Number of deaths from Covid in the U.K. this year, in people under 60 with no underlying health conditions. Target the measures ffs. It’s now utterly clear that the risk of death to people under 60 with no co-morbidities is so negligible as to be completely unworthy of consideration. Time to let us live.
worrabart yer mam and dad. and yer nan. If covid is left to run rife, then they are at risk from anybody they talk to. maybe you are right and it is time clearout the boomers. makes fiscal sense..
I get what you're saying, but surely our 60+ relatives matter too? It's lethal to them. Being old or having an underlying health condition shouldn't mean society abandons you; it should mean society does what it can to protect you - which is what's happening (albeit this government has made a right royal farce out of it).
I believe there are 300 or so of my colleagues in the NHS who have died (so far). Some of these may have had underlying health conditions but ones that didn't stop them from working hard for a living.
For goodness sake. I don’t know how I can make it any simpler. We need targeted measures that protect the vulnerable and elderly, while allowing those lucky enough to be young, fit and healthy to get on with the job of paying for the health and social care systems that already look after these people. To each according to his need, from each according to his ability. How many failed lockdowns around the world do you people need to see before you accept the empirical evidence that they are counter productive?
asI said in the other thread it’s not just the death rate, Some folk are suffering serious health issues for months after due to the effects of Covid, I was ta talking to one previously young fit and healthy case, she wouldn’t agree with you As I suspect would the young fit and healthy NHS staff who have lost their lives battling this disease
As a 66 year old I am fast coming to the conclusion that, since we are seeing huge increases in infection rates but without a corresponding huge increase in deaths, the best approach would be business as usual but with the caveat that people at risk take precautions, i.e. masks, social distancing, limiting their social activities etc. Only if hospital admission rates start to climb putting the Health services under strain for treatment of Covid, but more importantly the day-to-day treatment of chronic illnesses should we consider imposing blanket restrictions. The published daily infection rates we see do not all break down how many are hospitalised and how many are asymptomatic or suffering from relatively minor non-life threatening symptoms. Obviously people who regularly come into contact with vulnerable people as part of their work. social services, health workers, food handlers etc. need to take extra precautions but the herd immunity concept originally put forward seems to be more viable by the day. In summary, it is up to those at risk (like myself and my wife) who should take personal responsibility for our well being until such time as a proven reliable and effective vaccine becomes available.
yeah, thanks for asking. all good here, heads down til the bad air blows away.. all good around fev, ponty and acky, i'm assuming.. take care..
define underlying health conditions though lots of people have things like Asthma diabetes hypertension etc who lead normal active lives and would continue to do so but for covid - do we know how many of those died. What about long covid - do we know the numbers still suffereing long term effects I agree the way the government is handling is all wrong but its not so simple as saying if you are under 60 carry on as normal. Its not a simple thing to balance - unfortunately we have the worst govenment in my lifetime mishandling it they seem to get just about every step wrong. A working test track and trace system is essential to handle this with some normality for those not infected. They have had 6 months to fix it and its still unable to cope - apparently the head of the service (appointed because of her excellent performance and clear superiority to other candidates and not because she is married to a minister) was somewhat surprised that telling everyone to go back to work , schools to reopen and generally relax lockdown measured led to an increase in demand for tests. With the current calibre of leadership we have I dont see this ending well PS I see Boris assures us there wont be a second lockdown - so expect it in early October would be my best guess
We won't know what the long-term implications of infection and recovery from COVID are for many years. Given that it is known to affect the blood, lungs, kidneys and brain, these could be significant - and there are already reports of significant increases in cases of Kawasaki disease in kids, strokes in 40-something men, and other not to mention those with long-COVID. Reports this week show that the number of people in ICU are increasing, and those admitted are younger than in the first wave - typically middle-aged men.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare This site may be of interest going forward to see if the new cases do translate into hospital cases. Also, what steps do you think should be taken Scoff?
With all due respect though, you're guessing and speculating. You may well be correct; there may be significant and serious complications in the long-term for a minority of sufferers; as you rightly say, we won't fully understand these implications for years. I don't know what you want us to do in the meantime? Surely you agree that it's unfeasible to have say, ten years of lockdown while we gather empirical evidence from a few thousand individuals just in case those who currently have post viral fatigue like symptoms turn out to have something more sinister in 15 years, meanwhile continuing to slash other services and missing, for example, many thousands of cancer diagnoses as we have? This is now my issue with lockdowners - you won't tell us what you want. You want more lockdown, OK, but to what end? What's the goal, what's the exit strategy? You told us at the start it was to flatten the curve, to prevent the NHS being overloaded with cases. That was achieved. What's the goal this time please?
PS I see Boris assures us there wont be a second lockdown - so expect it in early October would be my best guess[/QUOTE] Pfff optimist, I'd go for last week in September!
This is the point I still can't get my head round. The R rate denotes spread of infection. It could be applied to anything from a flesh eating mega virus that kills you in 20 minutes or a virus that causes a mild case of hiccups. It's not a measure of severity. So if the R rate is rising but hospitalisation and deaths aren't then surely the facts about the illness - and of course our knowledge of it and capacity to treat it - have changed. Maybe its OK to allow it to spread more naturally than previously thought, whilst giving everyone in higher risk categories the opportunity to take every precaution they deem necessary based on their own personal assessment of risk. And if you're not at risk but have family members who are you again assess that risk and make your own sensible decisions as to what you choose to do.