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 guess you value money more than lives Nihiloxica. What a shame

God the hypocrisy would revolt you.

It's not like a lack of money ever killed anyone...

Oh. Wait.

I agree with you, OP.

All over the place people are using "lockdown" and "social distancing" interchangeably as though they are the same thing. Almost no one is advocating a full return to normal with no social distancing involved. Most people talking about easing lockdown, so people can work and pay taxes to fund the NHS and all the other things that we depend on, are fully aware that life won't return to how it was, maybe for a long time.

We can't we have a rational discussion about this?

Absolutely pathetic over reaction and we all ought to be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves. The longer this farce lasts, the more ashamed we will be, in retrospect.

OP, I genuinely don't get the point you're trying to make by making us aware of this. I already knew the risk of me dying (as a middle aged woman with no known underlying health conditions) is extremely low. Getting it doesn't worry me at all.

However, that doesn't stop me from being concerned about the elderly and those with underlying health conditions who may be badly affected. I do/did worry about the NHS being so overwhelmed that people couldn't get the oxygen/ventilators they needed to stay alive. The latter was the purpose of lockdown, to prevent this from happening.

Seriously, what point are you trying to make?

As for the poster who said that saving a life is more important than the schools being open...do you really think that? Really and truly?

How come it is not callous to be so dismissive about those who have lost their lives, but it is callous for PP to point out that not "everyone" has lost their mind/their job/???

Clearly we all have different experiences of this but are people really coming on here to say their experience is the only experience?

The majority, according to latest BBC survey I heard this morning, want us to stay with the restrictions as they are and do not think schools should be opening for designated years early June.

I think MN just has a very very vocal minority of people who cannot see the bigger picture and/or only care about their immediate difficulties.

Can you please give a link to where this statistic came from? Also does anyone know what proportion of the population have an underlying health condition. Are people under 45 with no underlying health conditions actually the majority. How mild does an underlying health condition have to be to be recorded? I agree that there has to be a balance between controlling the virus and the populations overall quality of life. There seem to be a number of people in their prime who were working in the NHS and care who have died and left young families. A difficult balance. As a older person I completely accept that I have to die of something sooner or later. This way of dyig does look very unpleasant though. It is a very fine balance. I don't like the implication that people who are a bit overweight or have asthma or diabetes are less important than others.

Doesn't matter about your DC with Sen cause you know it's not Covid and we all know the new mantra. Covid above all else or CAAE for short.

Wow, I thought the figure would've been higher than that, although obviously it's terrible even if it were five people. I can see the lockdown protestors getting up in arms about millions of healthy people being on lockdown and losing their jobs etc for such a comparatively small number.

On a personal level I'm loving WFH, and lockdown is working out fine for me, plus my workplace has a high percentage of more at-risk workers and clients, so not really feasible that it opens for now.

I can also see how continuing lockdown indefinitely could he very damaging to certain demographics (poorer - can't afford to feed the children healthily, no garden, women and children living with abusive partner's, children in homes with no books, no access to online learning etc), and can also see that the UK economy needs to be able to survive this. (Although ditching high speed rail project can help to pay, I think it will damagingly raise house prices anyway, plus other negatives).

As we are coming out of the first wave all factors have to be taken into account, and decisions made for a population level, not on an individual level.

Excuse punctuation, my phone has its own ideas.

The longer this farce lasts, the more ashamed we will be, in retrospect
I take it you mean the farce of gfs and Tory trolls trying to spam every area of the internet with views that equate to 'we don't care if the ill, young, vulnerable, poor and key workers are put at risk as long as our Tory funders are happy'.
Yeah, that farce is wearing very thin.
Thankfully, most people do genuinely care about the vulnerable, the young, the poor and key workers. And that's why the Govt will eventually be held to account for their complete and utter incompetence.

