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.

Any one of us could be one of those 30 'healthy' who have sadly died though.

@SandysMam exactly. It makes me so angry when I hear the cop-out about pre-existing health conditions. It’s as if all these people don’t matter.

peopple arent getting autopsys so we'll never really know i think its quite low cinsidering=not that that means anything to the families

There are no autopsies being done on people who die with COVID19 present - whether or not it is the cause of death. So you need to correct your gross assumption to read "some people died who had no diagnosed underlying conditions, but we don't know that for sure because nobody checked".

Stop scaremongering. It's tragic but apparently young, and healthy die in small numbers all the time. 253 people is a miniscule number and you cannot be at all certain that there wasn't more to their deaths than what you read on a line of numbers.

@SandysMam I agree 100%.

I think the OP has tried to word her post very carefully, but this comment from @LemonPudding It sounds like that's what you are thinking. Everybody back to normal and to hell with those who die because they are old or weak anyway. sounds very much what you mean OP, though I suspect most people will come on to defend you.

It's that low BECAUSE we locked down. Exponential growth means uncontrolled it could be that multiplied by hundreds, literally.
This whole thing depends on people understanding exponential numbers.

What people forget is a number of people aren't aware they have an underlying health condition.

Not sure what your point is, OP.

Are you saying it's only the elderly or the weak dying, so that's ok?

It sounds like that's what you are thinking. Everybody back to normal and to hell with those who die because they are old or weak anyway.

@Lemonpudding

Many people don’t feel it’s fair that the economy is going to crumble and millions will lose there jobs.

There’s sacrifices made on both sides.

@whenthejoyreturns I'm sorry but I don't really get your point. Are you saying that the number of deaths is small or high? You're not clear.

I can though say that 253 people out of 66 million is a tiny, tiny fraction of the population.

it is of course a tragedy for all those families.

But around 2000 people die on the roads a year- and more sometimes.

It's vital to put these stats into perspective.

It is most likely that genetic differences account for these young deaths.

The way the body reacts to Covid is an immune response and the more we know about the human genome project and how people do respond to all kinds of diseases, the better the treatment will be.

@LemonPudding it’s not that simple though. The millions of people that probably aren’t at any risk at all from covid are loosing their livelihoods, facing economic ruin, some are struggling with mental illness, undiagnosed illness because their medical appointments have be postponed. Our dc are suffering, missing months of school. I’m in no way saying vulnerable people don’t matter, but everybody matters.

It's not about saying those deaths don't matter, or that the lives of those who are older or younger people with diabetes or other conditions matter less; all deaths are a personal tragedy for those who mourn them.

However, it is important that while compassionate to those who grieve, policy is taken at a population level. The overall threat to healthy younger people is minimal - we cannot continue to crash the economy indefinitely and hamstring the education of a whole generation of children without a plan, and that's before you start to think about the safeguarding risk for those children who sadly can't rely on the adults in their family and need the contact with schools.

Shutdown was the right call at the time (ideally it would have been the right call slightly earlier...) but the long term effects of maintaining the current level of restrictions will make the potential risk at a population level of the virus pale into insignificance. You can run a cancer programme/NHS/education system if you can't fund it, and you can't fund it without an economy generating tax income...

Of course a 4 year shouldn't be left soiled for 45mins, but I'd rather they fixed the problem of someone being available to change them than increased deaths

Whether it means anything to the families is irrelevant.

We are talking about making decisions for the welfare of 66 million people. That needs to be done by looking carefully at the numbers.

Not refusing to look at them because SCREEEEEEEEEECHHCHCHCHHCH "people are DYYYYYYYYYYYIINNNGG"

Yes, some people are dying of an infection disease. People die of infectious diseases in their tens of thousands every year.

We don't ask their families whether children should be locked up in their homes for months to reduce the spread.

I agree. It's probably no more than people killed in road accidents in the same period.

Well, of course, any one of the 30 could be you (not me as I am over 50 and have already survived a very mild version of it) but the additional risk of dying of this for anyone in a low risk category is extremely small. As someone else has posted, one statistician estimates that catching the disease roughly doubles your risk of dying in a year - which is so extremely small for healthy young people that even doubled it is extremely small. More than 30 people under 45 have almost certainly died of other causes in the same time period - accidents, infections, cancer, strokes. Nobody is minimising the deaths of people with underlying conditions either - but I think some posters are trying to give a sense of perspective on the difference between risk on a societal level and risk on a personal level.

What people forget is a number of people aren't aware they have an underlying health condition.

Exactly. There was an interview with a young girl on SKY back in April. She was in her twenties and ended up in hospital with Covid. She survived but while she was there and undergoing treatment she was diagnosed with an underlying heart condition.

She had no symptoms except occasional shortness of breath. Otherwise she was perfectly healthy. She exercised, ate well, wasn't overweight or anything like that.

Not everyone knows that they're unwell.

I like how it cuts off at age 45.
I 46 and developing existential angst here. 😁

On a serious note, all covid deaths are upsetting. And none Of them can be justified.

I think there’s talking about this emotionally, then there’s talking about it scientifically. They’re so different and both are Necessary. .

My iPad loathes punctuation.

7 young people a week drop dead with undiagnosed heart conditions
its shit but it happens

10,000 people die every week in the UK without COVID
its shit but it happens

a friend of mine was widowed on the first day of lockdown not Covid
she is still unable to be comforted by family and friends
its shit

There’s sacrifices made on both sides.

Can you clarify @Hunnybears, do you mean that these people dying are an acceptable sacrifice?

I actually want out of lockdown asap and to get back to work, however, I feel that people seem to be either one thing or the other - stay in lockdown until a vaccine is found or not really giving a shit about the number of people dying, particularly if they are old or have health issues. Like they're collateral damage.

Oh and so much hyperbole too.

Not refusing to look at them because SCREEEEEEEEEECHHCHCHCHHCH "people are DYYYYYYYYYYYIINNNGG"

I can though say that 253 people out of 66 million is a tiny, tiny fraction of the population.

Yes it is a tiny fraction of the population. However the fraction is much bigger if you include people with underlying conditions and as they are just as important as those who don't why wouldn't you include them?

But even if you don’t realise you have an underlying illness, your risk of dying is still incredibly low.

I think this view is a bit naive. It ignores two facts:

• shedloads of people live with health conditions. The underlying assumption is "people with health conditions" represent a minority of frail weaklings, whereas in fact, the older you get, the more likely it becomes that you have at least one. In reality, I'm not sure that, among my middle-aged acquaintances, a single one of us could claim (e.g. if trying to arrange travel health insurance) that they have "no health conditions" at all (typically it's minor stuff like chronic back pain, or stomach reflux, so probably not a covid risk. But health conditions nonetheless!)

• just because COVID-19 doesn't kill you doesn't mean it's harmless. There can be serious long term (potentially life-long?) consequences. In other words, "the healthy" may not be so healthy afterwards. And if immunity is transient, these crippled survivors may not be spared by a second wave.

Aside from that, yeah, no problem with your stats.

Nobody is saying that those with underlying health conditions don't matter. Of course they do.
But there are currently millions of (non underlying conditions, not elderly) people locked down at home, petrified, when the risk is so low to them that they could and should be back getting the economy going.

There seems to be no way of getting through to the many whose risk is low, without offending or upsetting those who are at high risk. It isn't saying you don't matter. The scaremongering that is going on because society isn't allowed to say what the op has said for fear of offending, is so so damaging.

I've probably said that all wrong.