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?

I’m not talking about ending lockdown, just trying to give a prospective on how likely you are to die at different ages, we’re all not going to drop down dead if we go outside our front door, our children are the least at risk and we don’t have to lock them away completely, some people are even to scared to let their children out in the garden.

I agree completely with you there Alex we need a sensible balance. It's a real shame if people are too scared to use their gardens. We're also allowed socially distanced walks, which is good. When the time comes to ease lockdown, I don't know how popular starting with under 40s would be. It's one possibility. Another is a regional approach. I wonder which option people would prefer? Or would people rather we all risked it together? Views here are clearly very mixed.

It’s hard one to answer, I don’t know how the government are going to manage it, lockdown was the easy bit.

Yes agree again.

I think a mix of regional and age might be the way to go. Possibly. It's a very hard decision really and I'm actually very glad I'm not the one who has to make it.

I thought this proposal from The Tony Blair institute seemed sensible and fairly balanced.

institute.global/sites/default/files/inline-files/A%20Sustainable%20Exit%20Strategy%2C%20Managing%20Uncertainty%20Minimising%20Harm.pdf

It's mainly affecting men, so men over 50 might be a good category for staying at home.

@jrobhatch29 our 200 figure is a different age bracket - 20 to 39?

There is the fear factor as well, some people are petrified to go outside the front door, they think their child are going to die if they send them to school.

I didnt suggest the 200 figure, someone else did. I have no idea how many for uk

This BBC article suggests 139 people under 40 have died.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52403772

I would definitely support a sex based easing of lockdown

No, the fear is not out of proportion.

I know a healthy 48-year-old who sadly passed away as a result of this.

Very sorry to hear that, and it influences your personal feelings of course, but statistically the chances of a (non obese) medically well person dying in their forties are very very low. It's a shame, in my opinion, we decided at an early stage to not make efforts to contain this virus more, but as it turns out it is most deadly to the over 90s, then over 80s. That's not too bad compared to what it could be. Yes, risk increases from mid 50s which is still fairly young but something like 75% of deaths are in the over 75 age group.

I’m afraid healthy people do die even without the coronvirus.
2 healthy children have died in the UK, when you compare that to over 6000 children died in the UK in 2018, nobody worried about letting their children out then.
You do have to weigh up the risks to you and you family but you do have to keep it in proportion. If I was over 70 I would be very careful as the risk is high. As 50 year old healthy woman my risk is low, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t die from the coronvirus though but there’s a higher risk of me dying of cancer.

They were thinking of starting with all those who don't live with more vulnerable household members. It's one way to try. They'd need to let those under 40s with underlying conditions be excluded.

I can’t see how it’s practical to open things up but only wit those under 40, without underlying conditions and who don’t live with anyone over 40 or with an underlying condition. You’re looking at around 30% of the workforce. Most supervisors/managers will be in the “excluded groups” too

It's a shame, in my opinion, we decided at an early stage to not make efforts to contain this virus more, but as it turns out it is most deadly to the over 90s, then over 80s.

The most old and vulnerable can’t be sealed off from the rest of us. Residential/nursing homes and those needing home care will necessarily come into close contact with carers. We didn’t have the PPE to even begin to manage this a month back so the cry to “keep things as normal, just protect the vulnerable” was a hollow one. This needs to massively improve.

I’m concerned because I do have a high BMI, totally my fault, I own it and I’m working hard to bring it down through diet and exercise.

My worry is the mental health of my son, I have noticed the last few days he’s struggling being at home lots as we are usually out and about And he plays sports, he’s only 13 so I need to think more about him.

I think mental health is going to be a real issue for some people.

@Derbygerbil yes I agree, they knew the elderly were vulnerable from all the data, they knew care homes would’ve been high risk, why didn’t the government put guidelines there first? In Italy I think 50% of deaths were in care homes, not 100% sure, I know it’s a high number. Looking at numbers for children in school it’s such a low number, I think only 4 teachers have died, not 100% sure on that. Hardly any children, it just seems made to shut schools but no guidelines for care homes.

Derby those who live with people who are vulnerable do not need to isolate as per government advice

Only those vulnerable themselves