I'm 32 and not ready to die - anyone else care to demonstrate it's not just older people this will hit hardest?

[Helenshielding]

I keep seeing posts by people saying they dont think we should be on lockdown to protect older people who will "die next year anyway" or similar.

Here's the thing, over 70s are not "old" these days. People can live well into their 80s, 90s and 100s now.

I'm 32, I've survived cancer (which is now clear- it is not a case of it being controlled, it's been gone for 10 years), I happen to have some lung damage. I dont know what my life expectancy is, but I know it's not 33.

So if you're moaning about socially distancing etc for older adults, stop. You're doing it to prevent deaths of all ages. Younger people with no underlying conditions are dying of this virus.

Stay home. Shut up. Stop moaning. We will all get through this a hell of a lot quicker.

[DisneyPlus]

On bad days, I remind myself, it could be worse, I could have an attitude like Xenia.

[Zilla1]

It is odd how the elderly or the disabled seem to be viewed as an homogenous lump, all of whom are not economically active (I view the world as more than just economics) supporting a binary view that the disabled and elderly should just shield/lockdown, be grateful and let everyone else get on with it. Although the disabled tend to be less economically active, probably in part due to discrimination, in the UK c55% of the disabled are employed and my judgement is that many of those at risk/having conditions that require shielding or isolation below the age of 65 are not counted within the statistics for the disabled int he UK. The elderly also seem to be treated again as an homogenous lump - on another thread I pointed out some of the economic activity of the over-65s - c10-15% of the over-65 are still in employment in the UK and grandparent's provide significant childcare that parents would otherwise presumably have to pay for. c40,000 children have a grandparent in the role of parent, either from bereavement or parental problems. It's all most odd.

[ChiaraRimini]

I feel really sorry for all Xenia's barrister friends who would rather have a Band 2 HCA job paying £17K and be exposed to CV in their job without PPE. What a shame none of them applied for a job like that before, I can't think why

[ocarinan]

I go with the Swedish view and would not in he UK have closed the schools. Taht is when I departed from the Government's view. In my view we are not now serving the greater good.

Yes, we all know how you value qualifications over human lives.

Every year 500,000 people die in the UK which is about 1400 a day.

An if we don't stop the spread of this virus, that number will go drastically up. But I doubt you care about that, since it might mean you paying more taxes.

[Xenia]

Zilla, I agree the state has to consider the extra deaths (if indeed extra deaths there would be rather than simply spreading out same number over longer if we did not have lock down) had we not locked down compared with what we have done. I don't have the figures but we should certainly all consider the various possibilities., I know the Government knew people could not stand lock down for too long which is why they followed scientific advice to start it only when they did.

someone asked - "Surely they would have to use the NHS like everyone else if they got covid-19 @xenia?" I thought there was no NHS care for most people with the virus and if you ave very very ill with it an ambulance is unlikely to come for you anyway and that if you go on a ventilator there is about 20% chance of making it through so not really worth it in most cases so imagine if I get ill the NHS to which I have paid hundreds of thousands in tax over the years would certainly not be coming to my aid, never mind that my local hospital was the first to be 100% full in the country I think and you only get into the new Excel one if you are younger than I am. I expect I would die at home.

[Bizawit]

They have shown their shocking and unbelievable lack of empathy and human nature in the worst way.
Stay the fuck at home. Stop moaning.

I think you just showed yours.

[Falacy]

@RuffleCrow

don't you listen to the government's daily briefings? 80% of most workers' earnings are now guaranteed by the government. People are being instructed to stay at home unless travel to work is unavoidable, until further notice. Are you genuinely unaware?!

I'm fully aware of the government's daily briefings. It's not "most workers"... it's up to the employers to take advantage of this. Everyone in my family has either been:

A) already paid off.

