Has Shielding become a compulsory thing at some point?

Gonna-be-debt-free

There are two groups who Shielding is relevant to
- the Highly Clinically Vulnerable (those who get a letter) who are "strongly advised" to follow the Shielding guidance
- the Highly Vulnerable (who don't get a letter) who are "advised" to follow the Shielding guidance

[edit, it's actually "clinically extremely vulnerable" and "clinically vulnerable" - I always get them wrong!]

So far as I am aware, for each group it remains advice rather than compulsion.  But increasingly it seems to be treated as a different set of rules, rather than guidance.  In today's government briefing, those who are shielding "cannot take part" in the "support bubbles".  In a briefing last week, people who are shielding will now be "allowed to" go outside.

So it is guidance, or rules?  And if rules, does it only apply to Highly Clinically Vulnerable, or to Highly Vulnerable as well?  In theory, as a Highly Vulnerable person, would I have been in breach of lockdown rules, and therefore could have been fined, for taking my children for a walk outside for the last few weeks?

A bit of an academic question really, but interested in comments, observations or whether I have completely misinterpreted the whole thing.

unforeseen

As clinically vulnerable there has never been anything to say that you cannot do what you would normally do subject of course to the social distancing advice. 
However for the clinically extremely vulnerable the advice has always been stay at home and anybody in the same household to take strict hygiene measures. 

I'm in the top group. In December I caught a cold. I would normally shrug these off and carry on as normal. However, due to having a suppressed immune system, it laid me up for 3 days. When they brought in lockdown and I was told to stay at home then that lesson in December gave me a very good idea of the effect that a more virulent virus, which was killing people fitter than me would have.
I think a good way of looking at it is those in the lower group would be very ill but probably survive where in the top group you would probably be heading for the crematorium via ICU. 

Gonna-be-debt-free

unforeseen said:

As clinically vulnerable there has never been anything to say that you cannot do what you would normally do subject of course to the social distancing advice. 
However for the clinically extremely vulnerable the advice has always been stay at home and anybody in the same household to take strict hygiene measures. 

I'm in the top group. In December I caught a cold. I would normally shrug these off and carry on as normal. However, due to having a suppressed immune system, it laid me up for 3 days. When they brought in lockdown and I was told to stay at home then that lesson in December gave me a very good idea of the effect that a more virulent virus, which was killing people fitter than me would have.
I think a good way of looking at it is those in the lower group would be very ill but probably survive where in the top group you would probably be heading for the crematorium via ICU. 

Yes, I understand the groups   I'm in the not-top group due to severe asthma and immune issues.  Have been in hospital with pneumonia 4 Christmases out of 10.  So I am pretty careful, although I am not full-on shielding.  I am just being more cautious.

My issue is that recently the government has started to refer to being "allowed" to do things (which were never prohibited, just advice) and specifically today saying that those shielding cannot take part in the support bubbles.  Not "are not advised to" but "cannot".

sharpe106

I live with someone in the high risk  category and the advice has always been that advice. Never been compulsory. But yes listing to minister over the last few weeks makes it sound like it is compulsory.

Thrugelmir

Transmission is caused by contact. Going outside in itself is minimal risk. Being in another property or in close extended contact with another person raises the risk factor considerably.  

Andy_L

Seeing as how the restrictions on "gatherings" inside houses are in legislation any change to them to allow "social bubbles" would have to change that law. 
You'd have to wait for the changed legislation to see if it specifically excludes one or both of the vulnerable groups from bubbling and is thus law/rules as opposed to guidance.

calcotti

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19

If you do not want to be shielded
Shielding is for your personal protection and it’s your choice to decide whether to follow the measures we advise.

The previous version of this guidance included the example of someone who was terminally ill and might therefore not wish to restrict the last months of their life in that way. 

The actual content of this guidance has been changed to. Previously it said we should not leave our own property. Now it says we can.

Jeremy535897

The law (in England at any rate) is here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made
Regulations 6 and 7 are the key ones for this discussion, but first see Regulation 1(3)(c):

“vulnerable person” includes—

(i)any person aged 70 or older;

(ii)any person under 70 who has an underlying health condition, including but not limited to, the conditions listed in Schedule 1;

(iii)any person who is pregnant.

Regulation 6 deals with movements and regulation 7 with gatherings. Neither of these impose additional restrictions on vulnerable persons. Rather they are permissive, allowing certain things to do with vulnerable persons that would not otherwise be permitted. 

I don't envisage legal restrictions on what vulnerable persons themselves may do in any new legislation. They are not necessary. Banning gatherings protects others, so is a legal requirement. Someone who is vulnerable may choose to ignore the guidance they receive on the basis that they are only putting themselves at risk. A bit like smoking, really, but not like seat belts. The new "bubble" rules may however be closed off to vulnerable persons by the simple expedient of saying that the new rules won't apply if it would mean a vulnerable person was put at risk by others.