How many people under 40 have died?

[CreamteainCornwall]

I can’t find the figure anywhere, I know it’s low.

@LilyPond2 and like I just said, nobody is disputing that there is long term effects...The discussion was is there any data relating to the 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 with relation to the under 40s, from zoe or elsewhere, and there is not...
I dont know how many times the same thing needs to be said

@BigChocFrenzy that is interesting, thank you

It's such a new virus, data is going to take time.

OP, how many would have died or been left with long-term complications if there hadn't been a lockdown? 6,000? You perhaps? Are you overweight, have diabetes, low vitamin D, asthma or any other underlying health issues? A lot of under 40s are in that bracket.

Also OP, how come you can start a thread on MN, but not use Google?

Actually I bet the OP is looking in disbelief at her thread that nobody could just answer her actual question without twisting everything and having a go at everyone. I am leaving it now too.

The OP didn't say her reasons for wanting the figures, but I don't think it's unreasonable to contemplate the possibility that the OP or others reading this thread might be using death figures for particular age groups to assess risk. I think it's therefore perfectly reasonable to point out that death figures don't tell nearly the full story.

If the OP is under 40, they are v low risk (unless their doctor has stated otherwise)
and if the OP is a woman under 40, her risk is about half that of a man the same age.

tbh, the age group deaths for the UK takes some digging out,
especially as there are separate xls sheets for England+Wales, Scotland, NI

The RKI (German public health) includes a simple age summary table in their daily reports

So although I don't have the UK figure, I can easily tell the OP the figure for Germany:
only 36 COVID deaths under 40
I don't know their health conditions; it's a total only

At least this table illustrates for the OP the absolute dominance of age over almost all else.

Deaths start to increase from age 40+ and rocket at 60+
(I'm 64 next week 😆)

Why shouldn't she ask? Why should she use Google? Is it morally superior or something?

To the original question. ONS stats (so those who died with COVID on their death certificate). Total for March-May is 43,763, of whom 256 were under 40.

And if the 256 I think a very small percentage, I can’t recall but likely ten to fifteen percent had no underlying health conditions, so likely 25 to 35.

As said, even under 65 it’s very small, about 200 with no underlying health conditions,

@LilyPond2

The OP didn't say her reasons for wanting the figures, but I don't think it's unreasonable to contemplate the possibility that the OP or others reading this thread might be using death figures for particular age groups to assess risk. I think it's therefore perfectly reasonable to point out that death figures don't tell nearly the full story.

Sadly, the OP has a record of either a. denying the existence of COVID or b. downplaying its severity. Her reason for seeking data like this would feed into category b.

This thread is about deaths under 40, which is always awful and I'm so sorry to read of young parents who have lost their lives to this.

The people who are experiencing a long tail, of which we are of course still gathering data on, are sadly experiencing the same dismissal and flippancy as many people who develop cfs after infections do. For young mothers I know with cfs, it's just awful.

Sorry to hear there are some on this thread who've struggled and are still doing so. It must be horrid to see your symptoms dismissed so badly.

I am going to jump back on to offer some perspective for people who are worried.

-There are still around 1000 confirmed cases a day. The deaths in under 40s are only a quarter of the cases in a single day, nevermind the 4 months this has been going on. And that is confirmed cases. There are an estimated 3000-4000 cases a day.

-Antibody tests show at least 3.5 million people have had covid. This gives an IFR of 0.008% for under 40s.

-To be more specific, you probably need to know how many of the 3.5 million were under 40. We cannot know this atm but I have attached a break down of the confirmed cases by age and gender in the uk. Around 1/4 to 1/3 of confirmed cases are in under 40s. So we can probably assume around a million cases were people under 40? This gives an IFR of around 0.03%. I have banded all under 40s together there. If you were to break it down into under 10s, teens, 20s and 30s it would be lower for each age band, significantly lower for children.

-This also includes everyone with an underlying condition. This means that if you are an under 40 with a significant condition such as cancer, you are overwhelmingly still likely to survive.

-It is also interesting that in the 20 and 30 age band, there is double the amount of females infected than men. I can only assume this is to do with job type e.g. Nurses, teachers, care workers. Despite there being way more females infected, males are at more risk of dying than females.

Now I know there are long term effects, a fair proportion will have been hospitalised etc but the thread is about deaths under 40 so that is what I have addressed. Obviously the risk is not 0, and there will be deaths in this age group, but I think most of us would accept this as an acceptable level of risk

We know that it affects a small percentage very badly for no obvious reason but mostly it's age related. I wouldn't have realised I had it if my dp (older male) hadn't caught it first and he had nothing worse then a mild cold.

Around 200 under 40's have died (it was just under last time I saw the stats) and 94% had known underlying health conditions (the others may have unknown underlying conditions of cause) bame and male was dominant

Most of us have an underlying health condition or a sibling/partner with one. They are so so common.

288 to 22nd June

This thread is so horrible.
I feel like it's basically saying, 'I'm alright Jack so it doesn't matter about the many thousands of others who will died from COVID-19 or those who will be left with long term health problems'.

ALL lives are valuable, including elderly or those with underlying health conditions. Just because you might be ok you can't just be oblivious to the fact you can pass COVID on in the community to someone who may well DIE as a result.

You can't consider people under 40 on their own without the rest of the community.

So it says small but significant number, so confusing without data.

I'm one of those people. I'm still ill over 3 months after first developing symptoms. Admittedly I had CFS beforehand and am overweight, so I was in a vulnerable category.

There's an ongoing thread on this board for those with long-term symptoms and there are quite a lot of us on there.

There's no data because we all developed symptoms at a time when there was no community testing. I had a test one month ago, but it was always going to be negative by that stage.

"ALL lives are valuable, including elderly or those with underlying health conditions"

Really cannot see anyone on this thread that has said otherwise!

ALL lives are valuable, including elderly or those with underlying health conditions

Really, my DH and I are vulnerable and yet I don't take offence about this. I'm very happy to know that my DDs are very low risk, it's something I don't need to worry about. (DD2 (8) probably had it in early March and it was nasty but only for 4 days.)

ALL lives are valuable, including elderly or those with underlying health conditions

Apparently, they're the only people who matter.

For the past three months the lives of children and young people have been virtually destroyed...their mental health, their physical health, their education and the future of the economy. God knows how long it will take for them to recover. We've done nothing but protect elderly lives. How about we start protecting young people?

It is sad that you cannot discuss risk to a certain age group without being accused of not caring about other people.

@formerbabe - not every child has had a traumatic lockdown. Every single child I know has loved it. They've been out on their bikes, enjoyed good weather and have had more family time. The exception is my friend's son, who hated school because he was bullied, but he did want to do his equivalent of O levels because he had worked hard.
Ask yourself what is going on among your friends and family if ALL the children you know have had a traumatic, dreadful time.
Before you suggest I'm middle class and my friends have been living it up at holiday villas, I'm very much working class inner city.
I dislike the histrionics on here. Let's be balanced when we post. I believe some children did have a worse time, but equally others have enjoyed it.