Locking Down Of Care Homes, Is That What The Residents Want?

[dave50]

There has been talk of this happening again. Has anyone ever asked any of the residents of these care homes if they want to be isolated from their close family and friends? Perhaps some may want to take the risk so they have the chance for a hug from their children and grand children, especially if they know they may not have long left even without the virus. The way some have been forcibly isolated is heart breaking. It's a symptom of the health and safety culture we have now, where length of life always trumps quality of life no matter what the cost.

[Old_Geezer]

If they are in a home with others then maybe the desire of other elderly not to risk catching the virus trumps another's desire to have family visit. Perhaps the solution is to have those craving family to go live with the family for the duration.

[dannyk13]

Dave// where length of life always trumps quality of life no matter what the cost.//
You can't have quality of life if you are dead.Covid19 restrictions are in place in the hope of preventing hospitalisation and deaths.

[Prudie]

I believe dave is saying you can't have quality of life stuck in care home but unable to connect with family - and that's worth it as long as you don't get coronavirus? I think not

[naomi24]

It’s a difficult one. Should others be put at risk because some want to hug their grandchildren? If I was in that situation, I think I’d opt for hugging the grandchildren - but does that give me the right to endanger others? I don’t think so really.

[Ellipsis]

It's very difficult. People in care homes are dying, *not* from Covid, and being prevented from seeing their loved ones during the last few months of their lives *because* of Covid.

On the other hand, much as grandad may wish to see granddaughter and risk it, is granddaughter prepared to see grandad and risk it? Could she live with herself, giving him an infection that resulted in an unpleasant last few days and death?

[fiction-factory]

It is a tricky one . If people die albeit having 'waived their rights' they'll still be in the figures so and then the government will be criticised. Another issue is getting consent from those with dementia. Also one could agree to be hugged, get it and then infect others who didn't agree- so would we have to separate those that agree from those that don't?

[woofgang]

two points here......some (many?) of the folk in locked down care homes may lack the capacity to make such a decision so someone has to make it for them.

Secondly its a situation where there can't be multiple decisions. whoever owns or is responsible for the care home needs to make on decision that is the better one for ALL the residents and that is never going to be one that puts residents at risk.

also (and yes this is nasty) residential care is, in some ways. like a hotel. Hotels say if you want to stay here then here are the conditions. eg no smoking. If residents who have capacity decide that the arrangements of their residence don't suit them then they can find somewhere else.

Can you imagine the hooraw if a res care owner or manager said "oh we won't lock down again, let the deaths fall where they may"?

[youngmafbog]

Looks like most think Granny should die on her own then.

It's a shame more care homes dont make 'safe' facilities. Maybe the hugging is out but at least allow more meetings. Some are not allowing any.

I wonder what Obergruppenführer Hancock's thoughts are?

[Peter Pedant]

ask them what they want?
to be at home waited on hand and foot by adoring relatives

but with a lot of health "choices" that just isnt possible.

Me? - restore sight in R eye - no go the whole hog- BOTH eyes -and ..... Bone marrow transplant without the awful septicaemia(s)

[New Judge]

So I'll try once again:

The virus will spread. It will spread whatever action the government or anybody else takes. When I read about measures being taken for "your safety" or "to keep you safe" I chuckle. No shop, pub, restaurant, organisation or government can keep people "safe" from an infectious disease running at pandemic levels unless they isolate either themselves or the rest of the population entirely. Wearing masks, diving into the road to avoid coming within six feet of somebody else, giving your name and address to a pub or restaurant proprietor, none of it, will prevent the virus spreading. It may alter the spread slightly, it may delay it a tad, but it will not prevent it. There is very little chance of an effective vaccine being developed any time soon. So, the alternative is to carry on faffing about as we are with nonsensical regulations being changed every ten minutes and half the country either not working at all or "working" at home, or simply accept that the virus is present, quite a few people will contract it, a very few of them will suffer serious symptoms and a very, very few of them will die.

The population did its bit to "protect the NHS" (though I always assumed it was their job to look after me). The NHS will now have to do its bit by looking after the few people who are unfortunate enough to contract the virus and suffer serious symptoms. They will also have to do their bit by resuming the treatment of people with conditions other than Covid. At present they are not doing so and it is becoming increasingly apparent (as was obvious to anybody who gave it a moment's thought) that the "cure" is rapidly becoming far worse than the disease.

[allenlondon]

You and me share a duff right eye then Peter. (In my case one of your mob had finished vitreous wash stage 1 (emptying), had a poke around for source of bleed, couldn’t find it, so gave me some scatter-gun laser instead. Never bled again (never saw again either). And so it goes.

[burlyshirley]

Thank God I haven't got any elderly loved ones any more because if I had, there is NO WAY I would stay away from them when they needed me the most. How awful to think that they may die during all this covid madness and not seen me for many months just so I don't infect anyone else!! Well you know what, if Mum and Dad had still been here, I wouldn't have given a stuff about anyone else, they would have come first with me and I would have been there for them, with bells on! To go around thinking we are ALL carriers of covid is stupid in the extreme ...

[fiction-factory]

>So I'll try once again:

You are wasting your breath/keystrokes NJ. You must know no government will allow a situation where untested people come into care homes and kill residents, either directly or indirectly.

The care homes have a duty of care.

Hopefully at some stage within the next year we can test people and get quick results so they can visit. In the meantime it'd help if we could also set up Covid safe visits behind a screen and maybe allow a quick hug in certain cases if masks are worn, but I'm not sure that would work either

[fiction-factory]

I notice YMB is still childishly emphasising the C0C* part of Hancock's name. Fortunately most people grow out of this after primary school

[DTCwordfan]

My mother's home has meetings out in the garden and they are looking at establishing a safe one indoors as the weather deteriorates. My sister and I met with the Mater yesterday.

[New Judge]

//The care homes have a duty of care.//

Indeed they do. But that care cannot extend to allegedly protecting people from an infectious disease. That is why I chuckle when I hear the term "keeping you safe." Your phraseology bears this out:

//...no government will allow a situation where untested people come into care homes and kill residents, either directly or indirectly.//

Somebody who has an infectious disease - especially if they are unaware that they have it - does not "kill" somebody they pass it on to, either directly or indirectly. The disease kills them (if they die, that is). I seethe when I hear that people who pass on an infectious disease unwittingly are "killing" others. The term is plainly absurd and is unfortunately symptomatic of the ridiculous frame of mind that much of the country has got itself into.

The duty that care homes have to keep their residents safe consists of making sure the ceiling does not fall in on them and ensuring they do not get poisoned by the food they serve. Neither they - nor anybody else - can keep them safe from an infectious disease unless they isolate them entirely from the world. They can't do that and the measures they are taking in an attempt to do so are simply making the lives of their residents - already unpleasant for some of them - even more so. It needs to stop.

[fiction-factory]

Nonsense, NJ. You seem very hung up on this but you are wrong. But I realise you don't care what i think. It's easy for you to say this but you don;t have the responsibility. No government will allow what you want

[Peter Pedant]

// contract it, a very few of them will suffer serious symptoms and a very, very few of them will die.//

yeah only 40 000 so far and that is piffle - a mere handful

he's not in charge of anything is he?

(TTT quips : no but he will keep trying)

[fiction-factory]

Hasn't experience told us that if one person in a care home (staff or resident) gets Covid it'll spread like wild fire and there could be multiple deaths at that home. What would that achieve. Visits would certainly have to stop then

[gness]

Exactly, FF. My mother's care home accepted three people being discharged from the local hospital after being told they'd been tested and were negative.
This proved to be untrue and thirty nine residents and staff contracted the virus. Some died.