ArticleBioSocieties2023
'We thank you for your sacrifice': Clinical vulnerability, shielding and biosociality in the UK's Covid-19 response.
Article in BioSocieties, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The DESTINIES Study: an online Delphi study to build international consensus on the medical conditions and procedures that confer immunosuppression and their respective COVID-19 risk profiles.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Assessing the Utility of Prediction Scores PAINT, ISARIC4C, CHIS, and COVID-GRAM at Admission and Seven Days after Symptom Onset for COVID-19 Mortality.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- The Association Between Physical Distancing Behaviors to Avoid COVID-19 and Health-Related Quality of Life in Immunocompromised and Nonimmunocompromised Individuals: Patient-Informed Protocol for the Observational, Cross-Sectional EAGLE Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Observational
- Exploring the attitudes of solid organ transplant recipients towards COVID-19 shielding communications and the language of 'clinically extremely vulnerable': a qualitative study investigating lessons for the future.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Who We Test For: Aligning Relational and Public Health Responsibilities in COVID-19 Testing in Scotland.Medical anthropology · 2024Article
- Rationale for the shielding policy for clinically vulnerable people in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The UK response to Covid-19 has been unusually complex in its ever-shifting classifications of clinical vulnerability. By May 2020, 2.2 million people had been identified as 'clinically extremely vulnerable' (CEV) and were asked to 'shield' at home for over four months. To adhere to this strict guidance, they were enfolded within the patchy infrastructure of the 'shielding programme'. However, membership of the 'shielded list' has changed-often without warning or explanation-through time and across space. Drawing on policy and evidentiary documents, government speeches, reports, press conferences and media analysis of Covid-19 coverage between March 2020 and April 1, 2021, this paper traces the shifting delineations of clinical vulnerability in the UK response across three lockdowns. It argues that the complexities and confusions generated by the transience of the CEV category have fed into forms of biosociality that have been as much about making practical sense of government guidance as a form of mutual support amid crisis. This uncertainty has not eased as restrictions have been relaxed and vaccines rolled out. Instead, tracing individual immune response has become a burgeoning industry as 'the shielded' navigate the uneasy demands of taking 'personal responsibility' rather than being protected by 'the rules'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.