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?

It is possible to believe that a lot of people are disproportionately concerned about contracting the virus (when their personal risk profile is low) AND understand that it is not appropriate to lift the lockdown right this second.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

If 0.5% of people who caught Covid19 died and we didn't reach herd immunity until 70% of our population had caught it, then that would mean that 230,000 people would have died from CV19. Annually, 540,000 people die in the UK each year from all causes. How many of the 230,000 would be in addition to the 540,000 remains to be seen.

I do think alot of those 230,000 will be people who were on their way out anyway.

It's is very very sad that some people will lose their lives or have their lives shortened because of this. But we can only control so much. Viruses are part of nature. Pandemics happen, we can only try and minamise the effects. There is not much we can do to help those 0.5% of people. We can't stay on lockdown indefinitely. We need to think about those that will survive this, not just those that won't. Yes a vaccination for the vulnerable would be ideal. But there is no guarantee. There is no cold virus vaccine, nor is there one for SARS or MERS as far as I'm aware. Even if they can create a vaccine, we can't shut the country down for 18 months + to wait for it.

It was also my understanding that the lockdown is to protect those that can survive this with hospital treatment. The deaths of that 0.5% are pretty much inevitable.

There is not much we can do to help those 0.5% of people.

This is not true - hopefully part of the government‘s exit plan is to massively up testing, contact tracing and local quarantining, as well as keeping a strict implementation of social distancing even if we are out of lockdown (and the most vulnerable groups still shielding).

There is no way that places like Germany are going to have 230,000 deaths, so why should we even contemplate that?

A much bigger health problem than Covid-19 are man-made chemicals in everyday life. UK homes are particularly packed out with them and they have a massively detrimental effect on our health. Many of the companies, government departments, PR organisations are behind what we are told about man-made chemicals are also behind what we're told about Covid-19. Keeping us largely ignorant of chemicals in everyday life protects profits, essentially. Do you really believe the same people are telling the truth about this virus?

If 0.5% of people who caught Covid19 died and we didn't reach herd immunity until 70% of our population had caught it, then that would mean that 230,000 people would have died from CV19. Annually, 540,000 people die in the UK each year from all causes. How many of the 230,000 would be in addition to the 540,000 remains to be seen.

I don't believe that covid19 can really reach 70% with modest social distancing measures in place, but perhaps someone else knows better.

I disagree mightily with your .5% fatality rate, That would imply that something short of 4 million British people have been infected thus far, just 6% of the population. This is before we take into account the fact that the fatalities thus far have been largely predictable, i.e. that demographic would fall square into the shielding group.

@DeathByBoredom yes - it’s on the front page of the Washington post.

@MarginalGain The ONS statistics for the last two weeks of published data shows a sharp increase in the number of deaths in the age brackets above 45 compared to the previous weekly averages, there are some reporting delays but 14,000 excess deaths in those last two weeks of reporting are not just hitting the over 70's, it is hard to say whether what kind of numbers are included in the 'shielded group' and whether they have been effectively shielded.

As for the 0.5%.. it was quoted in the OP, not my number, do you think more people have been infected or that the death rate is in fact much higher?

I also doubt that 70% herd immunity can be reached with moderate social distancing so what is your take on it?

There is not much we can do to help those 0.5% of people.

That’s not true. We can do many things but they don’t involve apps or medication.
Things like taking vitamin D (BBC has finally been reporting on that), vitamin C (very cheap and easy to get. It’s a cooking ingredient), zinc and selenium.
None of them are proven to be working with CV-19 but they are proven to work with viruses of the corona type.
This would less dangerous than some medication they want to try.

@MarginalGain The ONS statistics for the last two weeks of published data shows a sharp increase in the number of deaths in the age brackets above 45 compared to the previous weekly averages, there are some reporting delays but 14,000 excess deaths in those last two weeks of reporting are not just hitting the over 70's, it is hard to say whether what kind of numbers are included in the 'shielded group' and whether they have been effectively shielded.

Hopefully the shielding group will be further refined based on this data. I see no reason why it wouldn't be.

My view on the excess deaths is that many of them will be borrowed from future months in the year, i.e. we should see a dip once the covid19 peaks pass.

As for the 0.5%.. it was quoted in the OP, not my number, do you think more people have been infected or that the death rate is in fact much higher?

I think the number of infections is much higher and so the denominator is much bigger.

Of course everyone has their own opinion on this but... we've had a highly infectious novel virus circulating since January that seems asymptomatic in many or even most, and if you take the ONS figure which is currently somewhere around 18K then this implies that only 3.7 million British people have contracted it.

I also doubt that 70% herd immunity can be reached with moderate social distancing so what is your take on it?

Theoretically I think a virus would struggle to get to 70% with people sticking around their own social/work/family circles, but of course we all know nothing until we know what fraction of the population has been infected. Assuming it's on the low end, it seems very sensible to ban gatherings of more than 50+ and restrict numbers in restaurants and so on; assuming it's on the high end, it's full steam ahead I guess.

Of course everyone has their own opinion on this but... we've had a highly infectious novel virus circulating since January that seems asymptomatic in many or even most, and if you take the ONS figure which is currently somewhere around 18K then this implies that only 3.7 million British people have contracted it.

