COVID-19 ... impact on death rates

[markjay]

No i am against mass lockdown. I am all for a targeted lockdown of at risk groups.

OK, so let's try it this way: are you saying that the lockdown did work, but it was OTT, because a lockdown limited to the 60+ age group would have resulted in the same reduction in deaths?

If so, this goes back to the question I raised before.... an age-related lockdown is fine if you are living alone (or with a person in the same age group) and are self-sufficient. But what about those aged 60+ who live with younger family members, or who rely on regular support and assistance from younger people? It would have not been possible to protect them as well under a partial age-related lockdown. Or are they just acceptable collateral damage?

 

[ChipChop]

OK, so let's try it this way: are you saying that the lockdown did work, but it was OTT, because a lockdown limited to the 60+ age group would have resulted in the same reduction in deaths?

If so, this goes back to the question I raised before.... an age-related lockdown is fine if you are living alone (or with a person in the same age group) and are self-sufficient. But what about those aged 60+ who live with younger family members, or who rely on regular support and assistance from younger people? It would have not been possible to protect them as well under a partial age-related lockdown. Or are they just acceptable collateral damage?

Like i said i am all for a targetted lockdown of at risk groups. Your opinion differs.

Your examples of an at risk person living with/ being cared for by younger people, then those younger relatives/ carers would have to use their judgement and isolate themselves for the good of their relative/ employer.

Take personal responsibility, which most people would naturally do anyway.

Is there a need for a government to impose legislation for that.

 

[SW18]

Like i said i am all for a targetted lockdown of at risk groups. Your opinion differs.

Your examples of an at risk person living with/ being cared for by younger people, then those younger relatives/ carers would have to use their judgement and isolate themselves for the good of their relative/ employer.

Take personal responsibility, which most people would naturally do anyway.

Is there a need for a government to impose legislation for that.

Yes - too complex for most people to be able to cope with. Particularly as early on it wasn’t even clear who was at risk. Witness the number of working-age people who have died with minor underlying conditions like diabetes. By the time all potential at-risk people are isolated, the number of people having to shield them means it’s lockdown by another name anyway.

 

[markjay]

Yes - too complex for most people to be able to cope with. Particularly as early on it wasn’t even clear who was at risk. Witness the number of working-age people who have died with minor underlying conditions like diabetes. By the time all potential at-risk people are isolated, the number of people having to shield them means it’s lockdown by another name anyway.

Well said.

 

[ChipChop]

Too complex to care for an elderly relative. Really? Many people manage it.

The annual flu vaccination is targetted. Flu is a coronavirus. There is your target group. Risk of pneumonia again target group known. Respiratory issues.

 

[markjay]

Too complex to care for an elderly relative. Really? Many people manage it.

The annual flu vaccination is targetted. Flu is a coronavirus. There is your target group. Risk of pneumonia again target group known. Respiratory issues.

Well, we know that total lockdown works. Lives were saved. In that sense, it was a success.

Maybe partial age-related lockdown would have worked just as well, and at a cheaper price to the economy... but we decided to err on the side caution.

So now we are where we are.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Mmmm. I drove back from the Sarf o' France on 15th March, and by that time it was clear from Italy that "the only" ones that were dying were the over 70's and those who had some significant co-morbidity.

Was very aware of this as I have friends and relatives who are anywhere between 93 and 105 (sic). Who are, to this day, all still alive.

I can't, for the life of me, think why it made sense to shut down the UK, except to give some people time of work during the glorious Spring. Why did we do it? Because everyone else was.

"If" we had isolated the over 70's, and those with significant health issues such as Diabetes, COPD, and a history of heart disease, we would have lost half as many as we have done.

But we didn't. So half have died in care homes (25,000), and half have died, predictably, because they had comorbidities and made the mistake of going into Covid-smeared hospitals, where cleaners and admin staff were "super-spreading" because NHS hospitals have always been dirty, bug-ridden, and out of date.

