Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Why isn’t there more deaths atm?

334 replies

Mummypig2020 · 17/08/2020 15:16

Just that really. Obviously cases are going up and have been for a few weeks. Surely there would be at least an increase of people in hospitals by now at least? Or in a week or so are we going to suddenly have hundreds of deaths again?

OP posts:
TheClaws · 19/08/2020 09:44

@Alex50

That’s what I mean, you can’t frighten people re long term health issues, you need to be specific, people won’t put their lives on hold because you may get long term health issues, especially when you see people who have had it and they are as healthy as they were before.

It's a lottery. No-one, at this point, can give you guarantees that if you catch COVID, Alex50, you'll emerge the other side fit and healthy. You might have no symptoms. You may have many. You might, despite being relatively young, suffer debilitating symptoms, and longer term health issues. This is a novel, evolving disease and there are no precedents to look to.

AlecTrevelyan006 · 19/08/2020 09:56

We don’t know what the long term effect coronavirus will have in people

But we do already know that our reaction to it has led to an increase in domestic violence, rising depression and a recession that is likely to be the deepest and longest lasting in living memory. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs and the number is only to increase, And the associated negative economic, social and cultural impacts of that is far, far worse than the virus itself.

Never has so much been given by so many for so few.

walksen · 19/08/2020 09:57

I think the covid is just another virus is a weak argument. If I change it as below would you still think it's a valid point?

Some people haven't just suddenly become unsackable and have always been susceptible to being laid off and made redundant. Covid isnt the only factor that can cause unemployment yet no one questions people losing jobs before. The risk of losing your job isnt new its always been there.

Alex50 · 19/08/2020 10:10

But looking at the risk, it’s really low, people will carry on with their lives, the only data that is available is deaths and hospital admissions, which are now so low, without data on long term health issues and seeing people you know recover well is all you can go on.

Alex50 · 19/08/2020 10:11

@AlecTrevelyan006 your last statement is so true.

Alex50 · 19/08/2020 10:17

@walksen we are going to have unemployment levels we have never seen before, wait until the furlough scheme finishes in October, millions of people will loose there jobs. The travel, retail business absolutely devastated by this.

HesterShaw1 · 19/08/2020 10:34

Very few people will be willing to curtail their freedoms and limit their social interactions indefinitely because some people might get long term effects. It's simply unrealistic.

They never have done for any other contagious illnesses, including those will after effects.

And especially if no one they know has demonstrated any. Someone on my FB talks about her life changing after effects yet her newsfeed is full of pictures of her camping and kayaking and living an active, sporty lifestyle. Clearly FB is not real life and doesn't give the full picture, however....

I'm not doubting that they exist, however expecting everyone else to give up enormous important parts of their life because of after effects in some people, when hospital admissions and deaths are so low just isn't going to happen.

AlecTrevelyan006 · 19/08/2020 10:42

Remember that HUGE spike in Aberdeen that caused such a furore? It resulted in ZERO hospital admissions. The panic about long term effects of Covid is completely disproportionate to reality.

CovoidanceMechanism · 19/08/2020 10:56

I’m sorry to put it this way but isn’t it also true to say that if a school shooter arrives at your school you’re more likely to survive than die, or a terrorist at your concert, or tube train. But in your classroom, vicinity or carriage maybe not.

If you are over 90 and catch coronavirus and have no symptoms are you more likely to survive than die?
If you are over 90 and catch coronavirus and it makes you ill are you more likely to survive than die?
If you are over 90 and catch coronavirus and you are ill enough to need medical help, hospital, oxygen, intensive care - whether or not you get any of those things - are you more likely to survive or die.

I have lost a close elderly relative to Covid pneumonia and know of a (very very) distant elderly family member who survived.

In my view it’s Russian roulette. We all pull the trigger every day but other people load the gun, or not.

TheClaws · 19/08/2020 11:11

Never has so much been given by so many for so few.

You have a gift for wretched hyperbole, Alec. Your posts used to irritate me but now they simply give me a bit of a giggle 🤭 You overdo a little sometimes.

walksen · 19/08/2020 11:48

@alex50
People minimise the risks of a novel virus to older people. Minimising the economic fallout which so far has disproportionately affected the young by saying recessions aren't new is just as stupid.

