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.

@paintedmaypole

Then answer me this? Why do so many adults object to speed cameras or traffic calming measures? Those very simple things which would have no impact on the quality of life of adult drivers yet would save children's lives...but adults are up in arms over things like that?

However, my DC are now missing hospital appointments, their education...it's seriously affecting their life negatively now. Think about the teenagers who can't even sit the exams they worked hard for? I haven't heard a word of gratitude or thanks to the children who are living like this.

‘I’d say the opposite. All the people struggling right now who are perfectly healthy. These are the ones the government has viewed as expendable.

The abused woman or child locked up with their abuser. The single parent going to loose their job. The mentally ill patient who can no longer see their therapists. The cancer patient who can’t get tested.’

How are those people perfectly healthy?

I am a mentally ill single mother who left an abusive relationship and can’t see their therapist. How is me being forced out to my customer facing job with an underlying health condition while the healthy sit at home furthering your cause?

You are just trying to set groups up against each other.

If you have asthma and die of COVID19, you will be listed as having an underlying condition

No one is saying otherwise,

I’m fifty one. I have no underlying health condition. Why am I not allowed to get my hair cut my a thirty year old woman also with no underlying health condition.

I understand why the asthmatic can’t. The over seventy. The obese person. But why can’t I? Why can’t my hairdresser do my hair?

Why can’t a perfectly healthy child go to school and be taught by a teacher below 65 with no underlying conditions. When both the child’s parents are also below 65 with no underlying conditions.

In fact why can’t their grandparents who are also below 65 with no underlying health conditions see them?

Why? Sure, if they are obese, asthmatic, diabetic, heart condition etc I get why they can’t. But why can’t everyone else get on with it.

Thank you whenthejoyreturns , for the article. It does beg the question about how minor an underlying condition would need to be to be counted and what percentage of the population have an underlying condition.

Who on earth has said that! No one has. No one has even hinted at it. Clearly people are saying people with no underlying conditions below 65 should be allowed to resume their lives whilst those at risk should be enabled to be protected if they so wish.

Whilst I agree that things need to start opening up again the idea that those at risk can be protected is so naïve. People have to work or go to school whether or not people in their household have health conditions and children will have to go to school whether or not parents are vulnerable.. This can't be managed by just letting this go back to normal. It has to be kept down in the population as a whole.

The figure I would like to see is out of all the deaths, how many people would have died during the pandemic from their underlying health conditions. I bet that figure is tiny because believe it or not, despite most of the deaths being to people with underlying health conditions, they weren't actually at deaths door. A very small number of people were actually receiving end of life care when they contracted coronavirus and died. The majority will have had manageable health conditions such as diabetes, mild asthma and even lung disease.

You can live with even serious medical conditions for many, many years. Some people live their entire lives with health conditions such as type 1 diabetes so them being written off as 'would have died anyway' is really irritating. You've also got to factor in that thousands of people are walking about everyday not knowing they have health issues. Cancer is developing, their heart is becoming weak etc. If we just open the gates and assume that anyone without a diagnosed serious health condition will survive, well that's just reckless and dangerous. Imagine it a bit like the NHS announcing this year they aren't going to bother doing the flu vaccine... that's what it would be like, lots and lots of people at risk

formerbabe I don't think it is mainly over 65s who object to speed cameras. Of course there is concern about children who are missing education, especially teenagers taking exams. I am fed up with fingers being pointed at particular age demographics. People have families containing relatives of all ages who they care about.

OP you need to be more careful to post facts and claims that are accurately qualified. Otherwise you just look like a keyboard warrior with no independent thought of your own.

It WAS 253 deaths in NHS hospitals in England

Not the UK, and the figure has been updated since your source.

Secondly the list of supposed nderlying conditions includes things that are irrelevant, like autism. That's not a reason for someone to die prematurely.

Do more research before making your claims.

Age is very important.

'Underlying conditions' is not the gotcha you think it is.

Do better.

People have to work or go to school whether or not people in their household have health conditions and children will have to go to school whether or not parents are vulnerable

But that’s the point. If you’d locked down all those vulnerable people only two months ago, you’d probably have had herd immunity by now, and we’d not have the economic damage we currently have forcing rhe country to open and you’d have protected the nhs.

And for a large percentage of those people who are vulnerable then measures can be put in place to protect them, from job protection, educational requirements on.

We didn’t need to do this. We still don’t need to do this everyone locked down.

