AIBU to cancel holiday?

[Nostrings457]

Booked to go to Malta in May - holiday balance is due tomorrow (over 6k). Travelling with young children and 1 aduly is aged 65+

Malta has no coronavirus cases currently but who knows what will happen between now and May. I dont want to pay the balance and then risk trying to claim off insurance if we dont go.

I suppose its more a what would you do than aibu?

(I know the risk is so low, influenza kills more people etc.. but i dont want to end up in quarantine with 3 young kids somewhere either)

And to write off the over 50s like that is quite astonishing. Most people chose not to just ignore millions of people in order to manipulate the stats like that.

I am probably one of the least dramatic people you'll ever come across

Read your post above mine again and then say that with a straight face. You’re even exaggerated the death rate. This isn’t doing anyone any good.

The 3.4% death rate is the WHO death rate announced by them today and currently being reported on the BBC website.

And it’s an average, based on 0.5% in the under 50s, increasing to 15% in the over 80s. Without being broken down it’s meaningless and, worse, misleading. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

There’s a difference between being hysterical and being frustrated with people who refuse to acknowledge what they are being told by multiple sources. Sure - you’re right though. It’s no big deal.

And it’s an average, based on 0.5% in the under 50s, increasing to 15% in the over 80s. Without being broken down it’s meaningless and, worse, misleading. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. it’s an average. Young people will die. Old people will survive. The overall death rate is 3.4% at the moment. However old they are that’s an insane amount of people to die if it takes hold in our population. It serves zero purpose to split out the under 50s.

I'm not going to continue to debate with you since you're intent on misleading people. You can't just remove whole groups of people in order to bring down the average rate. Thats ridiculous. Of course the 3.4% is an average. Older people have a much higher death rate and thank goodness the death rate for the 0-9 age group is currently zero. It averages though to 3.4% for "people" as a group. if you want to look only at the under 50s then yes the average mortality rate will be lower.

So that's fine then - your parents, friends, neighbours etc might die but you're alright jack

All people are being asked to do is to take sensible precautions in order to try to contain this as much as possible whilst that is still possible. For some that is clearly too much to ask.

Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press briefing at the agency's headquarters in Geneva

He didn’t seem to think it vital to split out the under 50s.

My parents are dead and my friends, like me, are mostly over 65. So I’m definitely not “all right, Jack”.

Most people will want to know what the risk is for them. They need the reassurance that it’s virtually certain that their small children are very unlikely to die if they catch the virus.

A death rate for “people” is misleading and meaningless. If you can’t see that I despair.

A death rate for “people” is misleading and meaningless. If you can’t see that I despair

A death rate for ‘people’ is exactly what I want to know, and it must be exactly what governments want to know otherwise the WHO wouldn’t produce it. If it was meaningless I’m surprised the authoritative body on pandemic preparedness would bother producing it. Why wouldn’t they governments want to know the total effect on the population? They need to plan for it. It seems only you that can’t see that.

Don’t worry Furfockssake I totally get you!

For what it’s worth, going back to swine flu. So many people said then it’s only a cold, you’ll be ok, yet over 500,000 died.

My son caught it. It wasn’t just a cold. Then we had to force tamiflu down him, which caused him to have severe screaming, sobbing, fits for 2 hours after every dose with stomach cramps. Then as he finished the course and we thought we could breath, he came out in a rash and was rushed in with suspected meningitis. Luckily it wasn’t, it was still swine flu.

Thankfully he was ok in the end. But it’s so easy to pass something off when it’s not affecting you. When it does start affecting you and you ask questions to only be told ‘we don’t have that answer yet’ is horrible. Because you really realise just how vulnerable you are to an unknown.

Yes for the majority of people this will be a mild cold, some will have it and won’t get any symptoms. But for those vulnerable due to age, Heath, etc, it’s far more serious.

I read an article today asking if it is harmful to pregnant women. The reply simple was, we don’t know. No one has yet fallen pregnant and carried a baby full term for anyone to know. It’s those ‘small things’ that remind us, that we are dealing with something not seen before. Therefore should we be brushing it off as simply ‘mass hysteria?’.

We don’t need people like you creating drama and shrieking like some Biblical prophetess of doom. Just dial the hysteria back for your own sake, if nobody else’s.

61m people in the uk.
Say 50% get infected (conservatively)
61m0.50.034% who die (based on WHO estimate today)
So that would be about 1m uk deaths

Does it matter if they are old or young?

