253 people under the age of 60 with no other underlying health issues had died from Covid-19 in the UK

[whenthejoyreturns]

I'm in no way trying to minimise these deaths at all but I wondered if people were aware of this number. Every day we hear the number of deaths, but this is never broken down into categories that we can relate to ourselves.
30 people under the age of 45 with no other underlying health issues had died from Covid-19 in the UK.
AIBU to want people to know this because I don't think enough people realise.

Sodamncold

But the 36,000 deaths have occured in just three months, not twelve. In that time the number of excess deaths is 50,000. The death toll over twelve months will likely be well in excess of the numbers you attribute to pneumonia.

That is because it’s a “new” illness whereas pneumonia very familiar to the medical profession.

@stripesgalore

Apologies, I forgot to attach the nhs information that says asthma that is not severe - no mention of only mild or moderate asthma.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk-from-coronavirus/whos-at-higher-risk-from-coronavirus/

Plus pneumonia has a much higher death rate amongst children.

In short, Over. Reaction. On a truly epic scale.

@janetmendoza Person 1 Aged 25 army reservist and police officer extremely fit (heart condition, under normal circumstances should have normal life expectancy) Person 2 Aged 23 Cambridge graduate and journalist (brittle asthma normal lifespan expected) Person 3 type one diabetes 55 years - completely well and thriving at the moment. Persons 4,5 and 6 80ish years, controlled high blood pressure - all entirely well and thriving and one still working. Person 7 - 58yr old marathon runner - heart condition but completely well. Person 8 west end dancer 29 asthma
Even though these people are vulnerable, they are still unlikely to die from Covid 19 if they catch it. Even people in the vulnerable groups are much more likely to recover than die.

At least vaguely in the ball park of the number who die annually from, let’s say another respiratory and contagious condition - pneumonia. Which has an annual UK death rate that varies between 25000-35000

Dear lord.

Anyone would think coronavirus causes stupidity on the internet, not fever, cough, etc.

Pneumonia is not itself contagious

SirVix they are all going to be fine even if they get it, statistically, particularly if female. It's not like having a risk factor means you're going to die. I've got hypothyroidism, asthma and celiac and wouldn't consider myself remotely at risk. There's no scientific basis for me to be remotely concerned.

Even though these people are vulnerable, they are still unlikely to die from Covid 19 if they catch it. Even people in the vulnerable groups are much more likely to recover than die.

And as numerous posters have pointed out, death is far from the only negative outcome. Is it that you aren't capable of taking that fact on board or that you just don't want to? Because let's face it that wouldn't suit your agenda.

Take a different condition, say cardiovascular disease, which causes 170,000 deaths every year in the UK.

People are more likely to die from CVD if they are elderly, have diabetes, high blood pressure, angina, a previous heart attack or known vascular damage, if they are smokers, overweight, have a poor diet, or work in a manual occupation. Most people understand this at some level at least, and are also aware that sometimes there are no warning signs or known risk factors.

Around 500 young adults also die unexpectedly each year in the UK from sudden cardiac death. Approaches to preventing these Very sad deaths are based in research and include screening relatives of those who have died. What isn’t suggested, is a population approach to prevent those 500 deaths.

Nobody thinks it’s OK that people are dying of heart disease, but our approach is more proportionate. People are given information to help them manage their condition and their risk factors, but are still free to smoke or live on fried food if they choose.

As we move out of lockdown I’d like to see a similar approach taken towards those most at risk from coronavirus. so the elderly can still have priority for online shopping, those in the shielded group are supported, including financial support if necessary, to continue to isolate and people who are obese are given advice and support to lose weight. Meanwhile, those who are least at risk should have more freedoms and be able to care for those at risk and contribute to the economy.

@ShootsFruitAndLeaves

* Pneumonia is commonly caused by viruses or bacteria passed from one person to another. *

* people with a weakened immune system are less able to fight off infections, so it's best they avoid close contact with a person with pneumonia.*

Source: NHS website

I am not spreading misinformation.

‘I have mild asthma - not severe (only recently prescribed clenil 100 twice a day after two weeks of breathlessness and only normally take ventolin sporadically. ‘

If you have the flu jab you are classed as having moderate asthma, not mild.

At least vaguely in the ball park of the number who die annually from, let’s say another respiratory and contagious condition - pneumonia. Which has an annual UK death rate that varies between 25000-35000.

So glad you have no say in important decisions.

whenthejoyreturns

They are the figures quoted by government - 2 million extremely vulnerable (shielded) and 20 million vulnerable - so older, with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, asthma, hypertension etc

But it doesn't mention hypertension in the government's vulnerable list

"Pneumonia is commonly caused by viruses or bacteria passed from one person to another. "

Yes.

Pneumonia is a symptom of an infection. Not the cause.

Al1Langdownthecleghole

There's a flaw in your argument. Cardiovascular disease isn't infectious. If I live with someone who is obese, has hypertension or diabetes that doesn't put me at risk from heart disease. They can adjust their lifestyle (or not) but it won't put me at risk.

Opening up the country but with the plan to shield people still puts those shielded at risk because the healthy people that they live with could pass it on to them. Plus you've only considered two groups of vulnerable people there - the elderly and the shielded. What about the huge number of vulnerable people? Are they just collateral damage in your plans?

purpleme12

Yes it does - it's cardiovascular disease

Is it? I'm confused

Hypertension is cardiovascular disease yes. I've just had a look at the current government list of clinically vulnerable conditions (this isn't extremely clinically vulnerable aka shielded). They have changed is slightly so that hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease is no longer there, only heart disease.

are 70 or older

are pregnant

have a lung condition that's not severe (such as asthma, COPD, emphysema or bronchitis)

have heart disease (such as heart failure)

have diabetes

have chronic kidney disease

have liver disease (such as hepatitis)

have a condition affecting the brain or nerves (such as Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy)

have a condition that means they have a high risk of getting infections

are taking medicine that can affect the immune system (such as low doses of steroids)

are very obese (a BMI of 40 or above)

That's still a huge list

No one is saying that the death of someone with underlying conditions does not matter. Why is that always jumped upon? On the contrary, if we are less scared and acknowledge the statistics, then the fit healthy people (most of us) can get on with life and rescue the economy which will, in turn, provide the finances to look after the more vulnerable.

‘On the contrary, if we are less scared and acknowledge the statistics, then the fit healthy people (most of us) can get on with life and rescue the economy which will, in turn, provide the finances to look after the more vulnerable.’

If there are so many of you on here who are arguing for that, why don’t you campaign for it?

Because while you sit around debating I am still having to travel into work every day, so it feels like none of you are actually that bothered about the risk to the vulnerable.

What are the indefinite lockdown proponents suggesting as a means to running and funding the country? We're seeing an awful lot of "But what about...?" and no actual suggestions about how to get business rolling and taxes paid again.

So is anyone who has any kind of pre existing condition less likely to fight this off? This is what I don't get. With all this talk of pre existing conditions.
But obviously there's loads that aren't on that vulnerable list
Were all the people who died on the vulnerable conditions list?

I think the problem is that because this is such a new virus they still have a lot of research to do. They know what conditions complicate the management of this but they are starting to see different risk groups emerging - men, BAME,.

It's understandable that they've erred on the side of caution while they aren't clear exactly who is higher risk.

As I said, there is NO evidence that pregnancy puts you at increased risk of serious CV complications.

The Government exercise caution in advice because there is nothing that makes the public more distressed and panicked than a) deaths of children followed by b) deaths of young Mothers.

It effects the population more than anything else so they will exercise caution about advice for children and pregnancy.

We'll, they are still appearing on the government's vulnerable list, so....