How many lives are we actually saving

[Baaaahhhhh]

An interesting read from the BBC, and a question that I have been wondering about since the ONS released figures last week.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

Article talks about the effect of different scenarios on the number of excess deaths ie: over and above what would be expected, and versus other seasonal illnesses like normal flu.

Economists support lockdowns because they're evaluating the loss of life based on actuarial tables used for wrongful death and so on.

I"m sure we can all agree that where DuPont, for example, has knowingly poisoned the water table, they should pay something in the neighbourhood of $9 million/person. That's the check against corporate manslaughter, and long may it live.

Bluntly, those calculations obviously do not hold in a pandemic. We can't value a lost life at $9M (or even $1M) because we cannot afford to.

They're dealing in hypothetical money rather than cash flow.

The reality is that lots of the people who die of corona virus would have died anyway from their underlying condition. Perhaps they are dying sooner because of corona. So I must admit, I’m trying to remind myself of this to keep sane and maintain a semblance of normality.

I have said all along, that if we had daily updates of how many people are dying from heart disease (460 each day in the UK and 170,000 each year) we’d all be walking around constantly terrified that we’ll be next.

In any event, any attempt to decide how many deaths are acceptable to save the economy is not a calculation any country should do.

It's the basis of nearly every public expenditure, but OK.

@Knobblybobbly That is true, but what about the people with other conditions that will now die owing to the overstretched NHS.

It goes: Covid deaths
Overlapped with: Expected deaths
But now: Additional non-virus deaths due to inadequate care.

Were all going to die anyway. But an underlying condition doednt necessarily mean immediate death. You can live a long time with diabetes for example, but it's an underlying condition that is susceptible to coronovirus. Also the only 2 ways we would not have deaths from non coronovirus related but overstretched NHS services would be either to go back in time and not have any coronovirus cases or just let coronovirus victims die without taking anyone to hospital. Because if it had been allowed to rip through the population without lockdown we would have massive hospital admissions all at once.

but what about the people with other conditions that will now die owing to the overstretched NHS.

This is a real worry for us since OH has had his cancer treatment abruptly stopped with no information as to if and when it will continue. With treatment he could live another 10-20 years, without, he'll almost certainly not see Summer. Repeated phone calls to the oncology dept just promise him someone will call him back, but they never do. He's being thrown to the wolves and abandoned.

Oncology and haematology departments are working really hard to find 'clean' places where they can continue to deliver treatment safely.

for you and your DH - this is exactly why we need the NHS to avoid being completely swamped. So I hope people are complying well with lockdown so this is enough to flatten the peak so that important other treatments can resume safely. The suspension of transplant surgery (because of current lack of 'clean" intensive beds being another life limiting decision that has had to be made)