4,200 children have lost a parent to Covid in New York State.

[ChavvySexPond]

Why do you think 4.200 children in New York State have lost a parent to Covid pushing them into single parent poverty or the care system?

And do you think it will happen here? Or are we protected by having the National Health Service?

uhfnyc.org/news/article/uhf-report-4200-children-nys--lost-parent-covid-19/

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/champ.gothamist.com/champ/gothamist/news/more-children-ny-state-have-lost-parents-due-covid-19-911-attacks

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thecity.nyc/platform/amp/health/2020/9/30/21494764/thousands-of-new-york-children-lost-a-parent-to-covid-19-study-finds

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8791297/amp/More-4-000-New-York-children-lost-parent-coronavirus-report-finds.html

[quote Ecosse]@TheSeedsOfADream

Clearly any death is unfortunate. But I think it’s important to challenge this scaremongering that some seem to indulge in promoting the idea that COVID is a death sentence.

The vast majority of people are at extremely low risk of death or serious illness from this virus and that message should be shouted from the rooftops.[/quote]
Absolutely.

Though tbf, the only thing I see on here are the posts that could be seen as almost reverse scaremongering (dismissing the very real scientifically proven risks of this thing) and which could arguably cause more damage to society in the long run. As we've seen, the UK's leaders have downplayed constantly, and the rise in infections with local lockdowns is the result.

It's not black or white. Covid will kill. The vast majority of us will be fine.

But I don't want to be part of a society that thinks the elderly and vulnerable are dispensable. Which unfortunately, is the message which, maybe inadvertently, those who don't think restrictions and preventive measures are warranted, appear to be promulgating.

@Woundedadmiral

The vast, vast majority of COVID deaths occur in people who are over the age of 80

What a meaningless statement. A huge number can be a minority of a still bigger number, you know. Doesn't stop it being a huge number. You'd have a point if Covid was less infectious.

What gives it meaning is the standard deviation, which as far as I know is around 8, so the number of 'young' people who will have died of C19 are not statistically significant.

"Well, next time you meet someone whose husband is in intensive care with Covid, you can tell them that.

I'm sure they'll find it a far more appropriate way of looking at things to think of their own husband as merely a fraction of a statistical percentage point rather than the man she and her young children love."

I don't know why you would expect us to have an emotional reaction to an anecdote about a stranger on mumsnets neighbour. Equally I wouldnt think you would be bothered about my neighbour. It's a sad story but obviously people will look to the data about the risk groups rather than your story.

@Legoandloldolls

I never get why these threads turn they way they do.

Why is it ageist to state the facts? It's a fact that your more likely to get heart disease over 40 than under 40.

Would the politically correct WOKE approach to be to stop shielding people based on age, ethnic origin, health conditions? God forbid we upset someone.

No one here has said minority groups or older people dont matter have they?

Why do people have to spend their entire lives outlook in outrage?

I'm.obese based on my BMI but I dont feel the urge to get outraged and say "do I not matter?!" If someone said I'm more likely to die of covid?

Why dont we just stop researching this pandemic and ignore who might not fair so well completely. That way no one has to be offended.

Covid kills humans. Happy with that? Your a human so you have 1% chance of dying if you catch it. Any further detail is hate speech 🤔

It isn't ageist to state the facts. It's ageist to think it's not OK that you can't go and get pissed with 36 other people because of "some random 80 year old" (a quote from another thread)

Though tbf, the only thing I see on here are the posts that could be seen as almost reverse scaremongering (dismissing the very real scientifically proven risks of this thing) and which could arguably cause more damage to society in the long run. As we've seen, the UK's leaders have downplayed constantly, and the rise in infections with local lockdowns is the result.

You should quote them.

@Ecosse

The vast vast majority of those 5000 people in the 45-64 category would have had underlying health conditions *@Witchend*.

People under 80 without underlying conditions have far mor exchange of dying in a car or domestic accident than being killed by COVID in a year.

