"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

In theory I think the Australian 'years lost' is a great reporting tool but it's not as immediate as deaths, I don't know that we have any kind of mechanism for recording and reporting it.

"Underlying health conditions" can include something as minor as high blood pressure, which about ⅔ of those over 65 have. It is not the same as "life-limited" at all. So I don't think that would be helpful.

Well for long Covid baby, I would (in the imaginary world where I run the press!) report on those who have recovered fully - also broken down into groupings of some sort. So say eg, we could then see if long Covid were more likely in young healthy females - and from there investigations could take place on why that might be.

I think it is definitely important to not just report deaths - it leads to the perception that death is the only important outcome, when disability is no less important.

Oops that should be "report on those who have recovered fully - vs those who have outstanding illness (and of how long they have had it)"

Ah DALY - I knew it had a term and it had completely disappeared from my head!
Disability adjusted life years.

I do think there needs to be more open debate about pre-existing or underlying health conditions, not just in reporting of mortality stats (where underlying health conditions may be irrelevant in terms of vulnerability to Covid) but also in terms of health decisions (rationing) of who goes to a Covid ward to die and who is deemed worthy of ICU care when resources are stretched.

Eg autism has no impact on vulnerability but considered less likely to comply with treatment (and economically unproductive). In the stats I have seen autism is classed as a pre-existing condition.

Pre-existing and underlying conditions does not mean likely to die in the next 12 months or especially vulnerable. But reporting suggests that this is the case.

I think we should classify the deaths by occupation.
So, if say a fireman died, that's a pretty dangerous job, so that death wouldn't matter as much as say a safe accountant.

Or maybe we could do the deaths by how much they earn. So a banker in a big house would be more important than a baker.

Or maybe by potential offspring???

Maybe we could group them by how many Facebook friends?

A life is a life FFS!!!

@BabyLlamaZen

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?

This really annoys me.

The only people 'unlikely to survive covid' are the ones who are already in extremely poor health, as in, already in hospital struggling with some other illness. Literally everybody else, no matter what their age or health status, has a strong likelihood of surviving.

Where on earth has the idea come from that covid is 'likely to kill' people who are otherwise doing ok? It's absolutely not true at all.

@Newjez

I think we should classify the deaths by occupation. So, if say a fireman died, that's a pretty dangerous job, so that death wouldn't matter as much as say a safe accountant.

Or maybe we could do the deaths by how much they earn. So a banker in a big house would be more important than a baker.

Or maybe by potential offspring???

Maybe we could group them by how many Facebook friends?

A life is a life FFS!!!

That would be comparable if the existing stats were focussing on deaths mainly being amongst people who were employed...

Something just popped up on my twitter... 94% of people age 70+ survive covid. Yet, I'll bet > 80% of people age 70+ have at least one pre-existing condition, most of them have multiple.

I believe many people are working on many of the issues OP & PP asked about, how to categorise outcomes & individual risk, but it's not supposed to be done quickly on back of envelope if we want the result to be believable. There has to be a practical purpose & scientific basis to the constructs.