SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[Penna]

There have been strong words from the Mayor of Milan about people gathering in large groups by the side of the canal. Pictures show lots of young people in groups, many without masks - not helped by the fact that there are mobile refreshment carts for them to frequent. The Mayor says he'll close the area if things don't change. Lombardia is still having a high number of deaths, whereas numerous regions had none at all yesterday.

It made me think of the difference between living somewhere where there are a lot of attractions and things to do, and living somewhere like our village. Everyone's still behaving themselves here partly because we have nothing to do - there are 2 bars, they are locked and shuttered and there's nothing else. It must be tempting to get out and enjoy yourself in a big city. And of course, the weather is now consistently good.

 

[finneh]

How would society not knowing coronavirus existed cause less of an issue and panic? That would basically mean an unknown disease would be killing people at a rate 2-3 times higher than normal mortality, people would notice that in no time but due to lack of information they would have no idea how to tackle that. That’d arguably destroy economy even worse.

Sorry I was slightly unclear. I meant if people weren't aware that a disease existed that was killing the vulnerable. The point was it isn't the elderly dying causing a recession; it's the reaction to the elderly dying.

 

[iKnowNothing]

Okay I surrender my churlishness forthwith.

I genuinely want to know why you used affluent in that way.

I won't argue with you, pinky promise.

The original post has been edited but you can still view the message in one of the posts that quoted the original post:

Spoiler

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...or-memes-please.452816/page-253#post-25409354

 

[Abizzz]

How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

 

[africanspur]

Sorry I was slightly unclear. I meant if people weren't aware that a disease existed that was killing the vulnerable. The point was it isn't the elderly dying causing a recession; it's the reaction to the elderly dying.

But this is a hypothetical that holds no water. In my trust, one of the biggest in London, we've cancelled essentially all elective work, including elective surgeries. We've cancelled all but the most pressing of cancer treatment. We had to triple our intensive care capacity and still almost reached that, despite the lack of incoming from surgeries and people not coming in themselves.

So...in what world does this stay hidden from the public? Especially one in which we've decided to undertake no measures whatsoever and leave them completely blind to what's happening?

I'm sure people won't panic when their dad's cancer treatment is cancelled, when their aunt's hip replacement is cancelled, when their brother is being cared for in theatres after his bike accident because there's no more space in intensive care and when 1/3 of their grandma's care home suddenly dies with no good explanation.

As others have pointed out too, it doesn't only affect old, 'economically unviable' (for want of a better term) people. Its killing a lot of people in their 50s and 60s too, even 40s, who still have a good bit of economic activity left to give. If that is the prism through which you choose to view this.

 

[Sarni]

Sorry I was slightly unclear. I meant if people weren't aware that a disease existed that was killing the vulnerable. The point was it isn't the elderly dying causing a recession; it's the reaction to the elderly dying.

But it’s not just elderly dying. People from all groups are dying. Also, people would notice - you cannot hide something like this from public because too many will be affected.

 

[Sarni]

How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

Yeah more than half of deaths come in age group below 75 and over a quarter below 65 looking at this. That’s a ton of people if you extrapolate to a wider population.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

@Pogue Mahone

I think it's inevitable that if figures of authority are constantly and relentlessly saying there is a flesh eating monster on the loose that is indiscriminately killing everyone; it's unlikely that people are going to happily frolic around town spending their money and run their businesses. Irrespective of whether they're forced into "lockdown" or not.

I assume we'd both agree that if no-one knew about coronavirus (even if it were still having the same effect) the economy would be almost completely unaffected? If so then we're talking about messaging, communication and leadership; both in the UK but also across particularly the Western world. I guarantee a completely fabricated disease with the current narrative would also cause a crippling recession.

My view is with the correct messaging, the correct communication and strong leadership; along with a measured and common sense reaction there could have been far different economic results. If leaders were echoing that actually almost no-one is dying under 80 or without pre-existing conditions and that whilst we need to be cautious, for huge swathes of the population this is nothing that social distancing and avoiding the vunerable won't mitigate; we'd see a different picture.

Unfortunately we're in an age of cowardice and risk aversion where our leaders change strategy with the blowing of a negative media narrative, with the spineless Johnson being the poster boy. I dread to think of how the miner's strike or worse WW2 would be dealt with in an age of social media and populism; appeasement I imagine.

