The average age of people who die of Covid is apparently older than British life expectancy. This can't be true can it?

[Treesofwood]

I've tried to find data rather than just a tweet and I can't. I did find something about the median age of deaths in France being 81. This can't be true either, surely? Median being the middle number if they were all lined up.
I knew it disproportionately impacted older people obviously, but surprised by this data.

@SheepandCow

Here's an idea. We save the economy (and lives) and avoid risking a significant proportion of the younger generation suffering from disabling Long Covid.

Let's take action to contain Covid. Like @NikeDeLaSwoosh says, short term pain, long term gain.

We all know the countries who've contained Covid have healthier economies.

#ContainCovidSaveTheLongTermEconomy

Its a virus. Its not containable. The countries that have managed to temporarily contain it will be right back to square one when the global economy opens up again.

We perhaps need to accept the fact that this virus is going to do terrible things - kill the elderly and vulnerable and potentially leave some people with long term effects.

We don't have an automatic right to an easy/long/healthy life though. It's just naive to think that with enough pluck and determination we can overcome any challenge we face as a civilisation.

I've said this before, but its only in the last 100 years or so that we realistically expected all of our DCs to outlive us (and indeed to survive childbirth). Perhaps we need to accept that this is going to be a dark chapter of our history, and no amount of mask-wearing and hand gel is going to magically fix it.

Not surprising in the slightest. This is a very mild disease for the great majority of people. However, more recent reports of lung, heart and liver damage in recovered people is very worrying

It’s absolutely correct- healthy people under 80 have far more chance of dying in a car accident than from COVID.

It is beyond me why lockdown restrictions have been imposed on much of the country yet the elderly and vulnerable are not being shielded.

The focus should be on throwing resources at protecting those at risk. The rest of us should be taking sensible precautions, avoiding large crowds but otherwise getting back to something more like normal.

We will soon not have an economy left to go back to if we carry on with this nonsense.

I agree Ecosse, the argument from the government has always been that its somehow not possible to adequately shield the elderly, but it seems to be possible to lockdown the whole country, so why not only a small section of it (plus their carers)?

It really makes no sense.

Healthy people under 80
Relevance why?
Millions of the working age population have an underlying condition. The Others are a rather large group.

Can't be contained? Bollocks! The evidence speaks for itself. Not quite sure what you mean by talking about 'when the global economy opens up'. Countries that have successfully contained Covid (New Zealand, Australia, much of Asia, the Isle of Man, etc) are still importing and exporting goods. And when they open up to more international travel they'll manage just fine doing so with all the other sensible countries. They don't need infected Brits.

However, more recent reports of lung, heart and liver damage in recovered people is very worrying

It is worrying - but also we only know about some of that damage because we’re looking for it. Covid is being studied in a way most other viruses haven’t been. If you scanned the hearts of people who’d had other viruses would there be damage there? Is there greater incidence of “long covid” than lingering effects of flu, pneumonia, glandular fever etc? I know previously healthy people who’ve taken months to get over the above viruses. I don’t think the risks should be dismissed but neither should they be panicked about as I think sections of the media would like to encourage.

I agree with Ecosse. This has been my view since the beginning. It is as though people forget how many people live on our small isles.

We live close to London and work in London. We know one person who had it hastily but was notnadmitted to hospital. Her family (DH, DD 21, DS16) had barely a symptom. We know one person who had it mildly. I think it probably squished through my office in Feb. All now well. We have 1100 employees two have had it badly, hospitalised and over 55 but overweight and not robust.

We have set the economy back to the day Denis Healey took his begging bowl to the IMF. I have voted Conservative since 1979. I am deeply ashamed but hasten to add I voted for Hunt in the leadership contest and he would have locked down sooner.

@SheepandCow

The vast, vast majority of people who were shielded were above retirement age.

There are obviously a number of working age people who are extremely vulnerable- these individuals should absolutely be protected. The government should imo pay their wages for them to stay at home.

“It is beyond me why lockdown restrictions have been imposed on much of the country yet the elderly and vulnerable are not being shielded.”

The trouble is, unless you euthanise them, leave them to just rot in their own beds or have a quite exceptional group of carers, you cannot “shield” the very elderly in care homes or receiving carers. They cannot isolate (because they cannot safely look after themselves), and therefore they are dependent on several other people caring for them and often getting very close for personal care. Unless you can find enough carers willing to “live in” 24/7 indefinitely, if the virus is rampant in the community it will get into elderly care homes and the homes of those who receive care in their own homes. Are you volunteering to work for minimum wage as a carer, locked in a nursing home for the next several months with the elderly residents in order to “shield them”? I’m not seeing a lot of people signing up for that.... That’s before you get into the likelihood of elderly people needing medical treatment for other things and thus catching covid in hospital and before you get into the issue of visitors

An otherwise healthy 20/30/40 something person, with no children, no partner working outside the home and a job they could do from home could maybe shield indefinitely, at great cost to their mental health and opportunities but the vast majority of the most vulnerable are the elderly, and they just can’t. You can have a conversation about whether you are willing to allow the potentially premature death of the elderly if you want, but you cannot pretend you can just stick them all in a cupboard until it is “over”, which by your own admission is pretty much never going to happen.

@AlecTrevelyan006

but, but, but... I keep reading on MN about loads of fit marathon runners and cyclists in their 30s with no underlying health conditions dropping like flies...

They’re not dying but those super-fit in February athletes are often still unable to climb two flights of stairs 3months after “recovering” from covid and need a mid afternoon nap most days. Still, at least they’re alive eh? What are they complaining about?

