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.

You do realise that some people love it the death the doom the screaming at people just having a day at the beach 'murderers'

The problem is, when you're higher risk, you need to think a bit more defensively and seek to actively avoid coming into contact with it. When people mix, it is going to increase cases, and if I come into contact with you - say you're my carer who comes into my home every day to help me - following your jaunt to the beach where you picked it up and I die after getting it from you....it's not murder because it's not premeditated and no one intended it to happen. But it's pretty shit to be either of those people and to realise that your actions impacted on such a terrible outcome for someone else.

We need to avoid situations where it can be passed around. We need to avoid having a 'fuck it, it won't get me ' attitude because it might not get you but it may well get someone else and that someone else just might be important to you. The publicity has long said 'act as if you have it and try to avoid giving it to anyone else' yet we are bumbling along more with a 'few people have it, I'm unlikely to come into contact with it, so everything needs to be normal' because 'normal' will undoubtedly increase the death toll.

There is hysteria and the death toll is small. Long term disability as a result is yet unknown (but seemingly is going to effect many, many people). Most people will be unaffected. I am not sure that in any civilised society, we should be saying 'most people matter above everyone else'. All lives and everyone's quality of life long term matters.

@Zandathepanda i’m sorry for what your daughter is going through. It’s still very rare for children to get really ill from coronvirus

But children aren't 'locked up' at all.

Every child I know is out almost daily.
Since they could meet up with 6 people even more are out, including the youngest. Their parents are enabling this by arranging meet ups in local parks and fields.

My 6y nephew hasn't had a single day inside I don't think. Ironically it was a walk. Then it was with a friend on the front garden whilst my sister observed them both from the front window. Now by meeting an friend and their parents in the local park. All social distanced.

My nieces aged 10 and 14 are also out a lot.
The children on our street are playing out most days, even in the rain.
The teens are out in groups sat in spaced out circles at local parks.

Unless shielding why are all these children's still locked down? School isn't the only place children socialise surely?!

i’m sorry for what your daughter is going through. It’s still very rare for children to get really ill from coronvirus

Did you need to qualify that? Was it not enough to say 'I'm sorry for what your daughter is going through'? Because what you said somehow suggests her experience is less important, less significant...just less because it doesn't happen to many children. Would you have said 'I'm sorry your child is undergoing treatment for cancer but it's still really rare for children to get cancer'?

[quote Jrobhatch29]**@bubbleup* i do actually considering my dad has it! You need to look at the link @patriciaholm* has attached on what is being classed as an underlying condition. I would suggest the case of your neighbour is extremely rare![/quote]
@Jrobhatch29

I’ve read the link.

The medications, including high dose steroids, are a significant risk factor for any serious infection.
Arthritis would absolutely be on my death certified if I caught COVID-19 and died (which is unlikely). My condition is currently very well controlled but the medications I require suppress my immune system. I’ve been unlucky to have several serious infections, I was in a coma in multi organ failure. It was a direct result of my immune system being compromised and I wasn’t able to fight the infection like a healthy person. Therefore, my underlying disease should be recognised if it kills me even though I am currently functional and it’s in remission.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that ‘number of deaths’ isn’t the only way to assess the impact covid. What if you had a ‘mild‘ case and survived but emerged with long term complications of lungs, kidneys, blood vessels or the brain? Because that’s what’s increasingly being found.

@Aragog yes. It was of course sarcastic!

"neither psoriasis or arthritis are on the list of the most common underlying conditions that have appeared on death certificates"

@Jrobhatch29 ok, who said anything about "most common"? You said they weren't appearing AT ALL. You were quite astounded about it. Then you conceded that ok, maybe as a one off. Then decided that they are but they're just not in the list of "most common".

Hmmm, as suspected you do not have enough information to state anything as fact.

Yes @Schuyler Exactly

@Aragog my children have been out for walks everyday. They have seen their cousins at a distance. This is not at all the same battering their immune systems get at school and nursery, at soft play, swimming lessons, clubs etc. Sorry but a socially distanced play date in the park doesnt strengthen their immune system the way their normal life does. I have a 5 week baby. She definitely is not developing an immune system as she has only been held by me, her dad and her brothers. Babies are normally exposed to lots of people and go to baby classes etc. Even her 6 week check is over the phone!

So if you're happy for your child to be in close contact with others. And lots of parents are the same, then why not let them in the park or a field. Let the children play together without SD. Nobody is actually monitoring and stopping you really.

It's that battering of the immune system which is why we haven't been yet able to open schools to everyone.
Because unfortunately not everyone - and in the case if schools That's staff more than children - has a great immune system so they are at greater risk from Covid.

I think my risk of death is really tiny.

I am more worried about my risk of long-term disability. I'm a single parent, that would impact me and my children in all kinds of ways if our income were to plummet.

I am not currently worried about either, because community transmission in our area is very low. But if it were to creep back up, I would definitely want to avoid getting Covid-19 for the disability/long-term health reason. This is especially the case in a fucked up economy where I might risk losing my job, hoping not to, but people who have had Covid-19 and end up with long-term problems are going to find it harder to stay in employment.

And, as we have seen on this thread, if you do become disabled through corona, hardly anyone will be sympathetic, especially if it disrupts their narrative this is just a bad cold, and you will be considered to have had a 'good innings' at 59 and fairly disposable with your health condition, if and when a next wave comes about!

My daughter is going shopping tomorrow with a friend, she can’t wait. I will not let my daughter live in fear from a virus that doesn’t effect 99.999% of children

As restrictions are lifted everyone will have to do their own risk assessment of each situation.

@Redolent

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that ‘number of deaths’ isn’t the only way to assess the impact covid. What if you had a ‘mild‘ case and survived but emerged with long term complications of lungs, kidneys, blood vessels or the brain? Because that’s what’s increasingly being found.

