There's been around 40 deaths of under 45 year olds with no underlying health conditions.

[mywayhighway]

I'm always amazed how so many people on MN know someone (or often 2) under 45 who've died from Coronavirus with no underlying health conditions.

I’m not hugely interested in this type of argument until they also publish what proportion of people of all ages who have had covid are still having ongoing health issues as a result, and what sort of issues; and what counts as an underlying health condition. Until that is discussed alongside this data, it’s just another case of lies, damned lies and statistics whichever side of the argument you are on, imvho. Death is not the only thing in life to worry about, just the most final. I find people's attempts to manipulate opinion with selective, incomplete data quite aggravating.

This is why schools should reopen in full straight away and the 2m rule should be relaxed to 1m.

If only schools only included people under 45 with no underlying health conditions

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER

I know of two young and apparently perfectly fit men - one was a rower for a prestigious team - both early 20s, who died suddenly and without any warning, of an undiagnosed heart condition.

There may be more of this sort of thing about than anyone is aware of.

This sort of thing bothers me much more than Covid.

I don't know anyone, of any age, who has even caught Covid, never mind die of it, btw.

The lockdown is nearly over now, anyways?

All that you need to know is that Covid19 does not increase the risk of dying in the next 12 months for most age groups. The actual number who have died is an irrelevance. Most of us have no more risk of dying from this than we do of dying from anything else.

On a population wide basis, this effectively means that people in those age groups would have died anyway within the next 12 months.

And it also effectively means that all of the 'excess deaths' are in the elderly population. We will only know if these are really 'excess' at the end of the 12 months, or over a longer period, when we can see if the deaths that have occurred have significantly reduced deaths later on (which is what we expect to happen).

But it does mean if 450 under 44s have died from covid, 450 fewer under 44s have died from other conditions in the same period.

If only schools only included people under 45 with no underlying health conditions

But they mostly do. The majority should be allowed to return and receive an education. The current situation is an overreaction. Anyone vulnerable needs to protect themselves. It’s not fair but that’s life.

Our school has several teachers and TAs who are either over the age of 45 or who have an underlying health condition. I don't mean shielding, but the vulnerable rather than extremely vulnerable. At least a third, nearly a half. 2 out of 3 admin staff are over 45. Both our caretakers are over 45. About 3/4 of our lunchtime assistants are over 45y. I don't know their medical conditions.

So the children are under 45. Most won't have an underlying condition though some will. But many staff in schools are over 45.

The death rate is very low but what would it be without lockdown? Also these threads just concentrate on death. What about the people hospitalized? Is that OK because after all they didn't die. What about the massive growing number of people suffering covid symptoms months and months after having it. A large portion of these people are over 3 months off work and because they were not hospitalised are not in any data yet.

This is the mortality rates according to PHE when the results of antibody tests and the millions that have had covid are factored in. Even up until age 65 it is a low risk. The overall IFR is heavily skewed by the elderly

On a population wide basis, this effectively means that people in those age groups would have died anyway within the next 12 months.

Are you absolutely sure about that ?

But it does mean if 450 under 44s have died from covid, 450 fewer under 44s have died from other conditions in the same period.

Piffle.

What about the fact it looks increasingly likely around half of people are totally asymptomatic! Can we not look for positives Some people are determined to find the negative!

It would be interesting to know the death rates of other conditions. I heard that even now covid is the third killer. Dementia first then heart conditions. In my town (Clitheroe) 2 people have died from covid ( I don't know their age) and I'm in the northwest, with has the worst death rates.

@Jrobhatch29

What about the fact it looks increasingly likely around half of people are totally asymptomatic! Can we not look for positives Some people are determined to find the negative!

But in many ways that's not a positive and if anything further supports the fact we need lockdown. Due to the fact many will be asymptomatic iit makes it very hard to protect the vulnerable who may be reliant on carers or support from external sources. And many people who need additional support will be in vulnerable or very vulnerable categories. If we cannot identify who is ill and therefore limit their contact with very vulnerable people, the only option is to completely lower community transmission to reduce the chances of the person providing the support catching it and potentially passing it onto high risk people while being asymptomatic.

If you check the figures from the ONS website (Office of National Statistics), it is clear the risks increase exponentially with age, with those most at risk, being over 75.
The main figures are England and Wales, but there is an extra page for Scotland and Northern Ireland, where they reference the fact that the figures come from the Scotland and NI equivalent.
They include a page for region, and also location, as in how many died in Care Homes, etc
I admit the spreadsheet is difficult to interpret at first.