So leaders should be lying to us?

 

[King Eric 7]

How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

I thought I saw figures on the BBC quite recently that suggested that 90% of the deaths in the UK have been in the 60+ age bracket.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

Yeah more than half of deaths come in age group below 75 and over a quarter below 65 looking at this. That’s a ton of people if you extrapolate to a wider population.

The other thing the “only kills the young” nutters are (deliberately?) ignoring is that the death toll among the young has been relatively low BECAUSE of the measures taken. Everyone who needed a ventilator got one, hospitals didn’t run out of ITU drugs, or oxygen (all three of which would certainly happen when they get overwhelmed). If you throw tens or even hundreds of thousands more cases in the mix then the mortality will skyrocket across the board.

Someone coined a phrase for this paradox. Can’t remember what it is. You take measures to avoid a catastrophe. The measures work. We avoid a catastrophe. People say “why did we take these measure? there wasn’t any catastrophe “

 

[antsmithmk]

Give it a week or so post lockdown and we’ll see numbers of ~800/900 a day again.

That isn't going to happen though is it? It takes far, far longer than a week to catch, develop and be killed by the virus. Never mind end up in the death stats that seem to lag by at least another week at a minimum.

 

[antsmithmk]

I think I should be a prime candidate in terms of WFH. Early 30's, no kids, self motivated, enjoy work and very much career / finance focused. However I'm unequivocally less productive; even when my 110 minute daily commute is factored in.

My staff would all work from home four days a week if they could and truly I'd be a fool not to consider it (I have of course). I could genuinely offer them this in lieu of 3 years salary increase which would save me comfortably 5 figures annually. I'd save on fixed costs also and alleviate my biggest bugbear too... Parking!

In my experience annoyingly however it just doesn't work productively on the whole. For myself for example I've never (maybe once a year) taken a lunch in the office but from home find myself taking a lengthy lunch daily and procrastinating far more frequently.

I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm, using commuting time plus interest to work. However they are a small proportion. For every person I've seen who're 10% more productive there are 5 who're 30% less.

I'm sure though that the construction industry and it's supply chain aren't fully indicative of the entire country (we're two decades behind in everything else!). However what I am certain of is that any company that ignores something that could potentially save huge sums every year does so at their own peril... The people, country, app or business that masters it are bound to be hugely wealthy.

Therefore it isn't a question of businesses resisting, they'd be embracing it open armed if it produced results.


It isn't just about being watched. Outside of day to day productivity for example it's about staff hearing how other staff deal with issues every day and (hopefully) adapting and developing according to the skills of those around them. Some are detailed but passive, some assertive but sloppy, some inexperienced. Being in an office you hope people lose their negative attributes and encompass others' positives, becoming more rounded (I certainly have).

I regularly use scenarios I've heard with how staff have dealt with complex situations as an example to other staff who I've seen deal with things less competently. Hell most of the time I don't even bring it up as you'll see passive people becoming more assertive when the situation requires it merely by hearing how someone else has dealt with a situation more assertively. Likewise the reverse where assertive people have seen how calmer people have defused a situation. Over a period of time you see a group of staff dispel their own weaknesses and take on the strengths of their colleagues.

I can't reiterate enough that it would be such a no brainer to allow all staff who can to work from home to do so. As a business owner I'd be committing career suicide to not allow it. However with my current experience the reverse would be true.

"I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm"

I would suggest you re-evaluate your idea of what the word 'thrive' means. Because being logged on to 'work' from 5.30am to 8pm is not it.

 

[Volumiza]

The original post has been edited but you can still view the message in one of the posts that quoted the original post:

Spoiler

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...or-memes-please.452816/page-253#post-25409354

Crikey, this seems like ages ago now.

It was also a great reply from @UnrelatedPsuedo

 

[Dan_F]

I think I should be a prime candidate in terms of WFH. Early 30's, no kids, self motivated, enjoy work and very much career / finance focused. However I'm unequivocally less productive; even when my 110 minute daily commute is factored in.

My staff would all work from home four days a week if they could and truly I'd be a fool not to consider it (I have of course). I could genuinely offer them this in lieu of 3 years salary increase which would save me comfortably 5 figures annually. I'd save on fixed costs also and alleviate my biggest bugbear too... Parking!

