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?

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

There are also more deaths and documented. In the UK a lot of death in care homes been documented as COVID -related example as people were tested . There have also been a lot more heart attacks such as unusual which may be due to COVID infection .I haven't seen imperial colleges estimations of the death rates according to age. I would be interested to see that. Is there a link. It's very hard to know what is going on exactly at the moment but looking at the proportion of deaths those over 50 to 67 don't look to be at negligible death risk by any means.

I would be interested to see that. Is there a link. It's very hard to know what is going on exactly at the moment but looking at the proportion of deaths those over 50 to 67 don't look to be at negligible death risk by any means.

Again - everyone has to examine their personal risk factors and make an assessment. There is scant reason for a healthy 60 year old to fear covid19 any more than poor air quality,

More people will starve to death around the world because of lockdown, far more than the virus will kill off.

People won't start a death in the UK because of lockdown. It won't be forever. It will be eased gradually starting in the near future but it has to be done in a way that doesn't rapidly increase deaths. The economy will recover but you can't recover from death.

start starve

People won't start a death in the UK because of lockdown.

But millions of people abroad will, because of reduced foreign aid and reduced demand for foreign labour/tourism. Is that OK to you, as long as we in England survive?

@woodchuck99

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjStIjYi_zoAhV3ZhUIHRyUCcAQFjAFegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1hsNx-bJFA4q9qC2xTRHVd" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjStIjYi_zoAhV3ZhUIHRyUCcAQFjAFegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1hsNx-bJFA4q9qC2xTRHVd

No not starve to death but people will loose their homes.

People won't start a death in the UK because of lockdown. It won't be forever. It will be eased gradually starting in the near future but it has to be done in a way that doesn't rapidly increase deaths. The economy will recover but you can't recover from death.

The point was about the impending humanitarian disaster in developing countries.

What a revealing analysis you've offered.

Was it you that said you were disgusted by the 'othering' of at-risk people (in the UK, naturally)?

Have you not just 'othered' a few billion people?

No not starve to death but people will loose their homes.

I'm not arguing that the lockdown would have negative consequences on people in the short term at least. We can recover economically though.

@Jrobhatch29

Unfortunately those estimates are based on reported fatalities from China at the end of January. Probably not the most reliable.

@Woodchuck99 People are at risk starving to death in developing countries as a consequence of lockdown/quarantine.

Which is the point that OP was making.

People in the UK may not be starving to death right now under lockdown but UK citizens did as a result of austerity measures and what we'll see as the longitudinal national effects of CV and lockdown is likely to be far worse than that.

I'm not arguing that the lockdown would have negative consequences on people in the short term at least. We can recover economically though.

Can you genuinely say that you would be willing to lose your home to foreclosure to save a vanishingly small fraction of the UK population?

But you feel relatively blasé about the prospect of tens of millions of people starving outside of the UK?

Have you not just 'othered' a few billion people?

I am not othering them but the discussion is on whether the UK should continue the lockdown or whether the negative consequences economically will outweigh the deaths.

@MarginalGain, quite. How people in one breath can call others selfish for not wanting a lockdown, for wanting to get on with their lives - but would happily sacrifice billions of poor people abroad so THEY are protected from this disease. Ultimately we all have selfish motives, the mental gymnastics of people trying to deny it is laughable.

If you’ve still got a job in London, you ain’t gonna get there

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52379111

I’ll take some money from the people happy to starve on the street, thanks.

@TooTrueToBeGood

*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"*

Of course lockdown was about protecting the vulnerable. It goes hand in hand with not wanting the NHS to be overwhelmed- with those that are vulnerable.

The hospitals are not going to be overwhelmed with the general population, it will the vulnerable and predominantly elderly. If all those in that category got it at once then they couldn’t treat them all, if it’s over several months then they’ll be able to treat more of them, hence save more lives.

That’s all find in theory but in practice, it’s at the expense of everyone else though and their lives, mental health etc. Where do draw the line.

Is it then fair that everyone has to sacrifice and be stuck in too?

Can you genuinely say that you would be willing to lose your home to foreclosure to save a vanishingly small fraction of the UK population?

I don't think that tens of thousands of people dying is a "vanishingly small fraction" of the UK population. I already know two people that have died and several have been hospitalised. You may not know anyone yet you probably will do.

The vulnerable should still be shielded absolutely

115 deaths of healthcare staff already- the question should be - how many doctors are you willing to sacrifice for the economy? How many transport workers?

@woodchuck99 they are however extremely similar to frances estimations which are based on their own data. It also takes into account hospitalisations in italy, the diamond princess cruise ship and repatriated brits from china.
Also of course there are extra deaths, mainly in care homes. However this does not increase the risk to 50-67 year olds. If anything (and i am NOT saying its ok) this only lowers the risk to 50-67 year olds as they become a smaller percentage of the overall deaths.

What won't be a vanishingly small fraction is workers in places like Bangladesh or Cambodia that rely on our clothing orders, and tour guides/cafe owners/hotel maids/diving instructors in places like Thailand that will starve because they work cash in hand and now are jobless. And people in countries that rely on foreign aid to not starve. That will be in the hundreds of millions.

But it's fine for them to die because they're foreign and poor? Same as always then.

But you feel relatively blasé about the prospect of tens of millions of people starving outside of the UK?

I'm not blasé about the prospect of tens of millions of people starving outside the UK. I just don't see what the UK being in lockdown has to do with that. If anything letting infection rates soar in well-off countries will only increase the risk to developing countries not the other way round.

Anyone starving to death will be as a result of Covid. Lockdown will limit the likelihood. I'm glad the above poster is concerned about those abroad in poorer countries. All the experts at the WHO and elsewhere are very concerned about what happens if and when unchecked Covid ravaged those countries. Lockdown here and elsewhere will hopefully go some way towards preventing that as well as protecting the many vulnerable in the UK.

Surprised some posters think around 30-40% of the UK population is "the few". We have "The elderly" (the age risk starts to increase at 40), people who are overweight, and then there's the conditions with the highest mortality rates despite not being on the government's shielding list - diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular issues. All very common conditions albeit more so amongst those living in poverty (unfortunately a large number of people). Someone mentions those at risk of homelessness. That group will be farote likely to be at risk than others because of the strong link between poor living conditions and poverty and serious health issues.

It's clear some here won't understand the need for a longer initial lockdown and intentionally quieter non Covid hospital work unless and until they think it will affect them. Oh and the suicidal (despite it being an awful way to go). I suspect it's mainly those privileged enough to enjoy good health and likely relative affluence and/or living in one of the so far safer areas (thanks to lockdown). They either haven't considered or don't really believe it possible they could have an undiagnosed condition.

Those lacking morals who don't care about "the many" vulnerable might like to consider the economic impact of a premature end to lock. What do they think life will be like if there's a bad second wave. How do they think the economy will cope with infinitely more widespread cases, countless extra deaths, many off sick for weeks and weeks (bedbound for much of the time).

Were already on course to have one of the highest death rates, certainly in the developed world. That's with lockdown. And some people want it even worse?

they are however extremely similar to frances estimations which are based on their own data. It also takes into account hospitalisations in italy, the diamond princess cruise ship and repatriated brits from china.

That's good to hear.