Is the fear out of proportion?

[Hotlungs]

I’m asking this genuinely as I struggle with anxiety and have a tendency to catastrophise.
I read yesterday that 99.5% of people will survive if they have the virus. Whilst I understand that people are worried they are in the 0.5% is the fear rationale? The press describing it as a ‘killer virus’ and people saying they don’t want to go to the supermarket incase they die. Obviously I’m not talking about those in the vulnerable group.
Are we doing poor risk management? Again to clarify I don’t mean the current lockdown situation to protect the NHS (which is needed) but I mean the fear of it.
We are more likely to die in our cars but we risk manager that (with precautions) to still use them. What are people’s thoughts?

For those wanting more stats, there are some here from a French study. It is still only estimated and could well be lower if there are exposed people who don’t get infected at all which is possibly the case in children.

The overall infected fatality rate is 0.5% but this is massively skewed by an 8% fatality rate in the over 80s. That sounds high but means that 90% of those over 80 who get it will recover. Not reported in that study but in earlier ones I have seen is that this varies hugely by age even within that - 50% of over 90s die but only 5% of those aged 80.

For those younger the rates are really low. 0.001% in the under 20s, 0.05% for those 40-49. This is for all people in those age groups, whether they have underlying conditions or not. That suggests that if you have no underlying conditions the risk is close to zero, and if you do have underlying conditions the risk is still really low. It is age that matters above all else.

Given the skew in risk, it makes sense to look at measures which slow the spread and shield the elderly but not to quarantine an entire population and destroy the opportunities for young people who face negligible risk. Sweden seems a good model to follow as they have a manageable case rate, a lower death rate than here without the hysteria.

hal-pasteur.archives-ouvertes.fr/pasteur-02548181/document

Someone mentioned the story of the lady with the 9 year old son; I asked a friend who works in the London Ambulance Service about it and he insisted it couldn't have happened in the way it was portrayed.

Yes I have a very close family member who is an ambulance controller for the wmas as they have said there is no way this would have happened in their area. Sadly too many people are taking things at face value and no critical thinking is being applied and therefore panicking when it may not be completely necessary.

Someone mentioned the story of the lady with the 9 year old son; I asked a friend who works in the London Ambulance Service about it and he insisted it couldn't have happened in the way it was portrayed.

Sorry, what's this?

• Selfishness drives a lot of behaviour. Those pushing for longer lockdown often turn out to be at high risk (can't say I blame them) or think they are high risk but aren't (so when the campaign shifts to inform them if this instead of scaring them shitless, expect a shift in opinion about lockdown) Similarly, the posts from people already on UC crowing over those now having to claim, or those who have to stay inside most of the time now happy everyone has to. A lot of people would prefer that everyone suffers if they have to.*

Yes @DeathByBoredom I've seen this online quite a bit ...it's horrible ☹️"I already suffer so want everyone to have the same" really skewed, nasty thinking . Bit like the poster that wants everyone to be high risk

Also, how can the fear be out of proportion when so many healthcare and transport workers have died? That doesn’t happen in a normal flu outbreak. I am not saying we should be hysterical, but certainly this virus isn’t anything normal.

We have a friend who is an ambulance driver and said no way would that happen, and we live in quite a badly effected area. He said theres been people they felt confident could be left at home and have taken plenty people into hospital. Hes also responded to lots of other health issues... Including a sore arm! They went incase it was a heart attack, but no, just a sore arm! So i definitely dont think its the cawe everyone is left until blue

Because it sounds like you want their risk to go up to match yours - so you want more people to have a higher risk of death....

That interpretation says more about you. Why would I want everybody to have the same risk of death as I currently have? I would just be happier for the risk to be evenly distributed whatever the risk is. So if there are a 1000 deaths among people my age I would prefer to hear that people who are healthy are just as likely to be in that cohort as people with underlying conditions. Obviously I would prefer it if there were no deaths at all though.

Sosadandempty. I'm not dismissing in any way the deaths of any healthcare or transport workers. Every death is awful, especially if they are serving others. But statistically they also form part of the population who will catch the virus. For example, London Transport employs over 25,000 people. Just over 20 of those have died. Statistically that is very low.

Also, how can the fear be out of proportion when so many healthcare and transport workers have died? That doesn’t happen in a normal flu outbreak. I am not saying we should be hysterical, but certainly this virus isn’t anything normal.

Is it 'so many', though? The BBC Radio 4 programme More or Less is doing some rough analysis of this right now, and they reckon (with some caveats) that the risk of death to NHS workers is currently looking to be about the same as to the general population. There are nearly 1.5 million NHS employees and fewer than 100 deaths have been reported among them so far.

My mum is a community nurse. Talking to her she is so matter of fact about it all, they are still visiting patients, they are just sensible, fortunately they have a good supply of PPE, and if anyone has symptoms, where possible they will do phone visits (they do need to do injections etc so not always possible). She would rather see her patients in person if possible though as they come to rely on her (mental health) and it helps them hopefully stay on track at a difficult time. My mum is 69, so not a youngster!

I sympathise with people not wanting loved ones to die, but it feels like we’ve got to the point where people expect lockdown to continue indefinitely to protect everyone forever! I have a much loved granny who is 97, I do NOT want her to get this as she is so at risk, however I don’t expect lockdown measures to be maintained to protect her - we as a family will continue to support her to keep her safe.

