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?

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.

There isn't enough PPE for NHS staff to work safely with current levels of infection let alone if there was a surge, there aren't enough ventilators and importantly there aren't enough tests to adequately track and trace.

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.

Low-risk groups can work already. Everyone I know is working. Mostly at home but those who can't going out to work every day .Only those with jobs in Café's, restaurants, cinemas etc can't work. There aren't enough masks for people to use public transport. That is another thing that needs to be sorted out before lockdown can be eased.

@Takingshape12

Your DH will have youth on his side and that seems to stand for a lot. If he’s under 40 even with health conditions the chances of him making a full recovery are excellent.

The problem is, they can keep us all in for a year if they want but that’s not going to stop the virus. It will just postpone the inevitable.

They aren’t keeping us locked up to stop us getting it- it’s anticipated that 80% of it will get it. They are simply trying to stop everyone getting it at the same time. Health professionals don’t want to chose between patients so by doing thing, it eases that pressure

It will just postpone the inevitable

Not exactly. Yes the virus will still be circulating, people will catch it and quite a lot will be out of action for some weeks whilst they recover and convalesce, people will still need to isolate if a close contact.

But this sort of postponing is in itself enormously valuable - it means it is not inevitable that hospitals are overwhelmed. It means that those who fall ill can expect there to be the NHS capacity to treat them when they catch it. It means that by securing and maintaining a low transmission rate, the NHS can safely start to reopen services which are currently paused.

The virus will continue to circulate until enough in the herd are immune - either by future vaccination, or until more people have had it. As there is no vaccine yet, we are indeed stuck with thevfirst model. But as social distancing has a major effect on transmission rates, the catastrophe of rapid spread can be averted

We might even be succeeding in that

The problem is, they can keep us all in for a year if they want but that’s not going to stop the virus. It will just postpone the inevitable.

Not necessarily. The vaccine trials have begun. It is possible that we could have one by the end of the year. We may also have found the drug to reduce the severity- trials are going on at the moment. Once there are enough tests it should be possible to do a much better job of tracking and tracing and containing as previously it was pathetic.

Some governments are setting up plans for a phased relaxation of lockdown. Testing and contact tracing will be important. Maybe the UK government will follow once the curve has flattened a bit more?

Lew that article is just all the people my dad would have been telling to pull themselves together - he worked in infectious diseases.

Don’t want the risk, don’t do the job. I appreciate redeployed medical staff didn’t sign up for it.

What will it take for human beings to accept death is never far? I’ve never seen idiocy like what’s doing the rounds now. Humanity really isn’t worth saving. Bring on the REAL pandemic.

It is up to every individual to take personal responsibility to guard themselves and others.

Yes. I think it is actually extremely selfish to expect people to lose their job, house and sanity to protect you - if you want protection, take personal responsibility and stay inside. Locking down the entire population for the few was ridiculous, much less money could have been spent to properly secure and shield the vulnerable.

Everyone I know is working. Mostly at home but those who can't going out to work every day .Only those with jobs in Café's, restaurants, cinemas etc can't work.

Absolutely not true - look at the news, there are about 12.5 million furloughed. My neighbours - a dental receptionist, a beauty marketer, an analyst in travel industry, a shop worker - are all furloughed. Our economy is so interconnected that so many jobs related to the shut-down industries have also stopped.

@nether
@woodchuck99

But those that are at risk and fit in to the vulnerable group should still follow isolation procedures, as that’s going to be their best chance of avoiding it.

It can’t be said for keeping everyone else locked up for months and letting the economy suffer tremendously.

At the moment we are all acting on the premise of assuming other people have it. We keep away from them in order to hopefully avoid catching it.

That should still be practiced with the vulnerable in the same way it is now. If they continue to do this then that will surely help them enormously, whilst the rest of us get it- but get over it.

But those that are at risk and fit in to the vulnerable group should still follow isolation procedures, as that’s going to be their best chance of avoiding it.

Probably about 1/3 of the population is at a higher risk. It's not practical for everyone to isolate especially those that are of working age and those with children who are going to school every day and potentially being exposed. A way needs to be found for people to work while keeping the infection rate as low for everyone or there is no way the economy will get back on track.

The biggest risk factor is age.

The majority of people at risk are not in the working population.

The small % of high risk people with kids and/or in the working population could have their circumstances managed if we properly fund home care and the social services.

Tbh the rich get richer in resessions and at this point I'm wondering if Boris and chums are holding off so they can make a mint over investments, buying and selling currency and stocks. Reese mogg is an expert in how to make money in economic downturns.

Reese mogg is an expert in how to make money in economic downturns.

