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 really resent being called callous for the views I hold. I hate that people are dying (and that our government took action far too late) but you have to look at this at a macro not micro level. If someone they know dies then of course they only look at a micro level because it's personal and emotional. Same for if someone has an underlying health condition. However, the macro view is starting to say that the long term implications of continued lockdown could be way more damaging. I am not choosing wealth over health. I am saying that you can't have health if the country hasn't got wealth. It's how we pay for health. People are going to die from this, either covid or something else. The current prediction of additional cancer deaths from delayed or missed diagnosis is 18000. And that's just one condition. Are they less important than a covid death? Of course not. Someone upthread talked about societal decisions and their post was spot on. It is really shit, but true, that the decisions being taken are not 'how do we save everyone' but 'what policy means the least number die' because we can't save everyone. If we destroy our economy so much then currently some people with a well managed underlying health condition may find in the future that their condition is no longer quite so well managed as the NHS has had to switch them to a cheaper, but less effective, drug. I've focussed on cancer but what about all the other conditions, poverty, DV, education attainment gaps, MH etc etc etc. Wanting the least worst outcome, whilst accepting that there is no best outcome, does not make me callous. We've got to find a way to start to rebuild, I'd really like to go back to work as my own risk profile is pretty low (BMI a bit high) but if I, and others like me, can start to earn some money and pay into the taxes rather than take from the furlough then we could afford to protect the shielded for a lot longer. It's not Covid at all cost, it's calculated risk at a macro level, whilst having compassion for an individual at a micro level who is affected by that decision, be that a covid death or a death brought about by the ongoing affects of lockdown.

What about the young people leaving university and college about to start on the road to their careers, what are they going to do? We have screwed the next generation but hey they are all selfish for daring to want to come out of lockdown.

@AllieCat22 here you go,

www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/202005/large-884977-5820fca7-a80b-4d3c-a246-ac6459185e69.png

You can loose loved ones from all manor of things though, do you keep people locked away as they might have a chance of loosing someone? Coronvirus doesn’t effect children’s health very much but lockdown will start to, homes being lost, income becoming sparce, mental health problems.

Whether they are locked away would normally affect the chances of the parents die though so not really relevant. Coronavirus may not affect children's health directly but it may well affect the health of their parents which could in turn have a huge effect on children's or young adults mental health. I'm not saying that lockdown will not have an impact or that it shouldn't be eased gradually but there is a balance.

Unless their parents are in their 80s, it's probably not going to have any impact on them either.

For most people the risks from this virus are not high.

To be brutally honest, the death of a person in their 90s in a care home is not tragic enough for me to think it's reasonable that my dc no longer can attend school, see their friends and family, play in a playground and attend their medical appointments

You know when people have lost the argument when they start suggesting that the only reason for lockdown is to save people in their 90s...

The risk from loosing their homes after August will probably be higher than loosing their parents

The suggestion that people are going to die from cancer because of lockdown is also a bit desperate.

It absolutely is not desperate mrpumblechook. No routine breast scans, no dental appointments when mouth cancer is picked up on. Appointments cancelled, gp surgeries closed. That is just the tip of the iceberg. It's scandalous.

The risk from loosing their homes after August will probably be higher than loosing their parents

Apart from the fact that most young people don't own homes, the net impact of this won't be fewer people living in accommodation. If one person loses their home another person will take it.

Honestly. As if our Tory government would be handing out money like sweeties, and trashing our own economy, if this virus wasn’t a major threat to our country. Lockdown has obviously massively lowered our death rates, including that of people in ‘full health’, as it should have so it worked and was the right course of action.

I can’t understand the mentality of people harping on that ‘it wasn’t that serious then’. They seriously are incapable of critical thought.

I am happy for the government to decide, on the advice of their multitude of highly qualified advisers, when the country reopens again, and I’m grateful that they took the steps they did to protect my family and everyone else’s!

If they can afford to. What do you think the effect on children will be to keep moving homes because parents can’t afford to pay there rent?

It’s possible to have an underlying health condition and still to acknowledge that COVID is not lethal to the vast majority of people.

Of course people with an underlying condition are going to be concerned for themselves. I have a serious heart defect, will require a transplant and have been told that if I catch COVID i would unlikely survive. But that doesn’t change the fact that for most people the virus is not deadly and neither does that make me expendable.

If you don’t have a known underlying health condition then it is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that if you catch COVID then you are unlikely to die from it, and therefore consider that at some point you do need to start getting back out there.

If you know someone with an underlying health condition then you might take extra precautions around them to ensure that you don’t infect them. But in truth if someone has a severe health condition then you might likely do that anyway. If any of my family or my DP even get a cold they don’t come here to see me. Colds aren’t always avoidable, but where possible the chances of catching one can be lessened.

