My fear of returning to a 'new normal'

As the lockdown restrictions begin to lift, and some kind of normality slowly resumes, many people may be feeling anxious and uncertain about life after lockdown. Here, blogger Elaine, who is one of the 2.5 million 'extremely vulnerable' people who have been asked to shield, writes about the apprehension she is currently feeling. 

We live in a world of Coronavirus confusion. Some of us are classed as ‘shielded’ or ‘clinically vulnerable’. You can go out but you don’t have to; you should stay in, but you don’t have to; you should follow the rules for the shielded but you don’t have to. . .

The Coronavirus rules are changing - it feels like every day - and most people now have more freedom to move about. But what do the changes mean for the 2.5 million of us who are shielding or classed as vulnerable to the coronavirus? This is the group of 2.5 million people that suddenly increased from 1.5 million. Why the increase? Well, I’ve discovered the way we get onto the list is based on a clinical algorithm! Well, I’ve been called a variety of medical terms during my life (‘an interesting case’ being the most popular) but I’m not sure I ever volunteered to be part of an algorithm! 

Special group

I am in the highest risk category because I am a solid organ patient. This is not a comment on my weight but in reference to the fact that an actual organ was transferred - in my case, a kidney. The next category are those classed as ‘clinically vulnerable’. This group was also advised to stay at home as much as possible and if you did go out, to take particular care to avoid contact with other people. (I would also have qualified in this group through my multiple sclerosis, diabetes and immunosuppression.)

I received notification of my status in March. The letter was very clear - ‘if you catch the virus. you are more likely to be admitted to hospital than others.  Stay at home at all times and avoid all face-to-face contact for at least twelve weeks from today.’  My husband John and I have followed this instruction to the letter - in fact, after discussion with our doctor, we started our lockdown two weeks earlier. Clever us, as the perceived wisdom now is that an earlier lockdown would have prevented a lot of illness and deaths.

Advisory not compulsory

So, the rules changed at the beginning of June. I decided to ignore the screaming banner headlines and used the Government website which, presumably, is purely factual with no hyperbole. It tells me that those of us who are shielded can now spend time outdoors, but only once a day and at the less busy times of day. Apart from that, lockdown remains in place. It then goes on to say that shielding is for our personal protection and it’s our choice whether to follow the measures the Government advise. Having said I can go outdoors, it goes on to say if I’m clinically vulnerable or high risk I am strongly advised to stay at home as much as possible.

So the new guidance is only advisory. We will not be fined or sanctioned if we prefer to follow the general guidance to the public on staying alert and safe social distancing. (Well, I should hope not!) We may also choose to remain in our own homes at all times if we do not feel comfortable with any form of contact with others.

My choice

I find the idea of going out and mixing with people absolutely terrifying. Where is the evidence that says I am less likely to catch Coronavirus now than in the last three months? If I do contract it, how can I possibly survive? How can the world be a safe place for me - and others like me - without a vaccine?

For now, John and I choose to stay at home.