There is no evidence that shielding benefited vulnerable people during the Covid pandemic, according to a study, with the high rate of in-hospital transmission blamed for the failure of the policy. The BBC has the story.
Swansea University compared 117,000 people shielding in Wales with the rest of the population of three million. The study found deaths and healthcare usage were higher among shielding people than the general population.
The Welsh Government said shielding was introduced on medical and scientific advice and it will continue to review evidence from the pandemic.
The study also found the Covid rate was higher among those shielding – 5.9% compared to 5.7%.
The researchers said the data raised questions about whether the policy worked.
They concluded that a “lack of clear impact on infection rates raises questions about the success of shielding, and indicates that further research is required to fully evaluate this national policy intervention”.
However, they did say those shielding were tested more as they used healthcare more often.
The majority of people who shielded had a severe respiratory condition, were having immunosuppressive therapy or had cancer.
Speaking to BBC Radio Wales, Prof Helen Snooks, who led the research, said: “If shielding was going to be effective in reducing deaths and serious illness from Covid, then it really needed to reduce the infection rate, but unfortunately we didn’t find evidence of that in the study.
“We have to remember that people who were included in the shielded list were clinically vulnerable and having a lot of contact with health services so if they were for instance admitted to hospital, they’d be having a Covid test.
“Whereas in the general population, Covid tests were fewer – we can’t find a positive test if there was no test done. There is some uncertainty around these results.”
Prof Snooks also emphasised that the shielding group was “a lot sicker than the non-shielding group”.
“There were more deaths and there were more hospital admissions. We are, at this point, thinking that perhaps it was impossible to shield people effectively when there was such a high level of healthcare transmission at that time,” she said.
“For a particular person, it may have been the best thing to do. What we evaluated was the policy of writing to people and recommending very strongly that they stay at home. It wasn’t underpinned at that time by any evidence.”
“It was sort of made up at the time and implemented.”
“We will continue to review evidence as we learn from the protective interventions and mitigations applied during the COVID-19 response.”
Thousands of people consigned to miserable isolation for months or years for a policy that was just “sort of made up” and it turns out did nothing to help. The Science, ladies and gentlemen.
With studies finding no appreciable benefit from lockdowns, masks, school closures and now shielding, will any of the novel draconian policies implemented to ‘control the virus’ be found to have achieved anything? It’s not looking that way.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Dear Will, “Giz a job. I can do that!”
Nice to have this confirmation though much like masks and lockdowns, even if it had “worked” I am not sure I approve. It was “voluntary” but in reality people were frightened into it with imprecise messages and some probably thought they had to, and I am not sure I would have wanted to do it had I been in one of the “shielding” categories – putting your life on hold for two years when your life might not be that long doesn’t seem appealing to me. I would not have wanted it for elderly relatives, had I had any.
I’m kind of a little bit surprised the BBC have reported on it. I’d seen it on Wales online earlier. Surely BBC readers/viewers and Guardian readers are cut from the same cloth so the BBC is perilously close to red-pilling a few more hard-core Covidians, don’t you think? People that obediently went along with these inhumane rules should be either up in arms about this latest evidence or feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves for participating.
I too am surprised by perhaps the BBC have realised that they can drip feed this stuff out now and nothing will happen – people (apart from people like us) have moved on. The covid scam is water under the bridge.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this BBC and Welsh Academia report is that they want to damage the Great Barrington Declaration approach as any alternative to “faster, harder, longer, never ending” Zero Covid mandates.
A group of the most vulnerable, dying (being murdered?) more than those on furlough “at home”?
Wow. Who would have imagined?
Everything the government did was designed to damage our physical, psychological and moral health.
Ignoring them was the best strategy.
Which also means RIP GBD.
‘Let it rip’ sounds unpalatable, but it was and always will be the only sane policy in such circumstances.
Humans playing God always ends badly, and costs and wastes trillions which sh/could be used productively elsewhere.