And if you do have an underlying health condition then you do also to an extent have to be responsible for your own health and to e.g. take precautions which lessen the likelihood of your own exposure to the virus. E.g. if the government announced tomorrow that lockdown was over and that everyone was now free to come and go as they pleased I wouldn’t suddenly start rushing out there because I am still at risk. It’s why I have a flu vaccination every year, to safeguard my health as much as possible.

But that doesn’t entitle me to resent those who can go out or to accuse them of not caring about me and others like me just because they are at less of a risk.

The suggestion that people are going to die from cancer because of lockdown is also a bit desperate.

Why, when it is clearly self evident?

You know when people have lost the argument when they start suggesting that the only reason for lockdown is to save people in their 90s...

Having had a parent in a care home and seen him die slowly, if there's one thing it taught me it's that people rarely died of "old age" but everyone dies of something eventually. Some kind of illness almost always sees someone off. Speaking personally, I would rather have had a quick respiratory illness than the end stage Alzheimer's my dad died of. And actually he was "only" 74. However not long ago, this would have been seen as a perfectly normal age at which to die.

Maybe that's just me

It absolutely is not desperate mrpumblechook. No routine breast scans, no dental appointments when mouth cancer is picked up on. Appointments cancelled, gp surgeries closed. That is just the tip of the iceberg. It's scandalous.

It's desperate because anyone with half a brain would realise that appointments are to be cancelled because of lockdown. They are being cancelled because the NHS reorganised itself to deal with a potential huge surge of people requiring treatment for coronavirus. That would have happened whether or not we had lockdown. In fact because of lockdown and because people in general stuck to the rules rules the NHS has been able to cope and clinics are opening again. It has also become safer to give immunosuppressive treatments.

It's desperate because anyone with half a brain would realise that appointments are to be are not being cancelled because of lockdown.

Having had a parent in a care home and seen him die slowly, if there's one thing it taught me it's that people rarely died of "old age" but everyone dies of something eventually. Some kind of illness almost always sees someone off. Speaking personally, I would rather have had a quick respiratory illness than the end stage Alzheimer's my dad died of. And actually he was "only" 74. However not long ago, this would have been seen as a perfectly normal age at which to die.

It's not just people over 75 dying either.

Why, when it is clearly self evident?

As above. Appointments are not being cancelled or postponed because of lockdown. It has happened rightly or wrongly because the NHS reorganised itself to treat people with coronavirus.

If it's vitally important that we never, ever suggest anything that could endanger people with underlying health conditions (even when what's being suggested is that they continue to stay safe if they want while the rest of us crack on earning the money that props up the society that enables them to stay at home safe), then what about those with the underlying health condition of depression? Who are at higher risk from suicide, who are not being seen by mental health services, and who are not able to be supported by their friends and family as usual? Are you saying it's ok for them to be abandoned? Are you saying their lives don't matter?

(Yes, it does affect someone close to me, and I am scared for them.)

At my blood test recently which I only had because I couldn't shift a bout of thrush of all things... I came back with high blood pressure and high cholesterol, one or two other things a touch on the high side so I am to be tested again in August. Now I'm on zero medication, healthy weight and active so it could be a blip, they just asked me to move a bit more and drink/eat a bit healthier. I'm 46. No diagnosis of anything officially but who knows come August no would be worse and actually I could be diagnosed with an condition like hypertension or on tablets for cholesterol despite BMI being normal and in good "health".

I've wondered if I got cvoid and died in the next couple of months god forbid, I'd be technically one of the "no prexisting conditions". If so I wouldn't be the only one who hadn't a clue about my persistently high BP (after all you'd not think that was odd if you're presenting with Covid)...

So there's that potentially at play and I'd read about viral load where you're in an environment with a higher proportion of people with it, whether healthcare setting or crowded housing or community badly hit etc.

So I'm trying not to be complacent about my "good" health, whilst recognising we do all need to be vigilant as so much still unknown esp with children and the Kawasaki syndrome link - however small it may be.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/29/extra-18000-cancer-patients-in-england-could-die-in-next-year-study

@mrpumblechook it’s not just people over 75 dying but look at my link and see how small the numbers are under 60

@Oysterbabe that’s a lot of cancer patients not getting treatment. There will be a lot of angry people about when people realise how much damage lockdown has done, far more than the virus

I am astounded at the lack of compassion in this thread.

Wow 😮

I think we have to start looking at things objectively when it comes to deciding what is the best way out of this. Just like NICE have to do.

And I have asked before and no one replied - what do the people who are advocating staying in lockdown (indefinitely it seems) propose to do to get the country moving and tax receipts coming in? So we can actually pay for this NHS care?