You do know these 'underlying conditions' include things like autism, mild asthma and psoriasis? Hardly at death's door, and yet seemingly not worthy of counting among the actual deaths in your narrative, where you like to use the words 'vast majority' an awful lot in order to minimise, other and deny reality.

Well, next time you meet someone whose husband is in intensive care with Covid, you can tell them that.

I'm sure they'll find it a far more appropriate way of looking at things to think of their own husband as merely a fraction of a statistical percentage point rather than the man she and her young children love.

There you go again.

You do know these 'underlying conditions' include things like autism, mild asthma and psoriasis? Hardly at death's door, and yet seemingly not worthy of counting among the actual deaths in your narrative, where you like to use the words 'vast majority' an awful lot in order to minimise, other and deny reality.

This is complete nonsense. Maybe if you comb the internet you can find some article that says that some death certificate said psoriasis, but the underlying comorbidities are overwhelmingly diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, hypertension, heart disease and so on.

@Jrobhatch29

"Yes, of course, you're right. When my neighbour was in hospital with it his wife told me she was trying to prepare herself to be a widow and felt she had to be extra careful not to catch covid so her children didn't become orphans."

Yes you are right. That one anecdote completely changes the statistics and facts of this virus.

How would you think differently from her if your husband was in in intensive care with Covid?

Would you be focussed on the statistics or your husband?

As the 4,200 NY children who have lost a parent to Covid clearly demonstrates, tiny percentages of large numbers can have massive real world implications. All those statistics are real people after all.

When in March the IHME predicted that U.K. covid related excess deaths by August would equal around 0.1% of the population no one gave a shit unless it was also explained that this was a predicted range between 66,000 and 120,000 deaths.

Tiny percentages are only comforting if not related to real world numbers

@Refractory

Well, next time you meet someone whose husband is in intensive care with Covid, you can tell them that.

I'm sure they'll find it a far more appropriate way of looking at things to think of their own husband as merely a fraction of a statistical percentage point rather than the man she and her young children love.

There you go again.

Still sticking with the false comfort of tiny percentage points over the reality of real numbers and real people, eh?

Still sticking with the false comfort of tiny percentage points over the reality of real numbers and real people, eh?

How is it false comfort? Of course every death is a real person. But you have to understand that your chances if you are to get it are very good.

Not complete nonsense. Many people with psoriasis are on immune suppressants to control it and therefore on the list of those more at risk, as are people with asthma and some with autism, it's out there in the public domain.

In answer to the question in the OP, I think that 4,200 children lost a parent to covid in NYC because the state was hit so brutally hard by the virus. Deaths per 100,000 are over 1700 in NYS - even with the shit show management here, with one of the highest rates in the world we are only (I’m using the term comparatively) at around 675. So I would hope that we never get anywhere near those stats and am fairly confident that things won’t get so disastrously out of hand from this point that we will.

The article also refers to families being pushed into poverty by the effects of lockdown, not just deaths from covid. So Like a PP I’m not sure what lesson there is to this and the post does come across as scaremongering. Tragically children will lose parents directly to covid, but also, others will lose parents to the effects of lockdown.

I agree with Ilovejkrowling about things being done better in schools though.

Still sticking with the false comfort of tiny percentage points over the reality of real numbers and real people, eh?

That is the opposite of false comfort.

"How would you think differently from her if your husband was in in intensive care with Covid?

Would you be focussed on the statistics or your husband?"

I would obviously be devastated. However I wouldnt expect strangers on mumsnet to be upset about it or try to make them feel scared about something that is very, very unlikely to happen to them.

@Madhairday

Not complete nonsense. Many people with psoriasis are on immune suppressants to control it and therefore on the list of those more at risk, as are people with asthma and some with autism, it's out there in the public domain.

This is all nonsense. If you want to convince anyone that autism or psoriasis are significant risk factors, just post links.

FYI I posted a link upthread about asthma, neither is that true.

@Refractory

"What gives it meaning is the standard deviation, which as far as I know is around 8, so the number of 'young' people who will have died of C19 are not statistically significant."

