Please clarify lockdown rules for sake of my elderly parents – Jayne Dowle

That is the question my dad and the rest of the 2.5 million ‘shielding’ individuals want an authoritative answer to. His life really is at stake if he contracts coronavirus.

At 76-years-old, with a serious heart condition and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, there’s definitely no argument about his medical status.

What is hugely questionable are the instructions he has been given by the Government and his GP for months now, which don’t make logical sense.

When lockdown began, as he and my mother are both over 70, they confined themselves to barracks and haven’t left the house since.

Remember ‘cocooning’?

That’s what we did until the term was quietly dropped when someone in Downing Street obviously remembered that Cocoon was the name of a Ron Howard science fiction comedy in which a bunch of Florida retirees are rejuvenated by aliens.

I digress. Then, at the beginning of May, dad received a letter from the NHS, informing him of what he already knew – that he was high-risk.

It’s worth pointing out that he established his risk status only by reading the newspapers, not through a website or social media. Although confident looking up random facts and figures on Google, like many older people, dad doesn’t trust the internet when it comes to his health or personal finances.

The Government really ought to recognise that going online still doesn’t come naturally to a huge number of over-70s and tailor their public information accordingly.

We suspect dad was one of the countless vulnerable individuals missed out of the ‘shielding’ loop when lockdown began. We knew his health was easily compromised, but we hadn’t followed the strict instructions of not allowing any social interaction at all. This was worrying enough.

The letter, dated April 28, included extreme precautions; for fresh air, only sit by an open window, avoid face-to-face contact with people who don’t share your household and don’t leave the house for 12 weeks.

By that point he had been doing his garden and – at a safe social distance of course – seeing me, my husband and the kind neighbours and friends who have been helping with shopping and errands since the middle of March.

Anyway, dad accepted his fate and marked his day of ‘release’, July 21, on the calendar. Until last week, and then everything was up in the air (again).

What is he to make of the latest advice that people who have been shielding during the coronavirus lockdown are now able to leave their homes to spend time with loved ones outdoors?

Is dad’s own particular shielding different from the shielding mentioned in Government instructions? Does anyone actually really know?

To try and make sense of it all, he spoke to his GP on the phone, who advised him to “follow exactly what it says in the letter and do as the Government says”.

I wasn’t party to this phone call, but if I had been there, I would have challenged this statement, which neatly sums up the entirely contradictory situation my dad finds himself in.

How can he both follow the updated guidance – which allows certain freedoms to be reinstated – and also adhere to the strict instructions in his shielding letter?

To be on the safe side, he has decided to stay within the confines of his garden until July. And my mother has decided to stay by his side in solidarity. Technically, she could now go out, but she won’t step through the gate. She’s scared. And like all of us, not a little confused.

It should be simple. People like my dad should be able to follow government guidance and know exactly how to proceed. And, for that matter, so should his family members. However, as with most things official relating to the effect this devastating pandemic has had on all our lives, the information received is confusing and contradictory.

Is it too much to ask Ministers to anticipate issues in advance, rather than hastily pulling together a strategy when the damage has already been done? Take the contentious matter of mandatory face masks on public transport, for example.

Grant Shapps, speaking on the TV news, blithely rode over questions about why this measure is only being introduced now. He said it’s not been necessary because public transport hasn’t been overcrowded since lockdown began. Clearly, the Secretary of State for Transport didn’t see the pictures of packed trains and Tube carriages about a month ago.

I am all for regaining our liberty. However, on the evidence so far, I’m beginning to think that the Government should stop right now and think very carefully about to how to organise the lifting of lockdown without further compromising the lives of millions of citizens. My dad included.

Editor’s note: first and foremost - and rarely have I written down these words with more sincerity - I hope this finds you well.

Almost certainly you are here because you value the quality and the integrity of the journalism produced by The Yorkshire Post’s journalists - almost all of which live alongside you in Yorkshire, spending the wages they earn with Yorkshire businesses - who last year took this title to the industry watchdog’s Most Trusted Newspaper in Britain accolade.

And that is why I must make an urgent request of you: as advertising revenue declines, your support becomes evermore crucial to the maintenance of the journalistic standards expected of The Yorkshire Post. If you can, safely, please buy a paper or take up a subscription. We want to continue to make you proud of Yorkshire’s National Newspaper but we are going to need your help.

Postal subscription copies can be ordered by calling 0330 4030066 or by emailing [email protected]. Vouchers, to be exchanged at retail sales outlets - our newsagents need you, too - can be subscribed to by contacting subscriptions on 0330 1235950 or by visiting www.localsubsplus.co.uk where you should select The Yorkshire Post from the list of titles available.

If you want to help right now, download our tablet app from the App / Play Stores. Every contribution you make helps to provide this county with the best regional journalism in the country.

Sincerely. Thank you.

James Mitchinson

Editor