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.

There is a degree of total callousness about the way people have isolated their elderly, their bereaved, their children, that I just don't relate to in any way. I am callous the other way. Yes, some old people are dying a bit before their time. I genuinely don't find that particularly upsetting. But the stories from people who refuse to hug their mum after losing her husband/their dad for instance (even if non covid related, so no real risk of infection, but even if there was I would do it), I just find that really upsetting and lacking in an ability to risk assess. Rules must be followed at all costs apparently.

The synchronicity of callousness is fascinating.

Wanting to look at statistics and risks = callous.

Demanding that children suffering due to enforced isolation from other children be more "resilient" = saintly helpfulness

It's a general problem with people too closed minded to imagine that people who have different political views are evil.

It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with people who think their position is the only moral one.

There is callousness all over this debate.

Dealing with this has always about choosing whose interests are going to be sacrificed.

There is nothing kind about pretending that in choosing to lock down we didn't decide as a society that the sacrifice of women and children we knew would be locked up with their abusers was worth it.

Everyone who supported lockdown (and I include myself in that, albeit reluctantly) was part of making that choice.

A refusal to acknowledge that is not kind or decent.

It will become less of a big deal when the mainstream media isnt covering every tiny aspect of it and reporting every statistic and sensationalising it at every opportunity.

The more worrying aspect is that the media have consistently mis-reported the actual facts that Joe Public needed to know. They seem to be following their own agendas rather than acting as a public service to inform. Right from the start, they got it wrong - they publicised the wrong information re key workers, essential workers, etc making everyone think they couldn't work and businesses had to close if they weren't "key" workers. It's NOT what the Govt said nor what was written in their guidelines. Time and time again, the actual guidelines of the Gov.uk website were very different from what the media were reporting them to be. Either the media had their own reasons for mis-reporting or their reporters were too stupid to understand the gov.uk guidelines. Dominic's case is an ideal point - the Gov.uk guidelines clearly allowed him to do what he did - anyone in similar circumstances could have done the same. Yet the media are making out he used some kind of obscure loophole - it's all there in black and white in the guidelines! People need to start doing their own reading rather than believing what the mainstream media are feeding them.

It’s a tragedy for those who are affected and their families but it doesn’t warrant the breakdown of the economy and education for the vast majority of families. We should shield the vulnerable and enable those who are at lowest risk to start to rebuild our economy

I agree completely

Wanting to look at statistics and risks = callous

For me it's not the looking at statistics and risks that is the problem. It is the removal of people that are at higher risk that is the problem. I appreciate that some people may feel very elderly people dying isn't that much of the tragedy but what about younger people with underlying conditions? Why are they not included in OP's numbers?

It’s a tragedy for those who are affected and their families but it doesn’t warrant the breakdown of the economy and education for the vast majority of families. We should shield the vulnerable and enable those who are at lowest risk to start to rebuild our economy

If you shield all the vulnerable and everyone in the household you not going to be able to rebuild the economy anyway. It's too high a number of people in the UK. The only way is to reduce risk for everyone.

I've asked this loads of times. Is anyone advocating going completely back to normal, with large crowds inside, close contact and no mitigating measures being taken? Because I haven't seen anyone calling for that. We can return to a more normal and productive way of life somewhere between being locked down and full normality. Doing that will mean more economic activity, and transmission risks greatly reduced, which will protect the vulnerable. Remaining in this situation will protect no one, medium to long term.

I've asked this loads of times

You are you asking though?!

You are you asking though? I meant to say "who are you asking"

what about younger people with underlying conditions? Why are they not included in OP's numbers?

Because that is a particular way of looking at the statistics - age is the biggest risk factor, then certain co-morbidities.

Working out the risks to young people without any of these co-morbidities is entirely valid,

What's more the "underlying conditions" thing is important, because young people with conditions thought to be potential risk factors are at significantly lower risk than older people with none.

Other than people in the shielding groups, age is still the biggest predictor of risk for this virus.

The idea that perfectly healthy people in their 20 are dying of this (including healthy people who are fat or have asthma) in lage numbers is false. Countering that narrative is important.

The MEDIAN age of death from Covid in the UK is 81. That is a very elderly cohort. And knowing that and figuring out the public health implications for how we deal with this illness is not callous.

But I guess if you've seen callousness used as a rhetorical device in health arguments for years, you become rather immune to it.

It was the argument of Charlie's Army. It was the argument of the Death Panel fear mongers who opposed the Affordable Care Act in the US.

IME pretty much all arguments about healthcar that make use of callousness rhetoric are poor arguments, often with an entirely different agenda.

It's also, now that I think of it, the basis of the pro-life argument.

And was used in that horrific case in Ireland where they tried to keep a dead pregnant woman on life support for months so her corpse could gestate a pregnancy.