AlecTrevelyan006 · 19/08/2020 12:00

@TheClaws

Never has so much been given by so many for so few.

You have a gift for wretched hyperbole, Alec. Your posts used to irritate me but now they simply give me a bit of a giggle 🤭 You overdo a little sometimes.

The hyperbole is all on the part of those who proclaim that coronavirus is going to wipe out the entire human race
Alex50 · 19/08/2020 12:01

@CovoidanceMechanism but the gun seems to be empty must of the time

Tootletum · 19/08/2020 12:07

@HesterShaw1 I completely agree that the harm (jobs lost) and irritation (masks) of all the restrictions now seems disproportionate. But the legal obligation to wear masks is now on the books and lasts for the next 12 months, with earliest review in six months....

Uhoh2020 · 19/08/2020 12:11

[quote Tootletum]@HesterShaw1 I completely agree that the harm (jobs lost) and irritation (masks) of all the restrictions now seems disproportionate. But the legal obligation to wear masks is now on the books and lasts for the next 12 months, with earliest review in six months....[/quote]
Where have you heard that clap trap from?

SebandAlice · 19/08/2020 12:16

Yes Yes Yes @AlecTrevelyan006 👏👏

Tootletum · 19/08/2020 14:07

@Uhoh2020 that claptrap is in the legislation. I didn't "hear it", it's clearly stated. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/592/regulation/10/made

BellaintheWychElm · 19/08/2020 14:23

The earliest review however is not however 6 months
the Secretary of State must review the need for the requirements imposed by these Regulations before the end of the period of six months
So it is quite possible it could be reviewed earlier

Tootletum · 19/08/2020 14:29

@BellaintheWychElm far as I know that means the day before. But here's hoping it all improves and they can rescind it before then! Obviously I realise half the people on this thread would prefer us all to be locked in our houses for our own protection, but anyway.

CovoidanceMechanism · 19/08/2020 19:32

Absolutely Alex50 it is empty most of the time.

TheClaws · 20/08/2020 04:45

The hyperbole is all on the part of those who proclaim that coronavirus is going to wipe out the entire human race

Now that one made me truly LOL, Alec. I have never heard - or read - anyone proclaim this. You must have wild hallucinations.

Derbygerbil · 20/08/2020 07:02

The hyperbole is all on the part of those who proclaim that coronavirus is going to wipe out the entire human race

Seldom have I read anything so ironic.

Bol87 · 20/08/2020 07:36

I agree with people not caring about this possibility of long term effects. How many people drink alcohol way above recommend limits? Despite the risk of liver damage, cancer, general bad health. How many smoke despite a huge cancer risk. How many people go on holiday & sunbath all day. Or never wear suncream in the UK & burn. People seem to think burning is really funny. Huge cancer risk. How many people are overweight yet continue to eat junk. All these things have big consequences on our health yet seemingly we take the risks.

So I completely disagree people will be cautious of Covid because of only theoretical long term risk.

BillywilliamV · 20/08/2020 07:40

5 new cases out of 100,000 people in Derbyshire, I am happy to play those odds on order to live a semi normal life!

user1497207191 · 20/08/2020 08:32

@AlecTrevelyan006

Remember that HUGE spike in Aberdeen that caused such a furore? It resulted in ZERO hospital admissions. The panic about long term effects of Covid is completely disproportionate to reality.
Maybe because the vulnerable were sensible enough to stay away from crowded pubs in the first place.

The fact that the spike was noticed quickly and that tracing/testing others who came into contact meant that those infected could be isolated so that they didn't unwittingly spread it to vulnerable family, friends, work colleagues etc.

Otherwise, highly likely Aberdeen would have seen exponential growth and plenty of hospital admissions.

It's a classic example of WHY we need the precautions, testing, track & trace, isolation, etc.

We need to have the "whack a mole" strategy to identify spikes quickly and lockdown hard to stop the exponential growth. Things like SD, masks, hand washing etc help slow the spread in the days between infections starting to rise and a spike appearing.

Do people really think that if we all abandoned precautions Covid has just disappeared?? It's under control because of the precautions.