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.

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

Of course, but if you don't know you have an underlying condition, you don't know what your risk is and therefore you can't judge it accurately.

The callousness of some on this thread is sickening.

As a civilised country we have a duty to care for the old and the weak, some on here just aren't civilised. A shame but the truth.

Such lack of compassion and so much selfishness.

ME! ME! ME! To hell with people dying, I matter more, let them die.

Awful people.

Every death matters. Every death matters more than a pub opening, a school opening or the screeches of the banshees wanting it to go away.

Considering the lengths we have gone to in order to prevent deaths, I think the virus has done quite well to take that number out despite lockdown. I'm not sure why we would be drawing conclusions about its potency or how safe we are when it was given very little opportunity to really get going.

SandysMam

I agree with you. The callousness can be quite sickening at times.

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.*

So what if the threat to healthy people is minimal. Those with underlying conditions are just as important.

I tire of the number of posts I see displaying the “I’m alright jack” attitude of the healthy. Who incidentally might not be healthy (how many people have undiagnosed underlying conditions?)

The idea that the “healthy” should carry on as normal and meanwhile it’s fine if the vulnerable end up emotionally/mentally/financially destroyed because it doesn’t affect me is just abhorrent.

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.

So what if the threat to healthy people is minimal. Those with underlying conditions are just as important.

Somehow I managed to phrase that in the exact same way as LemonPudding while missing their comment

What about compassion to those the lockdown and its subsequent consequences will prove fatal for? Or are we only allowed to care about covid deaths?

I had someone trying to tell me the other day that healthy people are dying in their thousands. Its bollocks.
I agree with those saying its time for those who are healthy to accept a bit of risk and crack on. We can't go on like this.

What about compassion to those the lockdown and its subsequent consequences will prove fatal for? Or are we only allowed to care about covid deaths?

You can do both!

@tiredanddangerous well currently everyone is going to be emotionally/mentally and financially destroyed. Does that suit you better?

It isn't abhorrent. It isn't callous.

If no one works, if the economy doesn't get going, there will be no money. Money pays for nurses. It pays for doctors. It pays for ventilators.

What about compassion to those the lockdown and its subsequent consequences will prove fatal for? Or are we only allowed to care about covid deaths?

No one suggested that there shouldn't be compassion for those dying of non-COVID deaths though.

vanillandhoney

Evidently not, given the minute anyone tries to advocate for the lockdown to be relaxed they are accused of not caring about those with underlying health conditions

No one suggested that there shouldn't be compassion for those dying of non-COVID deaths though.

Except they are, because who cares what damage the lockdown does as long as people don't die of covid.

Yeah let's just lock down indefinitely and to hell with the economy. The risk to a large majority of us is negligible and it's time to start getting back to work. It's the choice being taken away from me that I am pissed off about

@whenthejoyreturns no, of course not. But to act like it doesn’t matter if it’s just the vulnerable is sickening.

It isn't abhorrent. It isn't callous.

The abhorrent part is saying that lockdown shouldn't happen because only people with underlying conditions are dying. Their lives aren't worth less than yours. Therefore if you don't think you will life should be risked to save the economy don't argue that other people's lives should be risked.

LemonPudding, the obvious response to this kind of brainless hysteria is that lockdown causes deaths as well as prevents them:

-there is a direct correlation between poverty and mortality
-no economy, fewer taxes, fewer available cancer treatments
-the effect on people's mental health

etc. etc.

Every life is precious - including those not lost to Covid. I'm offended the suggestion that anyone who wants to see a balanced risk-driven approach is driven by selfishness and lack of compassion.

Except they are, because who cares what damage the lockdown does as long as people don't die of covid.

No. People are just saying that the lives of those with underlying conditions are worth as much as healthy people.

Are you unaware of how many people in the UK have underlying health conditions? Are you unaware that most of them would not expect to die of those underlying conditions but are being presented as though they are acceptable collateral damage?
The figure you have provided is useless without context.
So, to provide just some of that context:
15 million people in England (England alone not the the UK as a whole) have underlying health conditions. People who are poorer or/and live in deprived areas are 60% more likely to have an underlying health condition regardless of age than those in higher income brackets.
Basically what you're suggesting is that it's ok for 15 million people in England to be put at risk. It's fine for lower income individuals to be put at risk.
As long as you can view yourself as the narrow group of people who don't have underlying conditions, you don't care about collective responsibility or protecting the vulnerable.

Decisions are generally made for the greater good of the MAJORITY.

That’s the way society works across the board.

Look at how the NHS spends money, for example, someone has a rare form of cancer and treatments looks to be successful in the USA. It’s too expensive and the NHS can’t foot the bill and justify spending say £250,000 on one individual. Sadly that person is likely to die. It’s awful on an individual level and for the family, but from a population level it makes sense.

You need to take emotions out of the equation. That £250,000 could be better spent in a way that it could help 20 people rather than one

It’s the same with the furlough scheme or with benefits in general. Some people would lose out but it works for the greater few, another example- a couple could earn £49,000 so household income is £98,000 and they will qualify for child benefit. But if one of them earns £51,000 and the other £20,000 they wouldn’t qualify.

There was some uproar about it but the majority of people weren’t affect so it stuck.

My point is, the government (Or anybody for that matter) doesn’t want anyone to die, but the reality is they will.

The vast majority of people won’t die however and we have to start looking at the negative consequences that will affect the MAJORITY overall.

It’s not fair for the ones that will die of course not, but it’s equally not fair on the ones that are going to lose their jobs/homes etc...

If no one works, if the economy doesn't get going, there will be no money. Money pays for nurses. It pays for doctors. It pays for ventilators.

So go back to work. Is anyone stopping you?

@tiredanddangerous well currently everyone is going to be emotionally/mentally and financially destroyed. Does that suit you better?

No. No they aren't. I won't be. Plenty more people like me. It's not everyone. Obviously it is shit for people who will lose their jobs but when I left school in 1982 10% of the adult population were unemployed. We recovered from that and we will recover from this.

In response to your actual OP, Yes - thank God for lockdown or that figure could have been so much higher.