Talk

Advanced search

Younger women particularly badly hit in second wave

(6 Posts)
frenchand Sat 31-Oct-20 11:22:27

Now being reported that younger women 20-40 particularly badly affected in terms of hospitalisations - see here

Please would people stop saying we just need to shield the vulnerable? It’s a nonsense.

OP’s posts: |
exwhyzed Sat 31-Oct-20 11:32:01

He said there were “many more cases, particularly in younger females between the ages of 20 and 40”, with three to four times as many women in that age group going to hospital as men, because they were being exposed to the virus in hospitality, retail and some educational settings

Or how about my theory which is that women in that age group have had to disproportionately take on the burden of caring for young children whilst WFH, schooling, helping shielding relatives, continuing to work in low paid undervalued roles and we are all fucking knackered and run down and less able to fight it off as we were the first time round.

In comparison most of the men I know in the same age group in my entirely biased and anecdotal study now have a much better 'work life balance' due to WFH, are eating less shit food at lunchtimes and suddenly have more time for exercise and 'hobbies'. They are happier and healthier than they were pre-COVID.

Go figure.

Qasd Sat 31-Oct-20 11:39:37

It’s very misleading there are not a lot of hospitalisation generally in the 20 - 40 age group so twice as many women as men is twice as many of a small number. Remember we are not even planning on trying to vaccinate the under 50s initially so the scare tactics used to say “young women are at risk now” will back fire big time when then then ask why they don’t subsequently get a vaccine.

I don’t actually believe in just shielding the vulnerable although I do think ethically the biggest restrictions should be on those most at risk, so no just shut schools and everyone else crack on (but it’s only in mumsnet that is practically suggested!). But no you are at a very small risk of hospitalitation and death under 40, slightly higher if your female but not high and if the risk of serious health problems was the same population wide as it was for the under 40s then we would not be at risk of overwhelming the nhs or seeing huge spikes in excess death. Alas of course that isn’t the case hence the need for restrictions.

frenchand Sat 31-Oct-20 12:01:19

exwhyzed

^He said there were “many more cases, particularly in younger females between the ages of 20 and 40”, with three to four times as many women in that age group going to hospital as men, because they were being exposed to the virus in hospitality, retail and some educational settings^

Or how about my theory which is that women in that age group have had to disproportionately take on the burden of caring for young children whilst WFH, schooling, helping shielding relatives, continuing to work in low paid undervalued roles and we are all fucking knackered and run down and less able to fight it off as we were the first time round.

In comparison most of the men I know in the same age group in my entirely biased and anecdotal study now have a much better 'work life balance' due to WFH, are eating less shit food at lunchtimes and suddenly have more time for exercise and 'hobbies'. They are happier and healthier than they were pre-COVID.

Go figure.

This makes a lot of sense to me!

OP’s posts: |
munchbunch12 Sat 31-Oct-20 12:21:06

@exwhyzed I agree with your assessment of this!

ImEatingVeryHealthilyOhYes Sat 31-Oct-20 12:24:08

Brilliant comment exwhyzed and makes me glad we have MN where we can say that sort of thing

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in