Surely minimising non-essential travel is just common sense and socially responsible? Likewise walk or cycle rather than getting buses or trains, if you can. Work from home, if you can. Have meetings by Skype rather than face to face, if you can. Hasn’t everyone who can do this really not been doing this for the last week or two, without Boris or WHO or anyone saying so??! This isn’t hysterical overreaction it’s just common sense. At a minimum wash your hands properly but if you can do more relatively easily, are people really saying they just haven’t bothered because that’s not the official instruction from someone, somewhere?! Honestly??!

Sorry - typo - “Hasn’t everyone who can do this been doing this for the last week or two, without Boris or WHO or anyone saying so??”

Does it matter if they are old or young?

It does, actually.
The death rate is substantially higher for over 80s and still much higher in the over 50s.

Say, 1% of elderly people dying does not have the same impact on society as 1% of active people or young people.
That's just how it is.

It's important to know both expected deaths in general and per group. But averages shouldn't be looked at on their own.

Interesting link to precautions being taken by other countries

www.iatatravelcentre.com/international-travel-document-news/1580226297.htm?fbclid=IwAR15ubCYGX4g9CwVS1Oe3p7W28egJmd5nzGnHg5FEv9qf52IkSde5GRqhF4

I'm flying to Spain next week. I'm over 65 so an 'at risk of dying group'. I'm not going to change my routine (I already wash my hands regularly) and will be swiping the pull-down table and arm rests on the plane with wet-wipes (which I've always done after I saw a young man pick his nose many years ago). I'm not going to hide in the cupboard under the stairs until the all clear sounds.

“ Say, 1% of elderly people dying does not have the same impact on society as 1% of active people or young people.
That's just how it is. ”

That would be more like 15% of very elderly people. So of course it matters to government agencies and those with very elderly folk to care for. But does it really matter to your behaviour? Nothing draconian. Just minor behaviour modification, like I said. What, people can only be bothered if they personally are at high risk?!

Each person should judge if their travel is essential and if you travel, assume repatriation (of you or your remains) is unlikely to be possible if you get sick or die. If you’re ok with that and you feel you gave no choice but to travel then off you go.

It’s only for a few months. People could survive a few months without a holiday.

But the point I was actually making was why the fixation with only doing the bare minimum demanded of those in authority?! Why not automatically do what you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and others without needing someone to issue orders? Seems both very selfish and very stupid. Almost taking pride in your determination to increase the risk to others by carrying on as if nothing is happening. Who does it harm if you skip a holiday or reduce contact with others as much as possible for a few weeks or months? Tourism in every country will suffer. So if you must holiday, do so in country. If most people do that then the impact will balance itself out across countries.

457 died of swine flu in uk in 2009. Was on BBC news last night.

Conservative predictions were 65000!

Almost taking pride in your determination to increase the risk to others by carrying on as if nothing is happening.

I think you've got that totally back to front. People are carrying on because it's for the greater good.

If people stop working, they stop earning. Businesses, even the most socially responsible, can not survive weeks and months of closures and when businesses fold people lose jobs, the government loses tax income and who runs the hospitals in the absence of a functioning government?

People locking themselves away etc and playing survival of the fittest/wealthiest doesn't seem selfless to me. It seems like the exact opposite.

So if you must holiday, do so in country.

You can still catch it and be stranded within your own country.

Also missing the point spectacularly regarding elderly vs young mortality rates.

It's also the people taking precautions beyond government guidelines that leads to shortages.
Stockpiling is a very selfish behaviour that creates real problems for those that eventually or presently need the goods not available.

“ If people stop working, they stop earning. ”

I didn’t suggest that. Or locking yourself away. Or stockpiling. I’m not stockpiling or locking myself away.

Avoid buses and trains by walking or cycling if you can. If you can’t you can’t. But why be in crowded spaces if you don’t need to be?

Work from home if you can. If you can’t, you can’t. Never said quit your job. Stop being absurd.

What is your spectacular point re: mortality? If 1% in young and 15% in the old why would that be different to 15% in young and 1% in old in terms of avoiding trains and buses, working from home and having Skype meetings if you can?

And holidaying in country is to avoid infecting people on flights. They are like buses and trains. An incubus for virus transmission!

I’m not suggesting anything dramatic. Skip the overseas holidays. Minimise any unnecessary presence in crowded spaces.

I stand by my comments. More chance of catching flu than this. If you haven’t travelled to highly infected areas in the last 14 days and wash your hands properly the risk is extremely low. Even then for most people it will be very mild and you simply isolate yourself. That is ample precautions to help prevent spread. It’s funny how with regular notices directly from WHO to nhs organisations how many gp’s, doctors and nurses are not overly worried. The tone from world experts and that if the media are completely different. Everyone can have an opinion, I am statistically more likely to get it than others due to my job, but still unlikely due to fantastic hand washing and taking precautions around people showing symptoms.

We've moved this over to our new Coronavirus topic!