If CV turns out to be less deadly than flu...

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

do you think you will still feel the restrictions were worth it?

Just asking out of curiosity really.

Eldery and immunosuppressed or vulnerable people should be in quarantine for however long it takes to keep them safe. The rest of us go about our daily lives, back to work, back to normality. Yes, it definitely wouldn't be fun for the vulnerable, but the economic and mental health fallout will be far worse than the virus.

A very very small number of average, healthy adults will get severe enough coronavirus that there's a possibility of death, or even hospitalisation. You only hear about them on the news every day because saying that a young person died is much more likely to get
panic clicks than saying 10,000 people recovered just fine.

The death rate is not easy to be calculated, as so many people without symptoms. However, this is a new virus, everyone in close contact will catch it, so even the death rate is 0.5%, without social distance, there will still be too many sick cases that need hospital treatment. NHS can't handle it.

That's the main difference with flu. As not everyone will catch a flu, some people will have the immunity already.

Just look at the current situation, it is already clear, we are not reaching the peak yet, but NHS is under big pressure already. And big field hospital is set up to deal with this.

A very very small number of average, healthy adults will get severe enough coronavirus that there's a possibility of death, or even hospitalisation.

Given the number of healthy adults who are scrapping with the vulnerable for delivery slots, I'm not sure many of them would agree with you.

You make a good point tinkly. I have no idea. We know deaths in healthy adults is about 1 in 500 but I haven't seen hospitalisation rates for that group.

Vulnerable includes

Older people
Overweight people..obese bmi over 30 , 28% in 2017, parliament research briefing
Asthmatics .. 1 in 12, source asthma uk
Diabetics..6%, source diabetes uk
People with heart problems
People who smoke
People with high blood pressure
Then the supervulnerables , The shielded group , cancer patients etc, 1.5 million

There is overlap between the groups , but the obese alone is almost 1/3 of the population so ....I stand by my rough estimate

Eldery and immunosuppressed or vulnerable people should be in quarantine for however long it takes to keep them safe. The rest of us go about our daily lives, back to work, back to normality. Yes, it definitely wouldn't be fun for the vulnerable, but the economic and mental health fallout will be far worse than the virus.

This is definitely not going to happen for the next several weeks at the very least. The exponential growth is too large. They need to slow transmission rates.

We know deaths in healthy adults is about 1 in 500

We don’t though. We don’t know how many healthy adults have had the virus and just shrugged it off with very very minor symptoms. Unless we test a good sample of the population, we can have no idea what percentage of people who contract the virus are dying. Vulnerable group or healthy.

Agree with your point about testing.

Midge the obese group only includes those with a bmi of over 40 though.

And even if we locked down the vulnerable 20%, surely that is better than locking everyone down and trashing the economy?

And I say this as someone who would be locked down myself.

The death rate is based on the amount of deaths put of how many people had it.
Nowhere has tested everyone and we don't know if people previously had it so we don't know the true death rate.
I think lockdown was needed either way but what the op is saying is true.

Not on the parliamentary study from which I sourced the numbers.

and any amount of overweight is a risk, adding the overweight and obsess together takes you to over 60% of the uk population

...the 'mental health fallout will be far worse than the virus'.

Can you imagine the mental health fallout of those who are vulnerable, having to operate away from the family members in their own home, like they are toxic for the whole time it would take to produce a vaccine - a full year and a half?

Is it only the mental health of the healthy we give a shit about?

It's not that I don't think they're worth it now - I just feel there needs to be balance.

But no I don't think they will have been worth it if this turns out to be the case

"Is it only the mental health of the healthy we give a shit about?"

Yep 👍 seems the case.

@brighterdays2

How do you plan to manage nursing/residential/home care provision to the most vulnerable and elderly people in your plans to let CV work it’s way through. A significant number of carers will either be ill or carriers, and it’s hardly realistic for a homecare worker to wipe someone’s bottom in a Hazmat suit!

www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/advice-for-people-at-high-risk/

Bmi over 40 puts you at risk according to the NHS.

Carers could be tested for the virus. They wear gloves anyway. Easier to develop effective and practical PPE for carers than to lock downs nation.

Better to lock down some of us than all of us.

The money to keep us locked down won’t last forever.

@Amymayapple you are not alone. If you need PM me.

The government knows there should be more of a balance, but they are having way too much fun with this. (IMHO).

The fact is if everyone got it all at the same time there would be many more deaths which probably would have survived if there were the resources available. What don't you get about that?

They get it, they don't care.

@Amymayapple Just thinking of you and wondering how you are getting on.

TwoCatsSleeping fun?!

@HoffiCoffi13 this is the Tories! It's like their wet dream. (Sorry 🤢)

It's really not. Not a fan of the Tories but Boris is a libertarian. And the economic effects will be important to them.