Assuming a .5% mortality.

I think it’s ridiculous that people are judging others for their choices in terms of isolating too much? There are circumstances that you may not know, family histories etc.

This. I look healthy, but I'm being incredibly careful about going out, mainly because DH is vulnerable but also because this has triggered my PTSD related feeling of having a foreshortened future for the first time in decades and I'm really struggling with that despite knowing that I'd be at low risk. But nobody would know that by looking at me.

I think it’s ridiculous that people are judging others for their choices in terms of isolating too much? There are circumstances that you may not know, family histories etc.

Specifically who has said anything to this effect? Surely everyone who feels vulnerable should isolate away.

If you are vulnerable or live with someone vulnerable then obviously you may wish to take more stringent measures.

If you are not vulnerable and you do not live with anyone who is vulnerable then I would suggest that feeling so terrified of catching COVID that you are quarantining post, bleaching the floor underneath it and being afraid to open the windows are not proportionate responses to the risk that a low risk person faces.

Low risk people who can do so should be going to the supermarket in person to allow more vulnerable people to have access to delivery slots. Many are not because they are frightened to leave the house. It is very difficult to see how someone who is that afraid in spite of the small risk posed to them will be able to start moving around in society more when the lockdown starts to ease.

Low risk people who can do so should be going to the supermarket in person to allow more vulnerable people to have access to delivery slots. Many are not because they are frightened to leave the house. It is very difficult to see how someone who is that afraid in spite of the small risk posed to them will be able to start moving around in society more when the lockdown starts to ease

Agreed...I am sick of seeing people on my social media who are not in the vulnerable category crowing about getting delivery slots, leave them for the vulnerable and elderly, if you aren't either then just go fucking shop yourself! arseholes

I think it’s ridiculous that people are judging others for their choices in terms of isolating too much? There are circumstances that you may not know, family histories etc.

People are free to do as they please. I don't have an issue if people want to lock themselves away.

What I do have an issue with is those people spreading their fear and false information. Effectly infecting others with their anxiety. I have an issue with the media spreading a messge of fear and reinforcing paranoia. I have an issue with people infecting their children with anxiety. Anxiety that will spread to friends and effect generations to come. But most of all, I have an issue with people shouting for longer and stricter lockdown, not because it's best for them or the country, but because they have an unsubstantiated fear of catching, what is for 80% of the population a mild illness.

In New York City, excess deaths between mid March to Mid April stand at 300%.
So, if for example 100 people usually die in NYC, currently 400 people are dying a day.
In the UK and France excess deaths are at 30%.
So
A) many of the people who are dying are not people who "would have died anyway" AND
B) most countries are signifcantly underreporting the lethality of the virus (by up to 50% in many cases, more in the case of the US)

Totally agree naturalbornkiller ^

to clarify B) .. because the excess deaths recorded between March -April are nowhere near fully covered by official Covid deaths statistics for the respective countries/cities.

@Naturalbornkiller. With you on that.

@naturalbornkiller totally with you. The ramping up of hysteria and misinformation is infecting society...I'm getting to a stage where I'm not prepared to live like this to keep an illness under suppression that for most people doesn't cause significant harm!!

I'm on yearly smear tests. No appts available in March...It's all covid, covid covid. And that's just preventative but I sure as hell want to spot anything before it potentially becomes more sinister. People having cancer treatment cancelled is a national scandal. I don't know why people aren't beginning to kick off about this more to be honest. It's weird the way the British public are just accepting the idea this could go on and on. And some people are taking an almost gratuitous delight in begging for stricter lockdown or exclaiming "we won't be normal for the foreseeable!"

I've got friends like this. More decisive than brexit.

I've got friends like this. More decisive than brexit.

Isn't it just? I cannot find common ground with anyone who says 'it's a small thing we can do to save lives'. I hope I can move past this but at this moment I feel like an alien - there's no comfort in speaking with 95% of my friends/family.

Thank god my sister sees sense and we send articles and stats back and forth all day long. She's my lifeline.

nuit

Please engage your brain. We're on lockdown SO THAT there is still an NHS left to carry out your smear test. Take a moment to consider your chances of getting a smear test if the exponential rise in Covid-19 cases had continued, or if it spikes again. What do you think all available HCP will be doing? Where do you think all medical funding will have gone? How many doctors and nurses do you think we'll have left? And if you or any one you know should need chemotherapy in the foreseeable, how do you think it would ever be safe to have it if Covid-19 was prevalent?

The sheer stupidity...

How can people be so

The government is not interested in saving every covid patient. They are interested in getting this out of the way so they can continue to give you your smear test. They have the same goal as you.

(People having cancer treatment cancelled is a national scandal. I don't know why people aren't beginning to kick off about this more to be honest.

You don't know why because you are totally clueless. Cancer treatment is being postponed because it will usually cause immunosuppression and put people at a much higher risk of dying from COVID. Letting infection rates surge increase will just make it even more dangerous to have treatment.

The sheer stupidity...

Yep. I console myself with the fact that the stupid people don't have much impact on policy anyway.