@Ecosse Really? Where did you that?
Despite age being one of the risk factors, the shielding list didn't include people purely because of their age. Lots of younger people were on it actually.

The shielding list was seriously lacking in any event. Many of the most extremely vulnerable to death - diabetics, for example, were left off it.

The ONS @SheepandCow. The vast majority of shielders were over 65.

Would you utterly destroy the future of your own DC and GDC just to buy yourself an additional 9 years of life though?

But that is not the point of the lockdowns

The lockdowns are not to save lives as such. They are to prevent a lot of people, of whatever age, becoming ill or dying in a short space of time.

Would you see your very sick or dying parents or Grandparents have no access to an ambulance, a nurse, a hospital or any kind of care at all. Not just that, but social services and the police would very quickly become overwhelmed if the virus was left to run wild. There would be shortages of food, shortages of drugs, oxygen, ppe. You would not be able to phone anyone for help. No police, crime waves, even rioting. Probably the army brought in and martial law. People would die in the street

I dont get why people don't understand this

*"underlying, predominantly lifestyle-related health conditions (obesity, diabetes, dementia).""

I don't think dementia is particularly life-style related is it? Someone else has commented on diabetes below. (I realise this is not relevant to the primary point of the thread!)

Yes to the pp who said their mil has a higher life expectancy than the pp - in a way it does make sense because if you've reached the age of eg 80 that itself is a relevant factor, because I suppose it demonstrates you have a certain 'ability to survive' - the younger you are, the less your survival capability has been tested. Again not relevant to the primary theme of the thread!

Would you see your very sick or dying parents or Grandparents have no access to an ambulance, a nurse, a hospital or any kind of care at all

The point is, my own elderly parents would happily refuse all but palliative care if it came to it so that their GDC could have a shot at a normal life.

Older people are a sentient bunch, with their own opinions.

It has been my experience that the whole 'protect the elderly' narrative has a lot more to do with my generation not having come to terms with the fact that their parents won't always be with them, and therefore panicking into the wholly disproportionate response we are currently seeing.

I would like to see some evidence of how long covid differs from other post viral syndromes.
I have fibromyalgia, which was triggered by a viral labrinthitis infection 20+ years ago, makes life very difficult sometimes. I would like to know how 'long covid' compares andhow often it truly is long covid and not a case of the infection triggering a genetic trait ,as in my case, that could have been triggered by any infection.

I don't think dementia is particularly life-style related is it?

Long term, regular physical exercise has a dramatic preventative effect on dementia.

Playing football can increase the risk though, as there is also a proven link between heading the ball and later dementia.

out of all age groups, they are one the ones who are affected
yet they are the ones who have most exposure to live viruses since they were born. Some of my antivaxxers friends thinks if you don’t let your body build up immunity against live viruses, it will make you weak around newer viruses. But the younger generations have been vaccinated and they recovered just fine with coronavirus. Anyway, we can thank medicine that younger people with complications can survive this.

The lockdowns are not to save lives as such. They are to prevent a lot of people, of whatever age, becoming ill or dying in a short space of time

This used to be the rationale, but the recent 'mission creep' means that we are now pursuing a fool's errand strategy of eradicating the virus.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

Absolutely- my DM is 85 and she has absolutely no desire to make young people sacrifice their jobs, education and lives to ‘protect’ her.

In any event, she feels she’d far rather take sensible precautions but at least have the chance to see family and friends in the toke she’s got left than be cooped up at home.

The point is, my own elderly parents would happily refuse all but palliative care if it came to it so that their GDC could have a shot at a normal life.

With respect, it isn't about what your parents want. It's about all of us. Without lockdown it would be chaos, not just for elderly people but for everyone

Older people are a sentient bunch, with their own opinions.

Sentient? What!

It has been my experience that the whole 'protect the elderly' narrative has a lot more to do with my generation not having come to terms with the fact that their parents won't always be with them, and therefore panicking into the wholly disproportionate response we are currently seeing

It hasn't been about "protect the elderly". It's about protecting the services. If the virus was left to run wild, then many people would require services, not just the elderly, but also many of those working in the health services, the social services and the police would be off sick from work. This would happen in a very short space of time

I dont understand why people can't contemplate this

@Flaxmeadow

No one that I can see is suggesting letting the virus ‘run wild’. We are saying that lockdown is not a viable solution.

Anyway, we can thank medicine that younger people with complications can survive this.

Yes the saving grace is that children and young people are not affected by this virus but what about thanking the older generation for creating the NHS. They were the ones who paid in taxes to found it.

But what now? Throw them on the scrap heap. Let them die alone with no nurse or health care. No police, no social services

What is happening to us that we think this. Its fucking cruel

It has been true from the start. David spiegelhalter (he's a professor for the public understanding of risk or something) said in March that your risk of dying of coronavirus is the same as your risk of dying of any cause in the next year. In other words 81 year olds probably have an 80% chance of dying in the next year, which is the same as their covid mortality (not saying those are the exact figures but that's how he was explaining it). I think the interview was on radio 4. So yes, our lives are utterly destroyed to save our parents, and imprison them in loneliness for the last years of their lives. Stay safe!

@Tootletum

It has been true from the start. David spiegelhalter (he's a professor for the public understanding of risk or something) said in March that your risk of dying of coronavirus is the same as your risk of dying of any cause in the next year. In other words 81 year olds probably have an 80% chance of dying in the next year, which is the same as their covid mortality (not saying those are the exact figures but that's how he was explaining it). I think the interview was on radio 4. So yes, our lives are utterly destroyed to save our parents, and imprison them in loneliness for the last years of their lives. Stay safe!

That isn't true though, covid multiplies risk x 2 or more for some people