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.

I’m feeling really depressed reading this thread.

These are all the same arguments that were had before coronavirus took off in the UK.
“But there are more deaths from x,y,z.....”

Then, just a matter of weeks ago, everyone saw the numbers escalating and, I thought, understood the reason for the lockdown.

Now the very measures which have been put into place to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed have worked, and the numbers are coming right down, people are complaining about lockdown and calling it an overreaction!!

What short memories people have.

And now we’re back to the same arguments again. ...

^Now the very measures which have been put into place to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed have worked, and the numbers are coming right down, people are complaining about lockdown and calling it an overreaction!!

Quite.

With lockdown 253 healthy young people have still died from CV19, how many more would it have been without the lockdown?

My husband is 50, and high risk. He is unbelievably fit, cycles 100s of miles every month, doesn’t smoke, is v slim, etc etc. He happens to have a serious lung condition. We have two young children. I really don’t want him to die, and be dismissed with the shrug of ‘underlying health conditions’.

I think you’re right to share this info OP. Leaving the debate about the lockdown aside, I think it’s important people are in possession of all the information they need to assess the risk to them and their families with some level of accuracy (particularly in the context of schools returning).

Pregnancy isn't an underlying condition putting you at more risk of serious CV complications. Pregnant women are at no more risk than non-pregnant women

That’s still being investigated. There’s a potential risk to the baby too. A recent study showed that pregnant women who appeared healthy and not too affected by Coronavirus had placentas that had abnormal blood vessels, clots and lesions This could affect the baby’s growth and development, short-term and long-term.

(This ties in with the info that Covid causes clotting problems and that this might be a major cause of death or long-term problems).

I don't think it's just the deaths though, right? How many under 50s or 40s needed hospital treatment? How long did they feel too ill to do every day things? Any longterm impact on their health? FWIW, I'm happy for things to get back to normal though. Or at least for lockdown to end and to let people make their own decisions on what risks they're happy to take.

everythingthelighttouches lockdown was necessary at the time to stop the NHS being overwhelmed and reduce preventable deaths. Whilst we can spend some time debating how successful it was, we cannot remain in lockdown ad infinitum.

Whilst every death from covid-19 is deeply sad - as is all death - it has provided us with very useful statistics that should be used when deciding the way forward. When you look at the breakdown of the figures once we've got infection rates under control, we should be focusing on at least getting the young and healthy out and about as quickly as possible. For the rest of us if they can let those of us with no preexisting conditions back at work then there can be a much more directed support provided for those who need to work from home or cannot continue with their jobs due to concern about outcomes of catching coronavirus.

In the meantime hopefully we should have reliable antibody tests becoming available and can make the assumption that having had it once should bestow some immunity, again freeing up numbers to start working and spending again.

How long do we live in lockdown though for little risk to the under 45’s if you’re female even less risk. 4 females have died from Covid who are under 20 years old yet millions of school children are stuck at home. Millions are going to be made redundant in August as the furlough scheme changes, is it really being fair to the whole population?

People are dying because of the lockdown too. From what I have read there have been 12000 excess deaths during the lockdown, and the estimates I have read for future deaths from cancer patients due to the lockdown very from 5,000 to 50,000. And then there are all the other massive human collateral costs from the lockdown.

I do think we need to have a rational discussion which weights up the pros and cons of the lockdown and how to move forward from there.

Huge numbers of the population have are at very negligible risk from covid-19 but are at a big risk from the lockdown.

I saw a table of age related risk of death recently. The age group of 25-44 had a 1:44,423 chance of dying of Coronavirus

Don't you mean one in 44,423 have died so far? That doesn't mean the chance of dying would be that if we didn't have lockdown and 60% of the population became infected.

@HearHooves

This is why (RCOG)

Why are pregnant women in a vulnerable group?

Pregnant women were placed in a vulnerable group by the Chief Medical Officer on 16 March. This means you have been advised to reduce social contact through social distancing measures.
Pregnancy in a small proportion of women can alter how your body handles severe viral infections. This is something that midwives and obstetricians have known for many years and are used to dealing with.
What has driven the decisions made by officials to place pregnant women in the vulnerable category is caution. We know that some viral infections are worse in pregnant women; however, all available evidence suggests that pregnant women are at no greater risk of becoming seriously unwell than other healthy adults if they develop coronavirus.