Anyone vulnerable needs to protect themselves. It's not fair but that's life.
@SpokeTooSoon you manage to be nonsensical and make a disgustingly callous comment at the same time. Even if you think that the millions of people who fall into the vulnerable category should stay home and never socialise indoors or go out to work (the only way to "protect themselves" when infectuon rates are high), people still can't help whether they need in person medical treatment or whether they live with people in high risk occupations. Or perhaps you think families should split up over this and "that's life" too. The only way to protect everyone is for the government to step up to the plate and take measures that will reduce infection rates generally. Other European countries have managed this. I agree that it won't now be possible to get infection rates down to zero here, but the government should be working to get infection rates much lower so that for most people getting infected becomes a remote risk. That is also the only way to save the economy. Millions of people fall into the vulnerable category. If they all stay home to "protect themselves" as you suggest then they will spend much less and that will be disastrous for the economy.

@LilyPond2 at some point lockdown will end, restrictions are already being relaxed, the vulnerable will have to self risk access whether to go to places say shopping, while other people won’t give it a second thought.

@Cantata "This sort of thing bothers me much more than Covid.

I don't know anyone, of any age, who has even caught Covid, never mind die of it, btw."

I caught it, I'm in my 40s, hospitalized and nearly died from it. So you sort of know someone now!

@starray that’s so funny we don’t know you. You can make up whatever you like on mumsnet.

These young people who suffer badly may not be dying, the virus can be known to be leaving long term damage to organs that may well impact on their future health

Has obesity been listed as an underlying health condition?
Because there a couple of the 'no underlying condition' deaths that when you see their photo they are about 4st overweight.

Not for over 80% of people it doesn’t, most people won’t even have any symptoms

Asymptomatic is good for the person who is asymptomatic, in that they personally get off lightly. The main issue with the asymptomatic is that they don't generally get tested, so no-one knows they are carrying the virus, which has massive implications for those working in areas such as health and social care.
I work in healthcare, my team is about 20 people, we see about 350 very vulnerable people. No-one on the team has had a test of any sort, including those who have had to self isolate due to symptoms. We are very much at the bottom of the pile when it comes to the role out of the antibody testing and yet our cohort of patients is the most likely to be admitted. We are minimising the risk to the patient as much as possible with the use of PPE, but being an asymptomatic carrier is always a concern.

I think we have to get back to as near normal as possible as soon as possible.
I don't know anyone who has died of covid but I do know several who have been made redundant or are about to be.
Our GP practice is offering phone appointments only as far as I am aware, and logic would suggest to me that this makes access to healthcare more difficult.
The cost could be huge.
I think that we need to get back to completely normal in the main- for those say under 60 with no known health issues. Shops/gyms/ pubs open as normal most of the time.
The government should be funding/ supporting those with health conditions and older people so they can remain off work if necessary but WFH should be an option for all IF it's viable. (And I know sometimes even if possible it is not satisfactory. It should be OK for employers to refuse if it genuinely doesn't work).
There should be 'safe' times in the week when social distancing is strictly enforced in shops/gyms/libraries etc. to allow access for those more vulnerable.
However if older people etc. want to carry on as before they should have the right to do so at their own risk.
I know people will say I don't care about those in care homes, but I don't have an answer to that. Of course those people matter. We need to try to minimise risk to them as far as possible but we can't ruin jobs, health services relating to other conditions, children's education, mental health.
If we had no flu vaccine, flu would in all likelihood cause terrible issues in care homes, but we wouldn't shut down the whole country.
We have to accept that this virus is here. Of course we all wish it wasn't, but we have to live with it, I think.

I think the problem is assuming someone has no underlying health conditions. Psoriasis is counted as an underlying health condition. As is mild arthritis. Tachycardia, mild asthma, BMI of over 30.

I'm more astounded at the "think I've had it" brigade. My friend has been telling anyone who will listen she had it in December/January and has used that and her "immunity" to justify complete ignorance of the guidelines.

Her antibody test came back negative of course, as had she had it in December she'd now be the first known case in the UK out of 68 million people. Astounding achievement

Now she's saying "see I wasn't spreading it, I did the right thing, I didn't need to lockdown"

Honestly. My heads battered. I love her loads but...