In my experience annoyingly however it just doesn't work productively on the whole. For myself for example I've never (maybe once a year) taken a lunch in the office but from home find myself taking a lengthy lunch daily and procrastinating far more frequently.

I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm, using commuting time plus interest to work. However they are a small proportion. For every person I've seen who're 10% more productive there are 5 who're 30% less.

I'm sure though that the construction industry and it's supply chain aren't fully indicative of the entire country (we're two decades behind in everything else!). However what I am certain of is that any company that ignores something that could potentially save huge sums every year does so at their own peril... The people, country, app or business that masters it are bound to be hugely wealthy.

Therefore it isn't a question of businesses resisting, they'd be embracing it open armed if it produced results.


It isn't just about being watched. Outside of day to day productivity for example it's about staff hearing how other staff deal with issues every day and (hopefully) adapting and developing according to the skills of those around them. Some are detailed but passive, some assertive but sloppy, some inexperienced. Being in an office you hope people lose their negative attributes and encompass others' positives, becoming more rounded (I certainly have).

I regularly use scenarios I've heard with how staff have dealt with complex situations as an example to other staff who I've seen deal with things less competently. Hell most of the time I don't even bring it up as you'll see passive people becoming more assertive when the situation requires it merely by hearing how someone else has dealt with a situation more assertively. Likewise the reverse where assertive people have seen how calmer people have defused a situation. Over a period of time you see a group of staff dispel their own weaknesses and take on the strengths of their colleagues.

I can't reiterate enough that it would be such a no brainer to allow all staff who can to work from home to do so. As a business owner I'd be committing career suicide to not allow it. However with my current experience the reverse would be true.

I’m not surprised people aren’t as productive if your example is some people working 5.30am-8pm. What kind of a day is that. Do people get paid for their commute normally?

Surely any savings in rent mean that you hire more staff. Not to mention all the benefits of staff being healthier, less pollution etc.

@antsmithmk beat me to it

 

[Wumminator]

I find the notion that the government should have been somehow less transparent bizarre. If I hadn’t have been told anything I’d certainly be wondering why:
A man at work
A local legend
The owner of the local curry house had recently died of similar symptoms

and why:
My wife’s maid of honour,
Her flatmate,
A 30 something colleague of mine

had all been in hospital recently. Never mind the people I know who have had grandparents decimated by this.

 

[Wumminator]

"I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm"

I would suggest you re-evaluate your idea of what the word 'thrive' means. Because being logged on to 'work' from 5.30am to 8pm is not it.

I was also thinking that. feck me.

 

[finneh]

But this is a hypothetical that holds no water. In my trust, one of the biggest in London, we've cancelled essentially all elective work, including elective surgeries. We've cancelled all but the most pressing of cancer treatment. We had to triple our intensive care capacity and still almost reached that, despite the lack of incoming from surgeries and people not coming in themselves.

So...in what world does this stay hidden from the public? Especially one in which we've decided to undertake no measures whatsoever and leave them completely blind to what's happening?

I'm sure people won't panic when their dad's cancer treatment is cancelled, when their aunt's hip replacement is cancelled, when their brother is being cared for in theatres after his bike accident because there's no more space in intensive care and when 1/3 of their grandma's care home suddenly dies with no good explanation.

As others have pointed out too, it doesn't only affect old, 'economically unviable' (for want of a better term) people. Its killing a lot of people in their 50s and 60s too, even 40s, who still have a good bit of economic activity left to give. If that is the prism through which you choose to view this.

But it’s not just elderly dying. People from all groups are dying. Also, people would notice - you cannot hide something like this from public because too many will be affected.

My point is it isn't the actual deaths causing the economic problems. I'm not suggesting we could hide it, that would be absurd. I was staying that if we had strong leadership articulating a clear message early on about who is particularly at risk and how we can prevent the spread of the illness (without impoverishing the nation); rather than the current message which has perpetuated countrywide scaremongering, the economy wouldn't have needed to suffer as it has.

In terms of the numbers the latest UK figures have 718 people dead under 80 without pre-existing conditions. A tragedy of course (for every death) but so is the poverty we're sure to see, so is the increase in suicides, domestic abuse, innocent men being remanded in custody for more than a year, a huge reduction in international aid spending due to GDP plummeting, at risk children falling through the cracks, the huge drop in cancer and other medical diagnoses that is certain to cause unnecessary deaths, cancelled surgeries making lives miserable, businesses that have taken decades to build being wiped out.

