"underlying health conditions"

[BeyondsConstantBangingHeadache]

What do you think of the idea that there should be separate reporting categories for

1. perfectly healthy
2. underlying health problems
3. severe health problems (relevant enough to have been shielding) ...and most importantly...
4. life limiting illness - ie those who would have had a short life expectancy anyway

For what purpose?

Media for one, but it's probably useful information for anyone who is recording stats.

From another thread saying an 18 yo died, then someone clarifying they had "underlying health conditions", it puts a sort of "it was only to be expected" tinge on it. To not give any information at all about their health is potentially scaremongering, but to just class all possible health problems as one category is othering for those many people who have health problems. And doesn't help much with assessing personal risk.

Either way, the person matters (obviously!). But in the same way it is apparently important for healthy people to know that it wasn't one of them, it is important to those in the other categories to know whether someone had diabetes or six months to live.

Perhaps it would help with the perception of imminent death that many people who are deemed clinically vulnerable have?

(i imagine those recording stats professionally do have more information than is released to the media, I mean more for lay-people)

@SoloMummy

For what purpose?

To understand the number of expected life years lost, the risk to society and different demographics, and to consider the effectiveness of management meaures against their impacts.

I would be category three btw - it seems ridiculous to me that my death would appear to be reported the same as that of both someone who is simply obese, or someone in final stage terminal illness

I think Australia looked at the number of expected years lost, didn't they?

It was about 12, IIRC.

But wouldn't that create more othering? For a large part it's the young and healthy where I am that are ignoring all the rules since they won't die, the other people will.

I don't think that would help, necessarily - in fact I think it'd complicate matters.

It would help if the media would emphasise more the fact that, if you have severe, acute health conditions, then your risk is high, but then your risk is high from any illness, even a cold. For everyone else, even elderly people and those with poor health, the chance that you will survive covid is far far far higher than the chance you will die from it. The vast majority of people will recover.

The thing is, not even everyone who was on the shielding list has "serious health problems", so it still wouldn't give an accurate picture.

My DSis was shielding due to an underlying condition that is generally extremely well managed and has no impact on her normal day to day life. She works full time in a demanding job, sees friends, exercises, lives a perfectly normal life. She has not had symptoms for the last 12 years because she is able to manage her health effectively. Nobody would know about her condition unless she chose to share it with them. She just happens to be very vulnerable to COVID.

Same with one of the people I line manage. She works, cares for her kids, has hobbies etc. Appears the picture of health. She has a very rich and fulfilling life which is not generally affected by her condition, but she was told to shield because she is vulnerable.

We really need to stop othering those who are more vulnerable to this virus as if their lives somehow matter less. Don't forget, any one of us might have an underlying health condition without even realising it!

You realise the term "life-limiting" includes people who could still live for years? Do you mean "end of life" (I.e. expected to die in the next 12 months)?

Fair point Alexa. Maybe just without the numbers, but focussing on the idea that previous vulnerabilities are not one homogenous group, and that not being a picture of health does not mean you were at risk of imminent death?

I guess young people will always feel indestructible. They may take it more seriously if there was a focus on "normal people" with minor health problems being susceptible (to severe illness, not just to death), rather than assuming they're all either old or dying anyway? Who knows.

@user1536853684

You realise the term "life-limiting" includes people who could still live for years? Do you mean "end of life" (I.e. expected to die in the next 12 months)?

Yes of course. Couldn't think of the right term

This comes across like you're suggesting some people's lives are worthless and their deaths inconsequential.

Do we know for certain every underlying condition that makes people more vulnerable? Does the medical profession now have enough data to determine with accuracy the risk to individuals with any underlying condition?

The media is already doing that, user. I'm suggesting accuracy, and not lumping everyone who isn't in perfect health in the one group.

Do you realise how many % of the population "underlying health conditions" applies to?

I think something needs to change. I have just read this on another thread:

‘I think those dying may have had their death brought forwards but not by much’

It makes me want to cry that people still think this, having a child who is vulnerable due to their medication but is otherwise fit and healthy.

Even if they reported "in a group clinically vulnerable to Covid" it would be an improvement. Though then, who knows what will be proven relevant in future.

If x illness doesn't increase risk to Covid, and someone with x illness dies from Covid, should they be reported as "with an underlying health problem"?

@BarbarAnna

I think something needs to change. I have just read this on another thread:

‘I think those dying may have had their death brought forwards but not by much’

It makes me want to cry that people still think this, having a child who is vulnerable due to their medication but is otherwise fit and healthy.

Precisely. I'm in a shielding group, and so many people there have bad experiences of people claiming all those who die were going to die before Xmas anyway. Or everyone who has been told to shield is elderly.

Mental health awareness is at an all time high, yet plenty of people don't consider the mental health of those they deem to be at deaths door anyway - so they don't matter.

As a healthy person, it might make you (general you) feel better to know that a death was an ill person anyway. Your risk is still pretty low - as far as you know - so you can be a bit relieved.
As an ill person, it makes you feel pretty shit. And you have no way of knowing what that death means for your chances, when it's all lumped in to reporting as one group

@user1536853684

This comes across like you're suggesting some people's lives are worthless and their deaths inconsequential.

To be honest I read this thread the opposite way.

Reading between the lines I think the almost dismissive tone (to some) of the importance or relevance of the death of the 18 year old on the recent thread once the information about the possible underlying health conditions were a factor has triggered the op to wonder about what these qualifying terms actually mean and if they change the way we view the data or if they discount the importance.

Of course I could be completely wrong!

So you can say oh look they had disabilities, health condition, etc. So it doesn't matter?

And the thing is you don't even care that you're talking about human beings with lives and hopes and families. You don't care as long as you can reassure yourself that it could never happen to you? Or worse so that you can prove a (irrelevant) point on an internet forum.

Oops sorry OP, I didn't RTFT and just posted by first reaction.

I'm really annoyed with people who dismiss the vulnerable as though they don't matter, obviously I got the wrong end of the stick.

Hangs head in shame

Thank you ginky - I was beginning to wonder what I'd written to come across in the complete opposite way to what I intended!!

No amused - the opposite.

I know I have communicative issues, but I've read back to check and I'm still baffled about what I've said wrong?

Oh thank goddess - x post amused!

So what does mild asthma count as? Or being overweight?

My grandma is 79 and has survived flu many times but unlikely to survive covid. She's not just about to pop her clogs thanks.

Oh and what about those who do fine but then have long covid?