And still we don't acknowledge that most people who have had this thing didn't even know that they'd had it. According to Public Health England, that's at least 4 million people: 17% of Londoners and 5% of the rest of the UK. And how many cases does the UK officially count? Less than 300,000. Ridiculous.

Sadly, not enough dead to solve the UK property crisis, but at least its a 50,000 Grandparents less for the NHS to maintain each year.

In the grand plan will it make much of a difference to the 600,000 people who are due to die each and every year ? Hard to say. Probably not. The big question is how many will die as a result of shutting down the NHS for most of 2020. Not a good year for the wife to have breast cancer, or to have heart disease.

Has lockdown improved diet, reduced obesity, physical inactivity, and excessive alcohol consumption?

Nope: lockdown has worsened all the things that will go on to kill us prematurely.
.

 

[BTB 500]

So ... the weekly deaths total (all causes) for England & Wales has continued to drop slowly (up to July 10th, the latest data available), and is now below the same week in all of the previous 5 years. Overall 62,000 more people have died so far in 2020 than during the same period last year, but four weeks ago we were on 63,100 'extra' deaths compared to 2019.

 

[m80]

Reading that the Covid risks have gone away.
But how can that be, it is still very contagious and social interactions are increasing?

If you times the given figure of UK infections by 10 we are still at less than 4.4% of the population having been infected. No where near a stated herd immunity required percentage that would serve that advantage, if that principle has value in infection prevention.

My little'ed has trouble working this out.

 

[BTB 500]

If you times the given figure of UK infections by 10 we are still at less than 4.4% of the population having been infected.

Is there reliable data on how many people in the UK have been infected? AFAIK only a tiny percentage have ever been tested, so extrapolating that would be pretty dubious. I think it's reasonable to assume that a LOT of people have had Covid since March with very minor (or even no) symptoms and recovered quickly without ever being recorded.

They key question for me is whether the rate will still be dropping in another 3-4 weeks, after the recent relaxations.

 

[C240Sport97]

The most vulnerable have been ‘culled’?

Those remaining are stronger and therefore more likely to survive? Plus we are better with dealing care homes and doctors have more treatment options.

 

[m80]

Is there reliable data on how many people in the UK have been infected? AFAIK only a tiny percentage have ever been tested, so extrapolating that would be pretty dubious. I think it's reasonable to assume that a LOT of people have had Covid since March with very minor (or even no) symptoms and recovered quickly without ever being recorded.

They key question for me is whether the rate will still be dropping in another 3-4 weeks, after the recent relaxations.

Reliable figures! I don't think we will see those till the 'experts' look back at the history of this.

This is where I take my figures, so as to trend the progress.

world covd deaths - Google Search

www.google.com

that being world and UK.

Of course if I'm looking at percentage then the ever increasing population needs to be taken into account

U.K. Population (2023) - Worldometer

Population of the United Kingdom: current, historical, and projected population, growth rate, immigration, median age, total fertility rate (TFR), population density, urbanization, urban population, country's share of world population, and global rank. Data tables, maps, charts, and live...

www.worldometers.info

again world and UK.

Since it is apparent that the recorded infections must only be a part of the actual I times by 10 to get what'might' be a closer figure.
If the actual number of infections is higher, and I wouldn't argue otherwise, and this is why we have the 'apparent' success of reducing death rates (in part due to a culling of the weak), (but maybe we shouldn't ignore the long term disabilities of many) then I can only assume immunity from infection is valuable for the stronger.

Whatever the unknown (to us) factual actual I am still exercising some caution but effectively returning to some normality.
I am not disrespectful of this, and will certainly respect others views and personal space, but life must go on in some fashion where reasonably possible.
Till this I didn't know that flu, of many forms, is such a high killer. There are so many ways we can be got, this looks increasingly like another one on a long list.

 

[markjay]

The most vulnerable have been ‘culled’?
Those remaining are stronger and therefore more likely to survive?