Do better

🤣🤣🤣

The issue isn't just 'dying of Covid'. We have no idea of the long-term health effects of 'living after Covid'.
Numerous virologists and biologists are worried about the long-term impact of Covid. You're not saving people or the economy if you only think about today.
If Covid impacts health, the way researchers fear that it will, then you're creating a timebomb that will decimate the economy, the healthcare service and the health of the nation. There's no logical reason to rush to increase exposure without fully considering what that means. Yet again, it shows short-termism rather strategy.

And 22 million people have underlying health conditions. That's a lot of at risk people if you leave this unchecked.

@sandysmam l totally agree. The casual distain l detect when talking about death figures, almost as if having an existing underlying health issue is something that you brought upon yourself therefore those deaths don’t count.
It’s awful.
And the ageism that has crept into the dialogue is equally repugnant.

We are going to have to live with covid19 and adults are going to have to make responsible decisions about their health

We should never have locked down in the first place, the economic damage will cost more lives than covid 19.

Shh, @hearhoovesthinkzebra, people who think they have this whole global meltdown sorted out are posting their wisdom. What's 22 million between friends?

Bluntness, I would be happy to get behind a campaign for end lockdown, keep the vulnerable at home.

But most people won’t. Most people on here arguing for lockdown to end do not care that the clinically vulnerable are being sent to work. They just think it is okay for them to die.

So we lockdown forever or its survival of the fittest. I know what team I am on

But that’s the point. If you’d locked down all those vulnerable people only two months ago, you’d probably have had herd immunity by now, and we’d not have the economic damage we currently have forcing rhe country to open and you’d have protected the nhs.

They weren't sure who was vulnerable two months ago and considering it actually is a large proportion of the population once you include household members I don't think it would have made much difference to the economic damage. Sweden hasn't lockdown and many experts think that their economy will suffer as much as anyone else's anyway.

Looking at deaths in isolation is wilfully, almost negligently misleading OP.

• What about the increase in strokes among otherwise young, healthy people? Strokes that can trigger long-term disability?

• What about the likelihood of long-term or possible lifelong lung damage?

• What about the illnesses developing among children?

And since numbers seem to be your concern(?)

• What about the one in 20 likely to have a form of Coronavirus that makes them ill for weeks and months?

• What about the 1 in five people in the UK now said to be especially vulnerable going back to work

Taken together that’s a hell of a lot of people at serious risk of one kind or another

• And the effect on the everyday running of things, if those people are off sick in vast numbers at the same time? What about that?

And going back to death, since you don’t seem capable of thinking beyond that

• what about the number of people currently recovering who needed to be in hospital? What happens to them when large numbers are needing treatment again?

@SandysMam I totally agree with your very first comment. I think people have a totally distorted view of the lives of people with underlying conditions.
I'm one of those people - I have a lung condition - but I lead a normal life. I have a full time job with lots of responsibilities and a partner and child.
Why would it make anyone feel better that people like me are more affected?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras
22 million people have underlying health conditions do you have a source for this?

Bluntness100

Because there are 22 million people with underlying conditions. That is 1 in 3 people. How many people have no close contact with anyone vulnerable, who will fit into your category?

Are there enough non vulnerable, not living with a vulnerable people to do the teaching, hairdressing, nursing etc etc in your scenario?

whenthejoyreturns

Yes, figures quoted by government when this started. 20 million vulnerable plus 2 million shielded.

Bluntness we wouldn't have herd immunity (you're either confused or you're being deliberately disingenuous). Maybe these quotes and articles will help other people understand why herd immunity isn't an option for Covid 19.

Michael Ryan, the World Health Organization’s Executive Director of Health Emergencies, did not mince words when the organization was asked on Monday about the concept of herd immunity."This idea that, 'well, maybe countries who had lax measures and haven't done anything will all of a sudden magically reach some herd immunity, and so what if we lose a few old people along the way?' This is a really dangerous, dangerous calculation," Ryan said.“Humans are not herds,” Ryan added. “As such, the concept of herd immunity is generally reserved for calculating would need to be vaccinated in order to obtain that same effect. I think we need to be very careful when we use terms around natural infections of humans because it can lead to a brutal arithmetic, which does not put people, life and suffering at the center of that equation.”

Why Herd Immunity Isnt An Option by an Australian Epidemiologist

The WHO Condemns the Concept of Herd Immunity

As an aside - people with Autism are more likely to die prematurely than the general population. By well over a decade according to some studies. The health risks associated with the diagnosis are very real which include increased ratea of obesity and therefore type 2 diabetes among other associated risks.