm also wondering how much of an affect younger age groups who seem quite unwilling to have the vaccine will have. If what I've read recently is right the variants increase if large groups are not vaccinated which I worry may place those in high risk groups back ondoors/isolated.

Madgran77 Tue 16-Feb-21 17:32:36

But... they all, we all, have had the choice to shield from day one. No one has been forced not to stay home and protect themselves.

I can't see how it is a disgrace or a scandal tbh. In what way is it sooziewoozie? Maybe I'm missing something

If they are in employment and not officially identified as shielding by the NHS then employment rights are compromised if someone self identifieds as needing to shield! Losing their job or being unpaid could rather make a difference to decisions taken!

growstuff Tue 16-Feb-21 17:48:46

Employers must make arrangements if possible for anybody who is being shielded, which might mean that they can work at home if possible. Their employment rights are protected. If arrangements can't be made, they have the right to redundancy pay. They also have the right to support with having medication and essential groceries delivered.

Like you Dorsetcupcake, I'm diabetic and I have also had a heart attack and am considered "high risk" but not "critically vulnerable", which in practice meant I had no support at all. Fortunately, I didn't have to work outside the home and am not sure what I would have done. I've had all my shopping delivered for a year (I haven't been inside a shop) but I couldn't get medication delivered because my GP isn't signed up to the service Boots and the other online pharmacies use. My local pharmacy wouldn't deliver because I wasn't clinically vulnerable, which has meant that I've had to leave home to collect prescription meds.

I think it also means that some people will be vaccinated sooner than they would have been (if they don't already belong to one of the priority groups).

growstuff Tue 16-Feb-21 17:51:47

Rather than "being asked to shield" (as though it's an imposition), I think it should be reframed as "being given the opportunity to be protected".

growstuff Tue 16-Feb-21 17:53:06


But... they all, we all, have had the choice to shield from day one. No one has been forced not to stay home and protect themselves.

I can't see how it is a disgrace or a scandal tbh. In what way is it sooziewoozie? Maybe I'm missing something.

People who need to earn money haven't had the choice to shield. Now they will have that choice because employment rights will be protected.

MissAdventure Tue 16-Feb-21 17:53:57

Not everybody has had the choice to shield.
If you're employed and not in possession of a shielding letter, then you'd not be able to have that choice.

GrannyGravy13 Tue 16-Feb-21 18:00:57

The more that is known about the virus, how it works and what medications help with recovery and prevent fatalities help the clinicians and microbiologists manage it.

More people who are deemed as clinically vulnerable are being identified and added to the shielding list can only be a good thing surely?

grandmajet Tue 16-Feb-21 18:02:03

Advances in the understanding of this horrible virus are being made all the time. I believe type 2 diabetics are more at risk than type 1, because they are more likely to be obese, although obviously not in all cases. Obesity is a strong factor with the extra burden on all the body’s organs but they believe there is something else involved has yet to be pinpointed. Ethnicity is another factor which is still being investigated. Our wonderful scientists are really trying to work out exactly what is going on when this virus attacks and they are making progress. We should all be as careful as we possibly can in the meantime.

Iam64 Tue 16-Feb-21 18:03:10

I’m pleased to see that as knowledge of this virus is accumulated, the list of people who are advised to shield has reflected that.
The key is that the shielding letter gives employees some protection. A young friend who is a key worker at our local hospital has been commenting on evidence about the impact of obesity for some time now. Areas of high deprivation have more of the newly identified shielding groups. It’s been obvious for a while.

MissAdventure Tue 16-Feb-21 18:04:59

Yes, I think so.
The more people who are protected, the better.

NellG Tue 16-Feb-21 18:05:07

Ah, thank you - I knew I had to be missing something! ( Half my brain cells by the look of it...).

I work for myself from home and I'm CEV. I suppose it's made me a bit short sighted regarding this issue.

Iam64 Tue 16-Feb-21 18:07:13

I’m retired, CEV which I suspect leads to a bit of Thinking On

suziewoozie Tue 16-Feb-21 18:33:24

The lack of shielding status for employed people was a real issue as some said. Also there were some younger people -eg with learning disabilities who has been ‘forgotten’, They were going to have to wait until their age group was reached and now they will be vaccinated sooner. LD and disabled proles charities have been pressing for this for a while now and finally it’s happening. There’s a poster on another thread who has posted about this re her adult daughter.

suziewoozie Tue 16-Feb-21 18:38:14

As Iam said some of these issues have been known for a while but disabled people and especially those in care have been ‘invisible to the JCVI as were family home Carers (ie not paid) This was put right recently but it begs the question of those voices not heard initially

NellG Tue 16-Feb-21 18:42:11

Thanks Suziewoozie, I hadn't realised that there were specific external protections involved. I also hadn't realised that the groups you mention weren't originally included. It seemed only logical to me that the groups they are now including would have been automatically included in the beginning. But so much of the management of this has been illogical I don't know why I'm surprised!

suziewoozie Tue 16-Feb-21 18:45:38

Not illogical just invisible - the context is the lack of disabled voices in the provision of services at policy level - nothing to do with the pandemic actually - the pandemic has just exposed it as it has so many fault lines.