B) told to take unpaid leave because the premises are open but they don't have childcare

C) self employed directors (before anyone says it - this set up has been ENCOURAGED by the gov for years. It's not always about minimising tax burdens - there are legitimate reasons for doing it which has been plenty discussed on other threads.

D) self employed but without three years of accounts

E) still at work but partner has had to stay at home for childcare so living on one wage.

And in my case -

I work from home (self employed) but with two children and homeschool finding it incredibly difficult to get the hours in (hence why I'm up at 4am!!). My income is already tanking because I've gone from full time to part time. I don't know how much longer I can sustain this.

The poster I was replying to said they'd do it for six months.

I don't see how that is in anyway sustainable considering there are a lot of people who have fallen through the cracks of these packages.

Maybe if there was a UBI or something but that's not going to happen.

[Zilla1]

Xenia, even though there is no cure for COVID, there is care for patients with COVID in acute before ITU support/ventilation and care in primary before admittance to acute to help manage symptoms and any secondary infections, much like most patients with respiratory disease when managed well can avoid most admissions to acute/ITU from exacerbations and 'routine' viral infections if provided with the correct support and treatment in 'normal' times. I hope you stay safe.

[larrygrylls]

Interesting article in The Times today quoting both Lord King and Lord Sumption arguing against a long lockdown.

To quote Lord Sumption (age 71):

‘....clearly serious for those with other medical conditions, especially if they are old’ but ‘the real question is: is this serious enough to warrant putting our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up?’

And Lord King (age 72):

‘If we maintain the lockdown for too long there will be a rebellion against it, because an awful lot of young people will say “well the younger generations have suffered in the last 20 years, why on earth is our future being put at stake on order to help prolong life expectancy of older people whose life expectancy may not be very high in any event?”’.

[OrganTransplant123]

But it isn’t just about protecting older people is it? Or have you not read the thread?

[larrygrylls]

Organ,

Individually, no, statistically, yes.

This is what the two above people with multiple degrees from prestigious universities understand.

I will take them above ‘reading the thread’, thanks.

[Aceventura20000]

I agree Larry that there will only be a limited amount of tolerance to this. They need to be on top of it within 8-12 weeks max for me or people will start breaking rules.

[NeedToKnow101]

@Dandarabilla - "Apparently if you just lie down in bed with this virus, it will be the death of you. They say you have to keep moving, even when you are tired, to keep your circulation moving. Keep breathing fresh air outside and keep moving. Don’t lie on your back but on your side and your stomach.."

I heard this as well; it was a Covid survivor (he ended up on a ventilator) saying that he thinks if he had just laid down and rested, he would have died. Just wondering if there is evidence that moving around helps? If there is, I haven't heard the media talking about it.

[Madhairday]

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, Larry. You're being deliberately obtuse. This is not about prolonging life expectancy for a few old people. It's about flattening the curve so the NHS does not break in two and leave the entire population in jeopardy - all age groups who access any part of it. It's about spreading it out to relieve the burden. Just because some random professor makes a statement which backs up your prejudice in this matter does not mean he is right and has the last word we should all bow too.

FFS this is too much.

[Helenshielding]

I'm out. I'll just live my last few days in isolated peace then.

[larrygrylls]

Madhair,

'Flattening the curve' has a great ring to it, doesn't it? A bit like Boris Johnson's election slogan, a few neat words. How long can we 'flatten the curve' for? How many lives will it cost later down the line when there is very little tax to fund the NHS. Have you even thought about this?

As I said (many times) above, we cannot let everyone out right now. We do need to beef up the NHS first and see if there are any treatment protocols that can make a difference.

However, at some point, we will need to take some pain. That will mean some people (maybe I will be one of them) who will need a ventilator will not get one. C'est la vie. You can call me cold hearted. I could, in return, call many on this thread cowardly.

I would suggest some historical perspective here. We lived for most of human history with epidemics that were potentially fatal, some far more infectious and lethal than Covid. What did we do? We made the most of our lives and some people died early. With the exception of the major epidemics (bubonic plague and smallpox) humanity did not really notice the many illnesses that carried off a small percentage of the population every year. No one was called selfish for wanting to have a romance, get married, make money for their family..