"You're disgusting, how can you ignore the welfare of the little baby? The most vulnerable must be protected at all costs." etc. Et cetera

Because that is a particular way of looking at the statistics - age is the biggest risk factor, then certain co-morbidities.

Obviously it's a particular way of looking at the statistics but in a debate about whether lockdown is worthwhile it's an unpleasant way of looking at the statistics. It looks as if white people are at lower risk than some ethnic minorities but if OP decided to post about how the risk was minimal to white people there certainly wouldn't be people arguing about whether lockdown should be lifted because of the lower risk to white people.

I keep seeing people trying to bring a racial angle into this when shaming people for looking at age and health demographics doesn't work.

The race factor in this is interesting, because they still don't know what causes the higher in black people. It might be factors that are exacerbated by extending lockdown.

This is a virus that presents risks to the elderly and the sick. That's the truth.

How we deal with that reality as we move forward is something that needs to be discussed.

But refusing to let people speak about the emerging reality of the illness we are all locked down to avoid is pretty dodgy.

Who am I asking? People on MN mainly, as I have deleted FB due to the inaccurate meme sharing and hysteria.

I don't think it's an unreasonable question.

I keep seeing people trying to bring a racial angle into this when shaming people for looking at age and health demographics doesn't work.

I'm not trying to "shame" anyone. I'm just trying to make you realise that you are othering and it is very unpleasant.

But refusing to let people speak about the emerging reality of the illness we are all locked down to avoid is pretty dodgy.

It is perfectly valid "to speak of the emerging reality". However it is not okay to exclude those people from the number of deaths when arguing about the benefits and risks of lockdown. I.e. the deaths of all people under 60 should have been considered by OP and other posters not just those who have no underlying conditions.

It’s funny you show the statistics of young people dying and it’s small, then the argument is it’s not just about dying, what about young people left with lung, heart and life long health issues from coronvirus? You ask for the statistics of huge numbers of this group of people, then you get why do you only care about young people what about the old.

No one has been able to tell me how many huge number of young people are going to be left with life long health issues?

Christ, are we really going to have "othering" introduced into what statistical data can be collected and analysed.

Why do you imagine the Office of National Statistics might collect this data?

Is it

a) because they are a nefarious organisation of ableist racists who want to "other" people with medical conditions

b) because it is useful data

Answers on a postcard please.

The risks to health young people are tiny.

The risks to young people with health conditions are different, but in most cases are still low.

FFS what kind of idiocracy are we living in when talking about who is at most risk is "othering" and therefor verboten?

No one has been able to tell me how many huge number of young people are going to be left with life long health issues?

The statistics haven't been published yet as the virus has only been around for a few months.

Christ, are we really going to have "othering" introduced into what statistical data can be collected and analysed.

As I have stated several times it is fine to analyse and discuss why some people are at high risk compared with others. That's not what some people are doing on this thread though. They are excluding people at high risk from the statistics when they are discussing whether the benefits of lockdown are worth the risk. People at high risk are not less important and their deaths count just as much as those at low risk and their deaths should be included when considering whether lockdown has been or is worthwhile.

@mrpumblechook So how can you say huge numbers have had life changing health issues without the data? How do you know? Have you made it up?

Does no underlying health issue include smokers or former smokers, those with high cholesterol, those who are clinically overweight, drug users ?

I know a guy who ‘dropped dead’ from a heart attack it was awful yes, but his family wringing their hands saying he was healthy as a horse etc didn’t know he was a heavy drinker and user of recreational drugs. He was also overweight. Still a tragedy for them but it didn’t make me suddenly terrified of having a heart attack.

@mrpumblechook So how can you say huge numbers have had life changing health issues without the data? How do you know? Have you made it up?

Where have I said that huge numbers of young people have had life changing health issues?

If you shield all the vulnerable and everyone in the household you not going to be able to rebuild the economy anyway. It's too high a number of people in the UK. The only way is to reduce risk for everyone.

It's amazing how people choose to ignore this fact.

Yes,the death rate is lower than feared - how much of that is because we locked down though?

Many of you seem to want to engage in some huge science experiment - just let the population loose and then wait to see how many get sick and die? Really? And how will you control it once the genie is out of the bottle? Will you expect the drs and nurses to kill themselves working to clear up the mess you are calling for?

@Sodamncold

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.

Well given that it seems we have a death rate of well over 35,000 in three months not in a year and in a period of time where pneumonia is much less prevalent, how many deaths of Covid do you think we will have by the time one year, including a winter have passed?

If you shield all the vulnerable and everyone in the household you not going to be able to rebuild the economy anyway. It's too high a number of people in the UK. The only way is to reduce risk for everyone.

Exactly. People arguing for no lockdown at all and going back to normal immediately almost certainly don't want financial help to be given to those who will supposedly 'shield' themselves for the next year or more. There are too many of them, and it will be too 'expensive';