Surely we'd all accept that differing reactions to this pandemic would lead to differing economic results? We'd probably also accept the UK reaction has been woeful both economically and in terms of protecting life.

"I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm"

I would suggest you re-evaluate your idea of what the word 'thrive' means. Because being logged on to 'work' from 5.30am to 8pm is not it.

I was talking about their productivity, not their social life!

 

[africanspur]

I find the notion that the government should have been somehow less transparent bizarre. If I hadn’t have been told anything I’d certainly be wondering why:
A man at work
A local legend
The owner of the local curry house had recently died of similar symptoms

and why:
My wife’s maid of honour,
Her flatmate,
A 30 something colleague of mine

had all been in hospital recently. Never mind the people I know who have had grandparents decimated by this.

And also....why the leader of the country has suddenly disappeared for a few weeks and turned up in intensive care.

Unless we're talking about North Korea style misinformation.

 

[Sarni]

My point is it isn't the actual deaths causing the economic problems. I'm not suggesting we could hide it, that would be absurd. I was staying that if we had strong leadership articulating a clear message early on about who is particularly at risk and how we can prevent the spread of the illness (without impoverishing the nation); rather than the current message which has perpetuated countrywide scaremongering, the economy wouldn't have needed to suffer as it has.

In terms of the numbers the latest UK figures have 718 people dead under 80 without pre-existing conditions. A tragedy of course (for every death) but so is the poverty we're sure to see, so is the increase in suicides, domestic abuse, innocent men being remanded in custody for more than a year, a huge reduction in international aid spending due to GDP plummeting, at risk children falling through the cracks, the huge drop in cancer and other medical diagnoses that is certain to cause unnecessary deaths, cancelled surgeries making lives miserable, businesses that have taken decades to build being wiped out.

Surely we'd all accept that differing reactions to this pandemic would lead to differing economic results? We'd probably also accept the UK reaction has been woeful both economically and in terms of protecting life.

I was talking about their productivity, not their social life!

Again, preexisting conditions include hypertension and diabetes (among others). 1 in 4 adults have hypertension, much higher in over 50 group which is most vulnerable to virus. 1 in 10 or more in that group have diabetes. If anything this ‘almost exclusively people with preexisting conditions are dying’ is even more misleading than ‘elderly are dying’ because of what counts as a preexisting condition. If you look at full list you’d be hard pressed to find people over 50 who don’t suffer from any of them.

 

[JPRouve]

The pre-existing condition point is a bit of red-herring, while it's very important statistically, it's not actually that useful from a practical standpoint or in terms of policies, the amount of pre-existing conditions that put you at risks are relatively numerous and a large amount of the population isn't diagnosed or is in daily contacts with these people.

 

[Abizzz]

I thought I saw figures on the BBC quite recently that suggested that 90% of the deaths in the UK have been in the 60+ age bracket.

I haven't seen those but even then 10% of 30k are still a lot. And loads of the 60+ might otherwise still have decades left to enjoy life, see grandchildren born etc. Even having a preexisting condition just means that that condition hadn't been bad enough to do you, so one might still have a long time left.

I just don't see how we've already reached anything close to the level of economic deprivation where it becomes reasonable to have higher priorities than to immediately save lives. We used to take pride in protecting the weakest (I think this is true for almost all civilizations).

The other thing the “only kills the young” nutters are (deliberately?) ignoring is that the death toll among the young has been relatively low BECAUSE of the measures taken. Everyone who needed a ventilator got one, hospitals didn’t run out of ITU drugs, or oxygen (all three of which would certainly happen when they get overwhelmed). If you throw tens or even hundreds of thousands more cases in the mix then the mortality will skyrocket across the board.

Someone coined a phrase for this paradox. Can’t remember what it is. You take measures to avoid a catastrophe. The measures work. We avoid a catastrophe. People say “why did we take these measure? there wasn’t any catastrophe “

Agree with all of that. Healthcare workers might also become less motivated if we're all out there recklessly risking infection while simultaneously asking them to risk their lives to help us should we catch it. I certainly would.