It's not useful to look at whether it is statistically significant when we know that a small fraction of a very large number can still be a large number. If a large number of parents are infected and a small fraction of them die, thousands of children will be affected.

Indeed, I would guess that in hard hit areas of the UK our numbers are probably not very dissimilar to hard hit areas of America, but as this data doesn't seem to be made available in the same way it has been made available in New York we don't know for sure.

Why would we not consider the impact this will have? The children in Essex whose parent have died will be greatly affected, of course. Their community is also likely to be affected as large numbers of parent deaths will have an impact on the school community, children's friends, etc.

How in the world can you dismiss this as scaremongering?

I'm not dismissing the impact, rather, I think it needs to be contextualised.

If C19 is creating a lot of orphans, you can absolutely, positively infer from this that this is a broader problem, year in and year out (and it is - I would not say otherwise). The 'sceptic' approach to C19 complications doesn't say, 'this doesn't matter', but rather 'how are we managing these risks today?'

Moreover, I would assume that the average orphan typically loses their parents to cancer, addiction, heart disease, accidents and so on (typical 40s or 50s mortalities) and these conditions all spike during economic downturns so in fact we can anticipate more orphans than usual in coming years. This doesn't require a google search.

The 'sceptic' approach to C19 complications doesn't say, 'this doesn't matter', but rather 'how are we managing these risks today?'

Should have said:

The 'sceptic' approach to C19 complications doesn't say, 'this doesn't matter', but rather 'how were we managing these risks before?'

Agreed that there is a wider problem, but if we take the view that most parents will be fine and on that basis allow this to carry on spreading as it is through families (even if we were somehow able to shield those in nursing homes or over the age of 80) there will be many more parent deaths than usual in a very short period of time, and a number of those will be of parents who otherwise would have been expected to live for much longer.

So proceeding with the view that children and families don't need to be protected from C19 because as a group they are viewed as at relatively low risk from C19 is flawed.

I agree that C19 deaths will tend to be dense (like all respiratory viruses), although I don't see how this compounds the misery of losing your parents to be honest.

and a number of those will be of parents who otherwise would have been expected to live for much longer.

This I can't agree with, it is very unlikely that someone who would die of an opportunistic viral infection would have many more years to live, but this will only be proven in the 2020-21 mortality analysis.

I’m doubting the validity of the data. It’s based on assumptions. Then reprinted into other news articles.

@Refractory

I agree that C19 deaths will tend to be dense (like all respiratory viruses), although I don't see how this compounds the misery of losing your parents to be honest.

and a number of those will be of parents who otherwise would have been expected to live for much longer.

This I can't agree with, it is very unlikely that someone who would die of an opportunistic viral infection would have many more years to live, but this will only be proven in the 2020-21 mortality analysis.

You are wrong about opportunistic illness.

People can have many decades of life ahead but can die of an opportunistic virus. It is possible to be very well in between episodes of infection and to be very ill when infected. I know this through my own experience, but I'm also medically qualified and really happy to discuss further.

You mustn't write off people's lives like this.

I really don't know what you mean by C19 deaths being "dense" though.

Well over 200, 000 people have died in the States against a background of over 7 million infections. The CFR there approaches 3%.

We will do better in the UK if we respect this illness and act intelligently to mitigate its effects in advance of winter descending.

People can have many decades of life ahead but can die of an opportunistic virus. It is possible to be very well in between episodes of infection and to be very ill when infected. I know this through my own experience, but I'm also medically qualified and really happy to discuss further.

It's not really a medical issue, though, is it? It's a statistical issue. You can't predict who will or will not die from an opportunistic infection. A small percentage will; a small percentage have.

My cousin, who lives in a Middle East country, passed away from covid a few days - he was 42 with no (known) health conditions. Left behind three children and his wife. They had very mild symptoms, just slight coughs. Getting prompt hospital treatment is so key to a good outcome, even if you’re young Unfortunately it didn’t happen in his case. And not in places like Queens in NY, where hospitals really were flooded with covid patients at the end of March.