Yes, but nature does that, even to animals and without any human intervention... I would argue that humankind didn't go through a million years of evolution, including the evolution of our social and moral values, and building advanced and cooperative societies, not to mention hundreds of years of scientific advances, in order to say now that our solution to this pandemic is... to let the weakest among die, and let the fittest survive? I would expect that after all humanity has been through since the times when our ancestors started walking upright, we should be a bit better than that? You could of course argue that I am saying that because I am over 60, so in the at-risk group, and from the perspective of the younger generation the 'natural culling' solution is perfectly acceptable, but I would like to think that I would not have thought so even if I was in my twenties now. End of rant.

 

[Benzowner]

Yes, but nature does that, even to animals and without any human intervention... I would argue that humankind didn't go through a million years of evolution, including the evolution of our social and moral values, and building advanced and cooperative societies, not to mention hundreds of years of scientific advances, in order to say now that our solution to this pandemic is... to let the weakest among die, and let the fittest survive? I would expect that after all humanity has been through since the times when our ancestors started walking upright, we should be a bit better than that? You could of course argue that I am saying that because I am over 60, so in the at-risk group, and from the perspective of the younger generation the 'natural culling' solution is perfectly acceptable, but I would like to think that I would not have thought so even if I was in my twenties now. End of rant.

Yes, we, as a society, are better than that but, as another animal sharing a planet, we cannot defeat nature, those more at risk will die sooner, I am also well over 60, nearer 70, and am also one of the at risk groups. I had a covid test yesterday and results today were negative, but, I have a hospital appointment Friday, hence the test, not sure how I'll be after

 

[m80]

I had a blood test 5 weeks ago. Not for Covid but they were welcome to if they wished, do they as a matter of course nowadays?

Anyway a few days pass and they post to me that I should ring the surgery to discuss the results. In the same envelope another letter explaining that the test needs to be carried out again and to make an appointment.
I ring and the receptionist tells me no one can speak to me as it's telephone appointments only, fair enough, and all today's appointments are taken. Appointments for the day can only be made on the day, and of course they are too important to ring me unless I have made an appointment for them to ring me.

So I called the next day, same result.

F' em it can't be that important what ever it probably isn't anyway.
Praise be to the Health Service, if you're lucky.

 

[Swotty]

Reading that the Covid risks have gone away.
But how can that be, it is still very contagious and social interactions are increasing?

If you times the given figure of UK infections by 10 we are still at less than 4.4% of the population having been infected. No where near a stated herd immunity required percentage that would serve that advantage, if that principle has value in infection prevention.

My little'ed has trouble working this out.

I reckon the virus has mutated. Any virus which kills its intended host will quickly die out. Apparently this is what happened with the 'flu strains and the common cold.

Viruses are like the poor ... they will always be with us.

 

[Dryce]

The most vulnerable have been ‘culled’?

Those remaining are stronger and therefore more likely to survive?

Unlikely that this has much of an impact - given how few have actually been infected.

The lockdown and bevaioural changes have significantly restricted the transmission of the disease.

Plus we are better with dealing care homes and doctors have more treatment options.

This is where the current death figures could stay low but the underlying infection rate increase.

It's not clear from the simple representation of the numbers and 'the curve' as to whether the underlying relatomship between the number infected and the number dying has changed over the last few months.

 

[m80]

We can see that the priority is shifting from prevention to reduced financial impact. Maybe our chancellor has recognised that he has spent to much too soon on 'our' national credit card.

Today there is a move toward allowing more visiting of the older, and if not infirm themselves are surrounded by others that are. I wonder where our Gov't are getting this confidence from. The results of such a failed experiment would never be forgotten.

This at a time when the great denier Trump has said this is gonna get worse for the greatest country in the world.

 

[C240Sport97]

Fascinating article

We may already have herd immunity - an interview with Professor Sunetra Gupta

Professor Sunetra Gupta has led an Oxford study indicating that some parts of the UK may already have reached herd immunity from coronavirus.

reaction.life

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Fascinating article

We may already have herd immunity - an interview with Professor Sunetra Gupta

Professor Sunetra Gupta has led an Oxford study indicating that some parts of the UK may already have reached herd immunity from coronavirus.

reaction.life

Very informative piece, thanks for sharing.