 

[JPRouve]

Again, preexisting conditions include hypertension and diabetes (among others). 1 in 4 adults have hypertension, much higher in over 50 group which is most vulnerable to virus. 1 in 10 or more in that group have diabetes. If anything this ‘almost exclusively people with preexisting conditions are dying’ is even more misleading than ‘elderly are dying’ because of what counts as a preexisting condition. If you look at full list you’d be hard pressed to find people over 50 who don’t suffer from any of them.

And even among the under 50 these preexisting conditions are common, particularly among people with overweight which is also common.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

Is that myth really pervasive though? I think most people know that the risk of death increases as you get older and if you have underlying conditions.

I guess it depends how you look at that data. To me that data says that only 1% of deaths are attributed to the under 45s that had no or were unknown to have had underlying health conditions; then only 3.5% of deaths attributed to the 44-65 year old age group of otherwise healthy individuals.

The other problem is that it only shows share of deaths and not how many people die out of how many people have been infected. As such I think it’s scaremongering to try to use it as evidence of the virus being ‘very deadly‘ to all ages.

I heard a statistician say that the chance of death from this virus for most people is roughly the same as your chance of dying in a year from any given cause. I don’t think it’s worth getting that worried about if you’re in good health.

 

[Pexbo]

"I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm"

I would suggest you re-evaluate your idea of what the word 'thrive' means. Because being logged on to 'work' from 5.30am to 8pm is not it.

Reminds me of a friend of mine who progressed relatively rapidly up the management ladder, he told me a few years ago the key to his success:

”Draft two emails every afternoon and two extra on Fridays, send one to someone in your management chain just as you get home or just before you go to bed and send one just as you wake up or while you’re having breakfast and then send the extra emails over the weekend“.

 

[Sky1981]

Is that myth really pervasive though? I think most people know that the risk of death increases as you get older and if you have underlying conditions.

I guess it depends how you look at that data. To me that data says that only 1% of deaths are attributed to the under 45s that had no or were unknown to have had underlying health conditions; then only 3.5% of deaths attributed to the 44-65 year old age group of otherwise healthy individuals.

The other problem is that it only shows share of deaths and not how many people die out of how many people have been infected. As such I think it’s scaremongering to try to use it as evidence of the virus being ‘very deadly‘ to all ages.

I heard a statistician say that the chance of death from this virus for most people is roughly the same as your chance of dying in a year from any given cause. I don’t think it’s worth getting that worried about if you’re in good health.

Problem is people thinks they're young and healthy. It doesnt take much to be considered having a condition. High blood pressure. High sugar. High cholesterol. I doubt many of us can be categorized in healthy condition without asterisks. I had a friend who doesnt drink and doesnt smoke turns out he's diabetic

How many of you had conditions that you doesnt know you had before a full medical checkup?

Plus you can be caught when not in fit condition. Or getting infected and not knowing and not having it treated until it's too late.

If corona was given to a young healthy man in laboratory condition I'm sure it wont be as deadly as as in the open

 

[Abizzz]

Is that myth really pervasive though? I think most people know that the risk of death increases as you get older and if you have underlying conditions.

I guess it depends how you look at that data. To me that data says that only 1% of deaths are attributed to the under 45s that had no or were unknown to have had underlying health conditions; then only 3.5% of deaths attributed to the 44-65 year old age group of otherwise healthy individuals.

The other problem is that it only shows share of deaths and not how many people die out of how many people have been infected. As such I think it’s scaremongering to try to use it as evidence of the virus being ‘very deadly‘ to all ages.

I heard a statistician say that the chance of death from this virus for most people is roughly the same as your chance of dying in a year from any given cause. I don’t think it’s worth getting that worried about if you’re in good health.

I guess it depends on what one counts as "very deadly" but from those figures it is the least deadly for people from 20-40 (at 0.2% of infections). But if you take into account the likelihood of infection without countermeasures (said to be somewhere around 70% in the long term, although highly debatable) you still reach 0.7*0.002*16.700.000 = 23.3 thousand deaths for the UK. (For reference that is about 15 times the total of road deaths any given year) just from this one disease in the two least hit age brackets (among adults). And as @Pogue Mahone has pointed out those numbers are based on the services not being overwhelmed yet.

 

[LARulz]

How is the self quarantine after travel enforced?