This is one of my concerns, we have no idea what the long term effects might possibly be.

Early on there were reports that men’s sperm counts were affected (testicles have ACE2 receptors) but I haven’t seen much since and one of the few corona vaccines in existence was developed for chickens was because the virus was making them infertile.

We just don’t know so while I’m supportive of easing restrictions there has to be a balance because the aim should be to avoid catching it if possible.

Our children may be struggling now but I don’t think the struggle they’ll face with long term problems that could potentially shorten their lives or have a massive impact on their future families would be any less of a struggle. To a degree we have to accept that but it’s naive and foolish to completely disregard any precautions on the basis of fatality statistics alone.

every single age group as has risk of dying per year it is lowest when you are 10 ( older enough to take care crossing roads past toddler young child accident risk but not teenager risk seeler) at age 10 the annual risk of dying is 1 in 13,000 it is never better the chance of a 10 year old dying of covid is 1 in about 3 million so way way less than therie average risk
At age 90 if you get covid your risk of dying from it is about 15-18% however at 90 the risk of you dying before your next birthday is already 11%
for all ages below 70 ( and it's about equal at 70) your risk of dying from covid is less than you dying from average risk
1 in 50 people aged 50 do not make it to 51( about 2% risk of dying of covid at 50 about 0.5%), obviously this risk is not spread equally amongst 50 year olds some are already ill, some like in every age group will be unforeseen tragic accidents
the annual deaths from flu / pneumonia average at about 28,000 (mostly the very elderly and already ill with underlying conditions) in 2018 the year of the heavy snow it was 50,000 including 26 under 20
so for the young covid is actually less serous than "normal" flu for the elderly and vulnerable it is about 20-30% riskier than normal flu
talking about risk mathematically can seem uncaring but someone is no less dead because they died from suicide, car accident, heart disease, cancer or anything except covid. At this time of year daily deaths are about 1350 so yesterday at least 1150 people died of different things
When decisions are made they have to look at good raw data not anecdotes to determine risk to the overall population and balance one risk against another, will late diagnosis of breastcancer for instance cause more deaths in middle aged women than covid will? so for that group it maybe that stopping their treatment increases their risk of death not decreases; it for the elderly it might be the other way about their risk from covid maybe greater than their risk from strokes for young children the risk from covid is so minimal that the ceasing of treatment for other things puts them greatly at risk from other things
There is no point overall in preventing 10,000 covid deaths if deaths from other causes increases by 12,000 as a result

As restrictions are lifted everyone will have to do their own risk assessment of each situation.

Indeed. Because in reality, regardless of what we disagree about on here, restrictions are and will continue to be lifted, slowly. Primary schools are being encouraged now to get back as many children in all years as they can, shops are opening, and it's pretty clear from what Sunak was saying this morning that the 2m distance will pretty soon be 1m, almost certainly in time for July 4 opening of more leisure facilities.

This is happening, regardless of what we here may say.

So people do need to have some perspective on what their risk is, both to themselves and their loved ones, and what they need to realistically and sensibly do, both from a personal and societal responsibility perspective.

You can get long term health conditions from many illnesses, we don’t lock ourselves away. In children, long lasting health conditions from Covid will be a lot less than other conditions.

There is no point overall in preventing 10,000 covid deaths if deaths from other causes increases by 12,000 as a result

But allowing for unchecked covid increases other deaths due to overwhelmed health services being unable to deal with other potentially fatal cases. Minimising deaths from covid allows more people to be saved from other causes. It’s not either/or.

In children, long lasting health conditions from Covid will be a lot less than other conditions

You state that like it’s a fact. You can’t possibly know one way or the other and it undermines your position.

Childrens little lives have been turned upside down. Children make up around 1% of cases in every country. This mainly effects adults. Adults are going back to work, on public transport, shopping in non essential shops from tomorrow and they are at biggest risk. Ways have been found to minimise the risk as much as possible. However we still cant open the playgrounds to let the children play on the swings or let them go back to school properly. I understand the argument is that they may pass it to adults... But when adults are now mixing so much why cant children go in a playground? I am a primary teacher myself and yes some staff might be vulnerable. However this is true of adults in every job who are expected back at work. Nobody at my school has been unwilling to go back and have been happy to have somw children back

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.

I think you are making an incorrect inference from a statement made by a scientist - David Halpern, was it? - that your risk of dying if you catch Covid is roughly the same as your risk of dying of any cause in the next 12 months. But remember that if you survive Covid, all the other risks are still there and you’ve got the remainder of the year to get through.

So what Covid does is (approximately) double the risk of dying In the next 12 months of everyone who catches it. That risk doubles for every 6-7 years beyond the age of 40.

So let’s say, for example, that 20% of the population catches Covid. For that 20%, their risk doubles, while for the other 80%, it is whatever it normally is, plus whatever the impact of lockdown is on their risk.

It will take years to see the full effect. But please stop with this crap that they were going to die in the next 12 months anyway.

It’s very rare for children or people under 45 to be seriously affected by corona virus. Schools should be back in full. There are risks in life and this is a low one for children and young people.

I know from the amount of hospital admissions for that age. I know from reading Lancet reports. Unless children have been very ill the likelihood of them having long lasting effects are minimal. 80% of the population will recover without any long lasting health conditions, I read that from a link from someone who was trying to prove we were all going to have scaring to the lungs. That isn’t true.

Did the people seriously ill, but who survived under 45 get a hospital bed? An ambulance to transport them? Have access to ICU and a ventilator/CPAP? Gosh, with our country being seriously unprepared for a pandemic, how on earth did they get that care? Oh yes, lockdown.
We're coming out of lockdown now but there are still repeat threads on this everyday.
Yes, we had a lockdown. Enjoy coming out of it.