I'm with @coronabeer23 on this. Protect the vulnerable by ensuring that they do not have to be exposed to the virus. Those who believe they are fit and healthy can get on with life with relative normality (social distancing, masks, not having contact with the elderly or those with health conditions). In theory so few will become ill the NHS will cope. The biggest issue will be people wanting it all, standing on a packed tube so that they can work whilst wanting to visit granny on the weekend.

As a side note I used the ons tool and in my postcode I'm 6 times more likely to die from something other than covid. We do seem to have forgot that before this large numbers of people were dying daily from things like RTA, cancer etc.

The numbers are really small for under 40s, something like 60 last I looked, so most of those deaths must be in the 40-60 age range.

@mrpumblechook, what the fuck do you mean by 'people like me'?

Obviously I meant a person with no underlying conditions as you seem to think it is all right to only consider those with no underlying conditions.

I'm in a vulnerable group. I also recognise that the world grinding to a halt has broader consequences.

As do I and I think it would be reasonable to debate whether the number of deaths overall justified shutdown in the economy. What I don't think is reasonable is to only consider deaths amongst those with no underlying conditions when considering whether it is worthwhile.

Totally Agree Lash King

There's not even a trace of shame in them

Concentrating on numbers so much detracts from the often ignored question of long term effects.
We do NOT know what are the long term effects on the health of those who survived the virus. This worries me more than the number of deaths we know about. All the children (and adults actually) who might have been infected, asymptomatic or with symptoms however small or severe who might face serious problems in 10-20 years time. We’ll probably get some insight in a few months once those recovered would be part of medical testing to identify their level of health. Not perfect as it’s impossible to know what they were like before infection but it is a start. That’s what I’d like to know more about before even considering the idea that only a very small percentage of people from x group have died from the virus.

@Paintedmaypole 15 million people in England (not the whole of the UK) have an underlying health condition.
People in poorer areas and who live in poverty are 60% more likely to have an underlying condition regardless of age.
But OP seems to think it's fine that they're all put at risk because presumably OP doesn't see themselves as having an underlying health condition or as being poor.

*My figures come from a Department of Health Report and a Kings Fund report.

However, that doesn't stop me from being concerned about the elderly and those with underlying health conditions who may be badly affected.

We are all concerned about the elderly and also about the young with pre-existing conditions. These people should be fully shielded so we can prevent them from catching it.

It is ludacrous to lockdown the rest of the populations, the young and healthy who can still work without being at risk and help keep the economy going.

This coming recession terrifies me.

There are so many other things people die from every year where we do not take drastic actions like these.

There are thousands dying from traffic each year (especially when you account for respiratory illnesses it’s causing), but we haven’t banned cars??

Yah, it's rich Tory donors that will be worst affected by lockdown.

As Professor Sunetra Gupta put it.

"Lockdown is a luxury enjoyed by the middle classes at the expense of the poor an vulnerable."

The fact that the supposed left wing of this country wants to see society shut down indefinitely regardless of the harms being done to to people they supposedly represent us shameful.

@mrpumblechook

Obviously I meant a person with no underlying conditions as you seem to think it is all right to only consider those with no underlying conditions.

Where have I said that? Show me where.

What I don't think is reasonable is to only consider deaths amongst those with no underlying conditions when considering whether it is worthwhile.

Again, where have I said that? Show me where.

Stop trying to impute people with views they haven't expressed to suit your agenda.

Where does this figure come from? I only ask as I've seen a lot of figures bandied about.

What a completely absurd comment.

On a thread full of lies and disinformation about Covid and absurd and stupid remarks from the ignorant you pick an innocuous remark to call absurd, Well Yes.

Given that 30% of the UK is obese, and 18% of the population is over 65 (couldn't easily find a stat for over 60), add in all the asthmatics, all those with autoimmune disease, all the diabetics, all the cancer patients, all the kidney patients, all those with hypertension, all those who have had transplants etc, and I don't think that "under 60 with no existing health conditions" is the minority.

What people who say this mean is " I don't have underlying conditions and I am the most important and everyone else is expendable so that I can do what I want because there isn't a very big risk to ME"