While infections are falling, the UK is still seeing about 1500 new confirmed cases a day, compared with about 1000 a day in March
It is not possible to compare the number of cases as testing was very limited in March.
While infections are falling, the UK is still seeing about 1500 new confirmed cases a day, compared with about 1000 a day in March
I have just picked up 2 answerphone messages left on 2 consecutive days earlier this week by the Government service, asking if I still needed my food box. They left a number to call which I did, saying I did. This gives me the impression that they are trying to phase out the food boxes. That could mean they are planning to put an end to shielding. Your guess is as good as mine.My point exactly...
Full context of my previous post is that I was given instructions in two letters and several texts to stay at home. Same as the instructions in the broadcast messages. Though there have been no follow up messages in letters or messages. So, according to Boris, it is now safe for me to go out. According to the NHS letters, and text messages, I am advised to stay home until at least 30th June. I place trust neither, and make my own decision. As for suddenly feeling safer than before, I am quite ambivalent about it.
Also, I still am wondering anyone else has had a letter or text confirming what Boris said about those shielding could now go out?
I have just picked up 2 answerphone messages left on 2 consecutive days earlier this week by the Government service, asking if I still needed my food box. They left a number to call which I did, saying I did. This gives me the impression that they are trying to phase out the food boxes. That could mean they are planning to put an end to shielding. Your guess is as good as mine.
Looking at it logically shielding will come to an end at some pointI have just picked up 2 answerphone messages left on 2 consecutive days earlier this week by the Government service, asking if I still needed my food box. They left a number to call which I did, saying I did. This gives me the impression that they are trying to phase out the food boxes. That could mean they are planning to put an end to shielding. Your guess is as good as mine.
I am surprised that in the interests of saving the most lives yet getting the country back to work, they don't lockdown just people over retirement age and the vulnerable and let the rest get back to business. But then they'd probably be accused of ageism.Looking at it logically shielding will come to an end at some point
I am surprised that in the interests of saving the most lives yet getting the country back to work, they don't lockdown just people over retirement age and the vulnerable and let the rest get back to business. But then they'd probably be accused of ageism.
I am surprised that in the interests of saving the most lives yet getting the country back to work, they don't lockdown just people over retirement age and the vulnerable and let the rest get back to business. But then they'd probably be accused of ageism.
Yes, I agree it would be ageist to do that. I am not specially advocating it, and would certainly not want to see anyone, even the very highest risk groups, actually forced to stay indoors. However I would have thought that older and otherwise more vulnerable people would actually want to stay in, because of their high risk of dying or being very ill if they got it. Many on here seem to wish they could get supermarket slots to enable them to stay in, but can't because they are not on the "shielding" database.They are therefore effectively forced to go out to get food when they would feel safer, and indeed be safer, indoors.Tannith - My OH is 73. In normal times, he plays golf, or goes to the gym 5 days a week. He is very healthy. The only blot on his copy book is a large gallstone. Literally one, which is being monitored.
Were it floated he should be locked in, he would rebel. He wouldn't just object. He would rebel.
He is a man who was a career naval officer, to used to working in rules and guidelines - not all of which will ever have been to his liking, but just locking anyone away because of "miles on the clock" is pretty bonkers.
I totally respect how you have chosen to handle your assessed level of risk COVID, but others, of all ages, also need to be afforded that same courtesy.
Yes, I agree it would be ageist to do that. I am not specially advocating it, and would certainly not want to see anyone, even the very highest risk groups, actually forced to stay indoors. However I would have thought that older and otherwise more vulnerable people would actually want to stay in, because of their high risk of dying or being very ill if they got it. Many on here seem to wish they could get supermarket slots to enable them to stay in, but can't because they are not on the "shielding" database.They are therefore effectively forced to go out to get food when they would feel safer, and indeed be safer, indoors.
Yes, I agree it would be ageist to do that. I am not specially advocating it, and would certainly not want to see anyone, even the very highest risk groups, actually forced to stay indoors. However I would have thought that older and otherwise more vulnerable people would actually want to stay in, because of their high risk of dying or being very ill if they got it. Many on here seem to wish they could get supermarket slots to enable them to stay in, but can't because they are not on the "shielding" database.They are therefore effectively forced to go out to get food when they would feel safer, and indeed be safer, indoors.
I hope you remembered the Green Cross Code.I went to the shop this morning, normally a statement that would be totally mundane and unremarkable but not today and not for me, for today it was a death defying act of rebellion with the possibility of great risk attached to it. How times change.
It's not so much that I want to stay indoors, just that that is the only way I don't have to worry about catching the virus. Unlike you, I have no car to go to secret quiet places, or to see my grandchildren.Of course I would love to see them but it would involve public transport, bus, train & taxi in one case and buses and plane in another. Not possible Most people I know are my age, so they can't go out either. No way of chatting with friends then, except on phone. Walks would be pleasant, but also alone for the same reasons. I have a nice view,so staying in is not such an ordeal. I am just having to accept that 6 months indoors may be the price I have to pay for staying alive for the next decade. Social distancing means that all the things I would normally do when outside are off limits. Ordinary bacterial chest infections are pretty horrendous with COPD. They last for 5-6 weeks and the cough is very painful. Goodness knows what covid would be like even if you don't actually die of it. No thank you.I certainly do not want to stay in, and I am by no means alone in this, despite my advanced years. Along with many thousands of others, I actually want to spend time with my family, even at a 2 meter distance. I want to go for walks, I want to visit our special safe places for day trips, and when the rules on self catering English cottages are relaxed, I want to go on holiday. I am very aware that as I grow older I don't have a great deal of time left, and have no intention of spending it cocooned in my home 24/7.
I hope you remembered the Green Cross Code.
I am surprised that in the interests of saving the most lives yet getting the country back to work, they don't lockdown just people over retirement age and the vulnerable and let the rest get back to business. But then they'd probably be accused of ageism.