Interesting article from the BBC about the risk of dying from coronavirus vs the general risk of dying from other causes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52758024 “What is remarkable about coronavirus is that if we are infected our chances of dying seems to mirror our chance of dying anyway over the next year, certainly once we pass the age of 20.” So broadly, if we catch coronavirus (noting that currently only 1 in 400 people are estimated to have it so the likelihood is quite low), our chance of dying is only equivalent to our chance of dying in the next year from something else, such as a car accident. Surely food for thought regarding how proportionate the current lockdown measures are, given the wider damage to education and the economy. I do think that most people miss the wider context.
You’ve still got the chance of dying of the other thing though, so hasn’t your (admittedly small) chance of dying next year just doubled?
Yes it’s doubled, but only if you catch it. The point I’m making is that most people wouldn’t think twice about their risk of dying going about their general day to day business. However, they are very concerned about their risk of dying from coronavirus, and that’s before they’ve even caught it.
I’m concerned about catching it and passing it on to old Mavis down the road and doubling her chance of dying.
Also 1 in 400 is loads. My school has around 2000 pupils and staff. Imagine Oakwell with 1 in 400 affected, except it would be way more as that’s the current figure due to lockdown.
Agree, and I’m in no way advocating that there is no lockdown. I’m just saying that if we can release restrictions whilst keeping R below 1, we have to try and get back to some sense of normality. Now feels like the right time.
Agreed Helen Brazil's president has been a fierce critic of lockdowns, and has preached against it. March 25th-reported deaths 46 May 24th-reported deaths 22,000+ If the UK had not taken lockdown measures I think the death toll would be far higher
We have the advantage of being able to see how it goes in other countries like Italy who have relaxed theirs. No need now to rush into anything, unlike when the virus first hit our shores.
I’m not saying groups of 2,000 or 10,000 should be allowed to congregate. My point is that there is a perception that the risk of dying from coronavirus is much higher than there really is. If we continue to socially distance where possible and isolate when infected, we should be trying to kick start the economy and education.
But, and I know this is quite selfish, why shouldn't old Mavis be the one isolating to protect her own life rather than you isolating to protect hers? In theory you could follow the government advice to the letter and still catch it while at tesco, you could then pass it on to Mavis the week after at Tesco again and she dies. In fact thousands will have died from doing exactly that. If Mavis stays in her house and has food delivered in a none contact way then you could host swingers parties at your house (again) and she still wouldn't catch it off you. Not really related to this thread much but still an important point. The elderly and vulnerable must be treated differently as they are different.
Agreed we should be learning from other countries. I think the learning we take is that it can be done.
ST Define elderly, and why I should be treated differently, and why AM I different? I am 61 by the way
I haven't checked all the figures on deaths etc so I'll use the term elderly a bit broadly and no I'm not necessarily saying that it includes you. But in general they are different because they are at significantly and I mean significantly higher risk. For similar reasons children are treated differently over many things. Smoking for example is illegal in under 18s because of the risks and we all just accept that
That is why I’ve completely avoided shops for 14 days after going into work as I want to take every precaution I can to ensure I don’t spread the virus. I do agree that the elderly and vulnerable should have been better protected but I believe lockdown was still needed otherwise there would have been a lot of deaths that could have, and have, been avoided.
Agreed... define elderly... Our bodies might look shot at but mentally most of us could give them young uns a run for their money.. Lol 61...Lord Tyke.. we are still pups compared to some on this board. Lol... I'm 63 Mind you on saying that about bodies Id bet some of the 60+ generation are fitter than a lot of the young uns these days
But would the deaths in the young healthy population have been higher than the deaths caused by the lockdown and the removal of life saving treatment for other illnesses? I think that if you take the elderly covid victims out of the equation then the deaths caused by lockdown are significantly higher than those by covid-19
I still don’t understand why essential treatment stopped. I thought the whole point of lockdown was to not overwhelm the NHS which I took to mean the whole thing not just to not run out of ICU beds. If we stopped all other treatment isn’t that basically the NHS being overrun?