It's easy - shut down the economy long enough so that small businesses go bankrupt, then buy them up at rock-bottom prices. I'm sure there'll be lots of cheap hotels and resorts going for sale after this.

The biggest risk factor is age

More elderly people have been dying because that is the most prevalent "risk". It doesn't mean being older in itself carries the highest risk of dying from coronavirus.. A younger person who is immunosuppressed due to cancer treatment for example would be at much higher risk than a 75 year old with with no serious illness.

he small % of high risk people with kids and/or in the working population could have their circumstances managed if we properly fund home care and the social services.

Considering that overall the risk for those between 50 and 60 is about 1% and even higher for those beween to 60 and 67, I wouldn't say that the percentage of high risk people in the working population is particularly small.

Most other countries have also locked down knowing the effect it has on the economy simply because they had to. They are now planning phased relaxation of the lockdown. The UK can't do that yet because the curve hasn't flattened enough and there is not enough testing available.

Since when has 1% not been a small percentage?

@woodchuck99

Where are your stats from? According to the Pasteur Institute the infection fatality rate for those aged 50-59 is 0.2%. This is for the total population, whether they have underlying conditions or not. The risk rises to 0.8% for those 60-69. Those without underlying conditions in those age groups face lower risks. Under 20s have a risk of 0.001% of those infected. If they are less likely to get infected in the first place, the risk is even less. See page 27 of the link below.

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

Given that those under 40 who are infected have a lower probability of dying of the virus than they already do for dying within the year, it simply cannot be the case that someone below 40 with high blood pressure is at greater risk than a 75 year old, unless they are so immunosuppressed that even a cold would kill them.

Yes. I think it is actually extremely selfish to expect people to lose their job, house and sanity to protect you - if you want protection, take personal responsibility and stay inside. Locking down the entire population for the few was ridiculous, much less money could have been spent to properly secure and shield the vulnerable.

I'm afraid I agree, it seems harsh and before flaming I do agree that we needed measures to slow this down so the nhs could cope. I also know that if I was very vulnerable I wouldn't expect the world to stop to protect me, certainly not long term at the huge detriment to everyone else. Listening to the radio several elderly people have said just this...however it is very tough for those parents with children in the vulnerable group...and we do have to be mindful of this...they must be genuinely terrified and understandably so.

Where are your stats from? According to the Pasteur Institute the infection fatality rate for those aged 50-59 is 0.2%. This is for the total population, whether they have underlying conditions or not. The risk rises to 0.8% for those 60-69. Those without underlying conditions in those age groups face lower risks. Under 20s have a risk of 0.001% of those infected. If they are less likely to get infected in the first place, the risk is even less. See page 27 of the link below.

The stats vary study to study. No one really knows yet as it is obviously dependent on how many cases there are which is not accurate yet. However studies in China suggests the death rate for those aged 50 to 59 was 1.3%. The 60 to 69 it was 3.6%. Obviously it could be lower than that but then again it could be higher as let's face it China probably underestimated the deaths as much as the infections.

Sorry link is www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

The stats are even worse for Italy www.statista.com/statistics/1106372/coronavirus-death-rate-by-age-group-italy/. They estimate death rate among those aged 50 to 59 has been 2.5% and for those aged 60 to 69 the rate was 9.7%

Locking down the entire population for the few was ridiculous, much less money could have been spent to properly secure and shield the vulnerable.

Lockdown was never about protecting the more vulnerable few. Its purpose is, and always has been, to prevent the NHS catastrophically failing which is a very real possibility if the virus were allowed to spread too fast. Lockdown and social distancing is intended to keep new infections to a manageable flow rather than an overwhelming flood and also buys time for the NHS to be reinforced (more beds, more ventilators, more staff, sufficient PPE etc etc).

That has always been the intent of lockdown. It has been explained very clearly ad nauseam and it is reinforced at every single ministerial briefing:
"Stay at home, Protect the NHS, Save lives".

Lots of data, links to nhs and ons, phe, etc

inproportion2.talkigy.com/

@woodchuck99 that data for china and italy is based solely on confirmed cases though. We know there are more cases, but we dont know how many more. The imperial colleges estimations are very similar to that french study

We won’t be able to lockdown when people loose their homes because of loss of livelihoods. Homelessness will go through the roof, the amount people I know that can’t pay their rent and being threatened with eviction. The furlough scheme doesn’t pay everyone, UC takes5 weeks to implement, then its not enough to pay your bills, you can take a 3 month mortgage holiday, then what, your monthly payments go up but you have no job to pay for it. The longer lockdown goes on for the more dire the situation becomes. More people will starve to death around the world because of lockdown, far more than the virus will kill off.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52373888