Let it rip is an inappropriate, loaded phrase Corona’s witnesses came up with to smear proponents of a saner course of action, specifically, people adovcating something more in line with long established best practices and epidemic preparedness plans instead of the raft of experimental social engineering measures they wanted to see implemented instead, many of which were considered impractical and/or counterproductive according to said best practices.
The alternative to “let it rip” was “pretend to stop it ripping, knowing you won’t make a blind bit of difference”.
And of course the thing that was “ripping” was a bad flu season, mild for almost everyone.
It came with a price tag of only £400 Billion (UK), that is the stupidity of politicians. Guess who is really paying now? Not the politicians, although they all will at the next General election. I am voting REFORM as none of the rest are anything other than self-serving incompetents!
A bit disconcerted: a half-way-rational report from the BBC!. What next? Lions giving birth in the street?
This was my feeling too. I was surprised but happy to see the BBC carry an article which suggests that some government-backed NPI didn’t work. It’s going to take a lot more effort to get over the ‘Trusted News Initiative’ rubbish.
One thing though:
Not really. You quoted the entire BBC article verbatim!
The people responsible for all this need crucifying, I have had enough of these games these people played with our lives. Case in point lets make masks a thing because Sturgeon had made masks a thing.
My milk of human kindness for these creatures has long dried up.
What a pile of steaming stuff!
BUT “We have to remember that people who were included in the shielded list were clinically vulnerable”
AND “they did say those shielding were tested more as they used healthcare more often”
WHEREAS “also emphasised that the shielding group was a lot sicker than the non-shielding group”.
ALSO “perhaps it was impossible to shield people effectively when there was such a high level of healthcare transmission at that time”.
I smell a stinking heap of double-speak and arse covering here!
Would be good to see the original paper.
Difference in testing numbers could make this whole conclusion nil and void.
This is ‘the paper‘ I believe.
From a very quick glance it’s almost impossible to make any meaningful conclusions from the study.
There is no control group in this version at least. They say
Further research using a matched comparator group, self-reported outcomes and costs are needed to fully evaluate the effects of this policy intervention.
It’s hard to see how you could rework with a control group because most of those advised to shield would have shielded and how do you choose a control group?
I suspect the shielding policy was a complete disaster, but I don’t think this study provides any evidence to support that.
Anything to do with virology never has a control group. If it did the whole lot would instantly be known to be bunkum!
I’m horrified. The sainted Mariana and the archangel Oscar, the BBC oracles of mis/disinformation didn’t produce a well researched rebuttal of this study. Were they having their post lunch nap at their nursery?
’Deaths and healthcare usage was higher among shielded people’
Of course it was.
They were old or sick or both already…
I’m afraid this is typical of the fake science that has characterized the whole coronavirus debacle.
No control. Conclusion is meaningless because we don’t know at what rate those vulnerable people would have become infected if they were not shielding. It is very possible and indeed plausible that people who are ill with cancer or immunosuppressed are more likely to become infected, never mind more likely to be tested. Perhaps without shielding, 10% of those people would have become infected. We simply don’t know – and neither does the eminent Professor Snooks.
So here we have a Professor in a major university reporting research that is basically meaningless. A great illustration of the fact that just because somebody has “Professor” before their name it doesn’t necessarily mean they talk sense.
It would seem that the high rate of mask usage, and in particular the higher specification masks which were better fitted (especially by those trained to ensure good seals around the masks) were totally ineffective in a hospital setting.
Remember all the “ vulnerable “ fighting over supermarket delivery slots and those who enjoyed washing their shopping . Happy days.
God designed us to live in community – we are not supposed to live in isolation – living in isolation is extremely bad for our mental and physical well-being. This is plain common sense. We know this already without having to do any studies to back it up.
“Will any of the novel draconian policies implemented to ‘control the virus’ be found to have achieved anything?”
You forgot to mention the “emergency use” “vaccines” and the success of the vaccine taskforce in delivering hundreds of millions of injections that didn’t even reduce infection or hospitalisation and indeed inflicted countless deaths and severe injuries!