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.

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

What link? Regardless, whatever the numbers are now you would need to multiply them by about 10 to see what could happen if 70% of the population were infected which could have happened without lockdown. You would also need to consider long-term health problems among those that didn't die before deciding that we shouldn't have had lockdown.

"Urgent referrals by GPs for cancer tests have fallen by 76% and appointments for chemotherapy by 60% since the pandemic arrived in February despite NHS England insisting cancer treatment “should continue unaffected”. The health service hopes to resume cancer operations this week but faces a large backlog."

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

For the hundredth time, there lack of treatment for people with cancer has NOTHING TO DO with lockdown. It is to do with reorganisation of the NHS to cope with infected people and the fact that people aren't immune suppressive treatment for cancer would be very vulnerable to the virus.

aren't on

Mumsnet keeps going on about long lasting health problems to huge numbers to the under 45’s but where is there any evidence of this?
About 500 under 45’s have gone to hospital out of 23000. How do you know what the numbers would have been without lockdown, how do you know it would be10 times this amount, please show some data, evidence on this?
This link:

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

Mumsnet keeps going on about long lasting health problems to huge numbers to the under 45’s but where is there any evidence of this?

Why are the numbers under 45 the only ones that are relevant to you? What about people between 45 and 60 for example? Do they not count?

@HelloDulling

**HelloDulling

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’m curious. So what do you want? Lockdown to ease so your children get to return to school and begin getting back to the life with friends, learning, activities, experiences but for their to be an increased risk to your husband
Or for lockdown to continue?

Underlying conditions aren’t necessarily life threatening, it can be something like asthma which many people have and manage fine in general life. I don’t think it’s helpful minimising death like this actually. May be reassuring to people anxious about it but it’s not helpful when people wind up with a sense of arrogance and invincibility as a result.

I should also say that it might not kill you but can make you extremely ill. My step-father had it and he was ill for a fortnight, he couldn’t get out of bed. It’s not a pleasant illness to have, I don’t think it should be minimised in any way.

My step-father had it and he was ill for a fortnight, he couldn’t get out of bed.

So he had an illness about as severe as the flu.

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

You should take that up with the Chief Medical Officer.

He has been warning since the beginning of lockdown about the deaths that will be caused by lockdown.

So that’s 0.7% of the deaths then? 🤷🏻‍♀️

People saying they know people who have been really ill is not the same as data I’m afraid as it doesn’t give you an overall picture. I know people have been ill from it and died, I know people who have taken a while to recover and will probably have long lasting conditions but that doesn’t mean I will lock myself away, as that doesn’t give you an overall picture. Funny enough I only know men who have suffered from it, not one single woman or child and they all had families.

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

Thank goodness you have no say in the decision making process.

@Widowodiw which numbers are you talking about?

@Alex50 the only person I know was my dh’s 29 year old niece , she died in April .
I really don’t think it matters “who we know” as that’s not relevant either ,overall

@Fluffybutter sorry for your loss

I'm pretty sure teenagers are more at risk from knife crime and road traffic accidents than covid. Shall we put them on lockdown forever? I mean lives will be saved won't they.

Shall we ban extreme sports? That would save lives.

Shall we ban cars?

Alcohol?

Or should we just accept that there's always risks and get on with our lives?

@Alex50 thank you , appreciate that.
All still a bit surreal as we haven’t been able to see that part of the family so almost doesn’t seem like it’s happened

He has been warning since the beginning of lockdown about the deaths that will be caused by lockdown.

He has warned that the lack of treatment for non-covid conditions will cause deaths but that doesn't mean lockdown itself will cause deaths.. People aren't being treated due to the NHS being reorganised and because many treatments make people susceptible to coronavirus. That hasn't happened because of lockdown.

I’m curious. So what do you want? Lockdown to ease so your children get to return to school and begin getting back to the life with friends, learning, activities, experiences but for their to be an increased risk to your husband
Or for lockdown to continue?

@sodamncold What I want is a recognition that all lives are valuable. What I think should happen is for lockdown to lift, social distancing to stay in place where that is practical, kids to go back to schools, shops to open and so on. This WILL increase the risk to my husband, however careful we are at home. And if one of us does bring it into the house, and he gets it, it may kill him. And if it does, it will be no less of a loss that if he had been entirely healthy. No one deserves to be dismissed, to be lumped together, as ‘suffering underlying health conditions’. His lung condition does not make him less of a man. Thread titles such as this make it sound like in death he would be collateral damage, a price worth paying. He would not.

No one is saying that it’s not absolutely tragic when people with underlying conditions die of this horrible disease. But either everyone stays in lockdown or only people with underlying conditions stay in lockdown. One way the economy collapses. It doesn’t seem complicated to me.

No one deserves to be dismissed, to be lumped together, as ‘suffering underlying health conditions’.

Mentioning facts about co-morbidities is not dismissing people or lumping them together.

This anti-intellectual nonsense has to stop.

In a public health crisis people are demanding we not discuss the statistics that pertain to the virus in case it hurts people's feelings. It's ridiculous.

He has warned that the lack of treatment for non-covid conditions will cause deaths but that doesn't mean lockdown itself will cause deaths.

Nope. He has said repeatedly that their are 3 types of death that need to be tracked

1 deaths from Covid
2 deaths due to people not receiving healthcare due to the NHS being overwhelmed
3 deaths due to lockdown

@mrpumblechook

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.

What an ignorant remark. Millions of people otherwise healthy DO own their home. Many young people don’t, but many do! Especially the further North you go.

Your attitude is ‘sod the family that lose the house, someone else will benefit...’

Can’t you see the irony? Your attitude is ‘well these things happen’, yet you expect others to not think like this....

But either everyone stays in lockdown or only people with underlying conditions stay in lockdown.

What, all 15 million of them?