This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Is India becoming the next epicentre?(14 Posts)
The centre of the pandemic has moved from China to Europe to the USA to Latin America.... It looks like India might be next judging by numbers.
Can you link?
I was reading a few weeks ago about how successful India had been in containment (it arrived there some time ago)
If that has all broken down, the why? OK, that’s probably not a question which can be answered in the short term. But have any reasons been given for this apparent change?
Is it anything to do with strain or drift?
Because an allied question might be whether the differences in the pattern and apparent lethality of the disease might be connected to strain (there are at least two, are there not?)
My understanding was that they were never going to be able to control it due to massive numbers of inner city populations living in very densely populated slums. Not sure how much those people would make it into official figures though?
I don’t think India was ever going to cope well with 800 million poor. They are having an awful time, 2 people to a bed I read.
Their numbers seem to be increasing hugely (Not as bad as Brazil yet though, I don't think). But, unless their reporting is dodgy, few people don't seem to be dying of it. Maybe there are milder strains??
They are starving to death before Covid kills them
Yes, they locked down very hard, but it wasn’t sustainable to do so. Their numbers aren’t like Brazil’s yet (and hopefully never will be) but their trajectory is concerning, possibly the worst for any country that has sought to carry out a tough lockdown, which means there’s nowhere else for Government to go in terms of effectively controlling it. It also means heat doesn’t stop Covid from spreading, but then Brazil showed that.
Maybe there are milder strains??
Probably more because it has a younger population.... doesn’t mean it won’t be bad.
Death tolls in Western countries are hugely disproportionate towards over 80s, so presumably countries that don't have a large population of over 80s won't have as high a death toll for this. For instance I saw quoted that 25% of deaths in Mexico have been under 50, but presume this is just due to much lower life expectancy overall in part.
Mexico has very high rates of obesity and diabetes.
It was said that India had a 'low' number to start with because there was no testing going on. Doctors aren't affordable, so the older poor people just die and there's no certification or autopsy. Because of their population and high mortality rate, it would take months to notice it. The same is happening in Nigeria (I have friends there) . Even on younger people, a family won't pay for an autopsy, they are around £2k and the findings aren't always reliable. People in places like Nigeria and Bangladesh/ Pakistan won't go to hospitals because they aren't safe and people fear being killed for their organs.
So it's difficult to get true numbers as things are happening. We will have to rely on excess deaths.
India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Parts oc Africa still have people returning home from the regions that they go to, to work, or to family for support. You have to go to your place of permanent residence to get aid. So there will be some spreading going on.
So without testing arrivals coming into the UK we will never get a handle on this. Other countries, without testing, can easily say the number of infections are low. How can you test 1.2 billion people with 800 million poor living on less than £2 a day?
Death tolls in Western countries are hugely disproportionate towards over 80s, so presumably countries that don't have a large population of over 80s won't have as high a death toll for this.
This is presumably why it hasn't ravaged Africa with very young populations due to low life expectancy.
Join the discussion
Please login first.