 

[finneh]

Again, preexisting conditions include hypertension and diabetes (among others). 1 in 4 adults have hypertension, much higher in over 50 group which is most vulnerable to virus. 1 in 10 or more in that group have diabetes. If anything this ‘almost exclusively people with preexisting conditions are dying’ is even more misleading than ‘elderly are dying’ because of what counts as a preexisting condition. If you look at full list you’d be hard pressed to find people over 50 who don’t suffer from any of them.

I don't disagree with any of that (although for context less than 2000 people under 60 have died full stop). However surely it isn't beyond the realms of possiblity to protect the people we know this virus kills (80+ and people with pre-existing conditions) whilst not destroying the livelihoods of tens of millions of others who aren't particularly at risk at the same time?

I think the key throughout this has been the abject failure in messaging, communication and leadership. The initial herd immunity message, then the message about merely flattening the curve to prevent the health service being overrun, now we're talking about saving lives. Each I'm sure could be effective strategies, but all of them together seemingly changing with the wind of public opinion is a recipe for disaster.

I'd be against a harsh lockdown irrespective as I believe it's a fundamental breach of civil liberties, however if it was done early whilst testing was being increased I could at least understand the logic (despite it being too authoritarian for my taste). This mixed and confused "policy" resulting in the worst economic and social consequence baffles me.

I said previously that if someone had shown me the reaction to this virus without the statistics I'd assume by the reaction that it was at least 10x more deadly.

I heard a statistician say that the chance of death from this virus for most people is roughly the same as your chance of dying in a year from any given cause. I don’t think it’s worth getting that worried about if you’re in good health.

I heard this being discussed on the radio also but didn't hear what the source was. Interesting though.

 

[Josep Dowling]

I find the notion that the government should have been somehow less transparent bizarre. If I hadn’t have been told anything I’d certainly be wondering why:
A man at work
A local legend
The owner of the local curry house had recently died of similar symptoms

and why:
My wife’s maid of honour,
Her flatmate,
A 30 something colleague of mine

had all been in hospital recently. Never mind the people I know who have had grandparents decimated by this.

I’d say you’re incredibly unlucky to know that many close people who have had it. I only know of one case which was a friend of a friend type thing.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Problem is people thinks they're young and healthy. It doesnt take much to be considered having a condition. High blood pressure. High sugar. High cholesterol. I doubt many of us can be categorized in healthy condition without asterisks. I had a friend who doesnt drink and doesnt smoke turns out he's diabetic

How many of you had conditions that you doesnt know you had before a full medical checkup?

Plus you can be caught when not in fit condition. Or getting infected and not knowing and not having it treated until it's too late.

If corona was given to a young healthy man in laboratory condition I'm sure it wont be as deadly as as in the open

I agree that some people are deluded about their health and hopefully one thing that comes out of this is that people wake up to that. I doubt it though.

I guess it depends on what one counts as "very deadly" but from those figures it is the least deadly for people from 20-40 (at 0.2% of infections). But if you take into account the likelihood of infection without countermeasures (said to be somewhere around 70% in the long term, although highly debatable) you still reach 0.7*0.002*16.700.000 = 23.3 thousand deaths for the UK. (For reference that is about 15 times the total of road deaths any given year) just from this one disease in the two least hit age brackets (among adults). And as @Pogue Mahone has pointed out those numbers are based on the services not being overwhelmed yet.

Sorry but even by those measures it’s a very very long way from being ‘very deadly’, it’s actually very low risk at a micro level to individuals under 40. There are about 27 million people under 40 in the UK.

 

[cyberman]

Is that myth really pervasive though? I think most people know that the risk of death increases as you get older and if you have underlying conditions.

I guess it depends how you look at that data. To me that data says that only 1% of deaths are attributed to the under 45s that had no or were unknown to have had underlying health conditions; then only 3.5% of deaths attributed to the 44-65 year old age group of otherwise healthy individuals.

The other problem is that it only shows share of deaths and not how many people die out of how many people have been infected. As such I think it’s scaremongering to try to use it as evidence of the virus being ‘very deadly‘ to all ages.

I heard a statistician say that the chance of death from this virus for most people is roughly the same as your chance of dying in a year from any given cause. I don’t think it’s worth getting that worried about if you’re in good health.

Thats a meaningless stat though. If the vast majority of people arent in danger from this virus then it stands to reason their odds of dying doesnt change with Corona around.
Its not those we are protecting.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Thats a meaningless stat though. If the vast majority of people arent in danger from this virus then it stands to reason their odds of dying doesnt change with Corona around.
Its not those we are protecting.