So as I said, caution. Not evidence. Recent updates (May 13th) including a more recent study on CV and pregnancy continues to say the same, no evidence of increased risk but exercising caution.

It seems that unless you actually DIE, your classed as fine. Not the case. Huge numbers affected have heart trouble, lung trouble and lasting effects.

So I mean, posts like this do well to enforce the idea that death is unlikely, but not to support the case of, let’s bring down the rate of transmission and try to get past this.

Not sure if this perspective has been mentioned, haven't rtft.
How do people who want lockdown to continue feel about the fact that vulnerable children (I've no idea how many) are left in homes with abusive parents or carers, with no respite or relief, for weeks now. To save the lives of people who are in the vast majority over 80?
Is that a fair price to pay?
It's not all about length of life, its quality of life. For all.
Really, put yourself in the shoes of a child living that hell at the moment and tell me its worth it.
Abusive childhoods destroy lives. Whole lives.
Children need to be back at school, for their education, to socialise, and for some so that someone might notice what they're going through.
Surely anyone working in a school must be able to think of children they are seriously concerned about right now. Do their lives not matter more than an 80 year old, who has lived their life, is at the end of their life and gets ill from a disease and dies?
How/when do we all expect to die? 85, 90, 95??
The lockdown was to build capacity in the NHS.
It's time to come out now, monitor the R number but start rebuilding. Life needs to go on for all of us.
I value the lives of children over the lives of the elderly. If that makes me ageist, then I'm ageist.

How many under 45’s have had heart, lung trouble and long lasting effects? Do you have numbers you can back this up or are you just making it up?

So what proof do you have that without lockdown the virus would have ran rampant? I mean we have Ferguson and his flawed model I guess but I have seen 3 nobel prize winning scientists, saying they saw no exponential growth in China pre-lockdown.

The above for @CountryGirl1234

If you have no idea how many more children are being abused than usual then I can’t assess that risk.

Is it more or less than the number of people in their forties who have died or become disabled as a result of Coronavirus?

It is all meaningless - this pitching groups against each other with vague claims that you can’t back up.

37whenthejoyreturns

After reading about a 4 year old being left covered in poo by a teacher for 45 minutes, I think it's about time people start thinking more rationally

FFS didn't take long for someone to moan about a teacher

People are dying because of the lockdown too. From what I have read there have been 12000 excess deaths during the lockdown, and the estimates I have read for future deaths from cancer patients due to the lockdown very from 5,000 to 50,000. And then there are all the other massive human collateral costs from the lockdown.

The potential cancer deaths are not due to lockdown though. They will be partly because the NHS is concentrating on coronavirus rather than other conditions at the moment which needs to be reorganised. It's also down to the fact that many treatments suppress the immune system and would make the person more vulnerable to coronavirus so it's not safe to treat patients at the moment. In both cases arise in the number of coronavirus infections will make things worse, not better.

@Stripesgalore if it's one more, it's one too many.

rookiemere

we cannot remain in lockdown ad infinitum.

Completely agree. And we’re not are we? We’re coming out. Carefully.

But what is driving decisions about what to loosen off first is not based around the impact on each individual, it is based around what activities would drive up the levels of Covid19 circulating in the general population as Mx hence increased, sustained community transmission and potential overwhelming of the NHS. Again.

So there’s really no point in people banging on about “well I’m healthy, no underlying conditions, so I should be able to do as I please, there’s very little risk to me”.

It’s not about you. It’s about all of us.

And by the by, it’s probably quite a significant minority of the working population who have some condition which puts them on the vulnerable (not extremely clinically vulnerable thus shielding) list.

So what proof do you have that without lockdown the virus would have ran rampant?

Sorry what?

The reason it’s not just a case of people making their own decisions is because it affect everyone. If number of infections goes up, risk to vulnerable people goes up because vulnerable people have to interact with outside world to receive medical and social care (which they are more predisposed to requiring)

@CountryGirl1234 please enlighten us with the actual huge numbers of under 45’s who have been left with heart, lung troubles and long lasting health problems?

What frustrates and baffles me is the money thrown at coronavirus, when the NHS has been starved for so long. In 2018 there were 6859 deaths by suicide, which would equate to 1143 suicides since lockdown began. This figure is pretty constant - if it’s changing at all it’s going up - and yet mental health services have their funding cut again and again.
There’s no logic to it.