I think what we need to do is work our how we can emotionally and financially support those most at risk (pre successful vaccine) while the rest of the population gets back to work/normal life and gets the economy going again.

@woodchuck99

We might all have a preference for the virus to be different to how it is or impact people more “fairly” but it doesn’t. We have to acknowledge that and risk assess based to the facts as they are on an individual level, not what we would like them to be.

We might all have a preference for the virus to be different to how it is or impact people more “fairly” but it doesn’t.

I don't think some people do have a preference that it impacts people more "fairly". There is a lot of "othering" going on in threads such as this. People suggesting that it is irresponsible to scare people in one group (in this case "healthy people" ) whereas apparently absolutely fine to scare people in another group is a classic example.

It's all very well saying that being fearful is ridiculous, that you've got an excellent chance of survival blah blah blah.

So fuck the ones that are vulnerable? Is that what you are saying?

My husband is extremely vulnerable. A fit and healthy man usually but with a lung condition normally controlled with inhalers. So lets all get back to normal and bollocks to him is he catches it and leaves his 3 year old without a father.

Some people are utterly selfish.

I think what we need to do is work our how we can emotionally and financially support those most at risk (pre successful vaccine) while the rest of the population gets back to work/normal life and gets the economy going again.

This 100%. I think alot of the people shouting for a longer lockdown are those that haven't been that hard hit by austerity.

We couldn't get the help we needed before this - I dread to think what will happen to the nhs and social services after all this.

Is it fair to destroy the economy for the young to protect the old? And if it is, to what degree? How much can we and should be sacrificed. Many of us are already at breaking point due to austerity and cuts.

As I’ve said before I don’t think we should be scaring anyone. We just need to stick to the facts. I am overweight and have high blood pressure which was pregnancy induced and has persisted since the birth of DS2 11 months ago.

I know that those two things increase my risk but I am under 40 and so I consider that my overall risk remains relatively low.

How can people assess their own risk if we are not looking at what things impact that risk level and by how much?

My mum is 74, is widowed and misses her grandchildren desperately. I so wish that her age did not increase her risks significantly so that there was more chance of us being able to see her soon. But it is what it is, she is at a higher risk and so she is staying in and I am doing her shopping for now.

My husband is extremely vulnerable. A fit and healthy man usually but with a lung condition normally controlled with inhalers. So lets all get back to normal and bollocks to him is he catches it and leaves his 3 year old without a father.

From what you've said the odds are still in his favour.

There has not been enough clarity in regards to the vulnerable group. We were told if you get the flu jab. But that's simply not true, youth is still very much acting in your favour.

Takingshape I think fear is normal. My DH is vulnerable and I am very worried about him. I'm less at risk, but know that I have some factors that make me more vulnerable than others. I don't think anyone is expendable. But there is a level of anxiety and fear in some that is disproportionate to the risk and that is worrying.

@woodchuck99 I do agree about the "othering" it's very distasteful. Like certain members of society are expendable. and I speak as someone low risk

People suggesting that it is irresponsible to scare people in one group (in this case "healthy people" ) whereas apparently absolutely fine to scare people in another group is a classic example.

There is a big difference between scaring people by appealing to their emotions/deep fears (lots of healthy and fit people die!!!) and listing out facts (X% of seemingly fit and healthy people under 40 or 50 who sadly died with C19 had BMI over Y).

The point is, we are going to have to get 'back to normal' and that's going to likely be a very long time before a vaccine is available and enough people have had it.

CV isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Lockdown was to flatten the curve so as not to overwhelm the NHS. Which it hasn't, nowhere near in fact. I don't know why some people seem to have the idea that the nation is going to have to stay in until this all goes away, it's not going anywhere for a very long time.

There is a big difference between scaring people by appealing to their emotions/deep fears (lots of healthy and fit people die!!!) and listing out facts (X% of seemingly fit and healthy people under 40 or 50 who sadly died with C19 had BMI over Y).

I haven't seen any statements in the media stating that "lots of healthy and fit people die". I have just seen examples of younger fit and healthy people who have died. I personally don't see it as a bad thing to let people know that nobody is immune to the risk and that everybody needs to take care. Some people will be doing it anyway but certainly others need to be given a push to make them realise that this is serious and they need to take precautions too. The more people take this seriously the sooner we can get things up and running again.

The point is, we are going to have to get 'back to normal' and that's going to likely be a very long time before a vaccine is available and enough people have had it.

I don't think we need to get totally back to normal before a vaccine is available. I'm not saying that we need to be in lockdown as it is now but some things are going to have to be different. The current lockdown to reduce deaths and infections while giving the NHS time to prepare and to increase the availability of tests is the first step.

woodchuck - those steps have largely been done. I was in favour of a short, sharp lockdown. It has been effective and the NHS has the highest amount of spare capacity it has ever had.

It is now time to relax some measures, allow those in low-risk groups to work, require face masks on public transport or supermarkets, while encouraging those at risk to social distance.

What @Eyewhisker said. As has been said many times, there isn't a magic money tree. If people were prepared to accept that the future will be a new and different "normal", fine, but the majority will expect to go back to the lifes they had, and to get anywhere close to that, the economy needs to restart.

It’s difficult not to worry when this is your local reporting

www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/nurses-petrified-as-colleagues-fight-for-life-226012/