It is very easy to look out of your own microcosm to call others selfish. Historically, for most of humanity, your position would have been considered absurd.

[cantata]

Falacy, I have fallen through the cracks, too. I have tended to think I'm the only one, but I've now read several posts on here from people in a similar situation. I'm sorry you are one of them.

Lords K and S speak good sense.

[OrganTransplant123]

larrygrylls I’m not sure what you want from your posts. Are we all meant to bow down to your superior knowledge and admit that all us immunosuppressed people should happily perish to save the economy? Do you want to upset people? Make them angry? Be told to fuck off?

Thank you but, a member of a prestigious university and holding a PhD, I’ll use peer reviewed academic sources to review evidence and not a couple of hand picked quotes from a newspaper.

[larrygrylls]

Organ,

Not sure what you want from yours. The norm is, if you feel a poster is not adding to your knowledge or making worthwhile points, to ignore them.

And Lord Mervyn King was a member of the policy setting group of the Bank Of England, as well as having a number or senior academic positions over his career. He is not some randomer.

Clearly, with your membership of a prestigious university holding a PhD, you are a bit too clever to be on this forum. Surely there is a uni group with whom you can exchange your far more erudite and educated opinions.

[Bizawit]

@OrganTransplant123 they are not two handpicked quotes from a newspaper. Go listen to the full interview with Lord Sumption on world at 1 from the 30th March. These are two of our country’s most eminent jurists. Are they also being “deliberately obtuse” and just trying to goad mumsnet posters into telling them to fuck off? Or is it ok to have a different view.m? We are facing a global crisis. I’m so grateful that there are some critical and challenging voices out there refusing to accept as gospel that there is only one (devastatingly damaging) way of handling this.

[TheHonestTruth100]

Well we're not just on lockdown to protect older people, we're on lockdown to prevent unnecessary deaths of many due to the collapse of the NHS. Main point of the lockdown is to stop the health service being overwhelmed and therefore people dying that shouldn't have due to not being able to receive the hospital care they need.

I think anyone walking round here assuming they're invincible and this can't affect them badly need to give their head the biggest shake they can.

[Bizawit]

@TheHonestTruth100 we all know why we are in lockdown- it has been very widely publicised and discussed. The facts remain, if you look at the statistics, that the overwhelming majority of people dying are older people. In Italy the average age of death is 78. Yes there will be other deaths as a consequence of this crisis and some younger people will die, but most people will be older and with significant health conditions. This is not to say that these people are expendable, or their lives are not important - it’s just a statement of the facts.

[Fairybatman]

@Bizawit do you though? It’s undoubtedly true that most people dying are older. That isn’t true of people getting seriously ill though.

Overall, 69% of cases, 55% of hospitalisations, 47% of ICU admissions, and 20% of deaths associated with COVID-19 were among adults aged under 65.

If all those people require hospital admission and ICU support simultaneously then it won’t be available and the proportion of deaths attributable to under 65’s will begin to climb.

Flattening the curve isn’t about protecting the elderly and vulnerable, that’s what shielding is for. Flattening the curve is about making sure that the healthy under 65’s requiring hospital or ICU treatment can get it.

[Gin96]

Whatever the numbers are, at some point we will have to get back to normal, I don’t think we can wait 18 months until there is a vaccine.

[larrygrylls]

Fairy,

Where is that data from? I struggle to find any from the U.K. In Italy, however, I found the following concerning deaths:

www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus-deaths-by-region-in-italy/

So:

About 50% of deaths are in 80+
About 30% in 70-80
About 12% 60-70
About 4% 50-60
And the remaining 4% or so in people below 50

And those will be skewed as loads of young people will get it and never be tested.

Your numbers only relate to those tested.