It’s not a meaningless stat because a lot of very low risk people have become unduly worried about the level of danger they’re in. I’m not arguing against countermeasures only the idea that the virus is ‘very deadly’ to people under 40.

 

[JPRouve]

Thats a meaningless stat though. If the vast majority of people arent in danger from this virus then it stands to reason their odds of dying doesnt change with Corona around.
Its not those we are protecting.

Actually their odds of dying do change, if ICUs are saturated by Covid-19 alone then anyone having something critical unrelated to Covid-19 will have less chances to be taken care of as quickly.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

We can argue the toss about the risk for 20-40 year olds all day but we can all agree that the risk is pretty damn significant for those who are 65+. The idea that we should knowingly allow thousands and thousands of 65+ year olds die 10, 15 or 20 years before their time - in distress, with no loved ones to comfort them - to avoid some economic hardship is actually pretty monstrous.

 

[jojojo]

I find the notion that the government should have been somehow less transparent bizarre. If I hadn’t have been told anything I’d certainly be wondering why:
A man at work
A local legend
The owner of the local curry house had recently died of similar symptoms

and why:
My wife’s maid of honour,
Her flatmate,
A 30 something colleague of mine

had all been in hospital recently. Never mind the people I know who have had grandparents decimated by this.

Yes, I think different people have seen very different angles on the story. I've had three members of my extended family die, along with the father of a friend of mine.

I've also got family members whose cancer treatment was delayed and then relocated.

When I look closer at my family, a lot of them have a "condition" whether it's asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis or indeed cancer. So the pre-existing condition thing doesn't offer me that much comfort, especially when I know at least one 30-something with young kids in that category.

For sure, this is partly an age thing, but prior to this I was still attending more weddings than funerals! Now, of course, I've had the weird experience of watching funerals on Teams.

 

[Sarni]

Sorry but even by those measures it’s a very very long way from being ‘very deadly’, it’s actually very low risk at a micro level to individuals under 40. There are about 27 million people under 40 in the UK.

It looks that way if you just look at the % and not have any context.

However, if we assume you have 0.2% chance of dying from this virus once you contract it if you are in the 20-40 age bracket, and assume you will contract it, it means you’re more likely to die from coronavirus than all other causes combined (annual risk of dying within the next year at 30 is 0.15%). Within a year more young people would die from covid than any other cause and it would probably increase mortality in that age group by at least 50%.

 

[Heardy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52594023

Better late than never I guess, UK hasn't used their advantage as an island at all. Criminal that we've had the most deaths in Europe..

Follow the science was one of the many tories slogan bullshite. Cheltenham and Madrid vs Liv should never of happened unless behind closed doors, the latter Madrid fans couldn't even go to their own stadium and Madrid was becoming a hotspot but were allowed to fly over to the UK and go to a football match.

During the peak in Milan dozens of flights still came unchecked into the UK.
This should of been put into place months ago.

Ridiculous that it’s taken this long though!

 

[JPRouve]

We can argue the toss about the risk for 20-40 year olds all day but we can all agree that the risk is pretty damn significant for those who are 65+. The idea that we should knowingly allow thousands and thousands of 65+ year olds die 10, 15 or 20 years before their time - in distress, with no loved ones to comfort them - to avoid some economic hardship is actually pretty monstrous.

What is the economic impact of these deaths if they were to a much larger scale? These people are consumers and how many people in the service industry would lose their jobs if hundreds of thousands +65 died suddenly?

 

[Berbaclass]

Anyone watch this guy? Been watching his videos, this he's good.

 

[Sarni]

We can argue the toss about the risk for 20-40 year olds all day but we can all agree that the risk is pretty damn significant for those who are 65+. The idea that we should knowingly allow thousands and thousands of 65+ year olds die 10, 15 or 20 years before their time - in distress, with no loved ones to comfort them - to avoid some economic hardship is actually pretty monstrous.

That too. It beats me that people my age are trying to downplay this because ‘old people are dying’ as if it’s completely unimportant whether you pass at 65 or 85. My parents are 65 this year and both of their mothers are still alive at 88 and 95. In fact one of my grandmother’s siblings have all passed at 85 or older. The idea it wouldn’t matter if they all died 20 years earlier is crazy.