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.

@CoffeeandCroissant

A lot of ‘small’ studies and ‘suggests’ phrasing means that it’s by no means certain that long-haul COVID is a thing beyond post-viral syndrome which can happen after any viral infection. They need to prove that it’s something unique to COVID which is not established

We can't tell from those statistic when the risk increases because the age bands are too wide. If everyone in the 45-64 age band that died was 63 ( unlikely I accept) the figures would be the same.

I don’t understand the surprise. Isn’t this what was expected?

I think if we'd asked those older people who got covid and passed away, do you want the young to have their lives ruined and the economy ruined so you could live longer they'd say no way. If my mum was still here she'd be appalled at what's happening to young people and their futures. She always told me she'd had a good life and it was someone else's turn now. She also said modern medicine keeps you alive too long. She died at 85.

@ssd

I think if we'd asked those older people who got covid and passed away, do you want the young to have their lives ruined and the economy ruined so you could live longer they'd say no way. If my mum was still here she'd be appalled at what's happening to young people and their futures. She always told me she'd had a good life and it was someone else's turn now. She also said modern medicine keeps you alive too long. She died at 85.

The solution then is to smoke...A bit of stress relief - and shorter lifespan.

Presumably your mum would've chosen to save the long-term economy for the young? In which case we need to tackle Covid.

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

I suspect (or at least hope) most of the elderly include young people with underlying conditions amongst The Young they wish to protect.

@MangoFeverDream

Yes, but that's the point. It's not so much about proving that it's something unique or additional (although that may also be the case), but we know that post viral syndrome from Covid-19 can happen, what we need to know/ don't know is is it more common, less common or equally as common than is the case with other viral infections? Once we know that we can use prevalence of Covid-19 infections to estimate how many people may be affected and potential risk factors for those who have not yet had Covid-19.

Hence him also saying that "We urgently need well-controlled studies among the majority of those infected who did not need hospitalisation in case we are only seeing the tip of the COVID iceberg."

Until we know more and as there is so much we don't know, erring on the side of caution seems appropriate.

Meanwhile I for one am very glad that many people live beyond 85.

Sir David Attenborough, for example, continues to give so much to society. I watched his most recent documentary yesterday. So enjoyable, interesting, and educational.

Has its downsides though. Care home rooms full of people with Dementia are more plentiful than they have ever been.

There is no way we were meant to live this long as frequently as we currently are doing. Imagine some of those sat in those care homes having to go out & catch & cook dinner?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lingering-coronavirus-symptoms-worse-than-death-toll-says-professor-7rvk8grmw

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54296223
From the BBC article
The World Health Organization has warned that widespread inflammation caused by coronavirus could lead to people having heart problems at a much younger age.

Like @CoffeeandCroissant says, at this early stage, until we know more, not adopting a caution approach is a giant Russian Roulette gamble with the health of everyone - younger generations included.

@MummyPop00

Has its downsides though. Care home rooms full of people with Dementia are more plentiful than they have ever been.

There is no way we were meant to live this long as frequently as we currently are doing. Imagine some of those sat in those care homes having to go out & catch & cook dinner?

So the solution is 🚬

@MummyPop00

Has its downsides though. Care home rooms full of people with Dementia are more plentiful than they have ever been.

There is no way we were meant to live this long as frequently as we currently are doing. Imagine some of those sat in those care homes having to go out & catch & cook dinner?

Live less long? So let's encourage 🚬 and lots of 🍰 and 🍔 and 🍟

Well all your doing is reverting to a life span more in tune with what nature intended, but with the bonus of lots of cake :)

Smokers are fine by me, provide plenty of tax revenue to cover their sins. Don’t usually hang around as long either. Their choice.

Meanwhile over 65s, expendable as they might be when it comes to Covid, are apparently perfectly fit and healthy and well enough to work full-time - up to 68 and beyond.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-54421662

When you look at the population pyramid, and the mushrooming debt they’ll have to work till 68 & quite possibly beyond that in the not so distant future, maybe in part time sedentary roles etc

@MummyPop00

Well all your doing is reverting to a life span more in tune with what nature intended, but with the bonus of lots of cake :)

Smokers are fine by me, provide plenty of tax revenue to cover their sins. Don’t usually hang around as long either. Their choice.

I think it's a very reasonable argument Quality of life over longevity.

I agree about smokers too. They cost the NHS millions - but pay in billions of tax revenue.

I'm going offline to enjoy a large slice (or two) of chocolate cake

A lot of the deaths happened in Care Homes, where I presume most of the residents are elderly.
I read the median age for Covid deaths was 82, but I guess it varies a bit, by sex, etc
I use the ONS figures, which I consider the be the most reliable, although they only release them a week later, as the data is retrieved from the death certificate. They release data on a weekly basis, and include the date registered and date occurred.
We hear about the healthy 40 year old, etc because it is much more rare.

Regardless, the elderly in CH's have a right to a year or two just as much as anyone else, i don't see the age of the victims is relevant.

It worries me seeing comments like this because I think it shows a lack of understanding of the reality of the situation. In order to save the lives of those elderly people en masse, you have to sacrifice younger people. It's that stark. To save elderly people, you need to restrict the movement of much of society, yes? Locking people down to different degrees slows the virus and, in the short term, slows deaths. You have a smaller chance of carers taking the virus into homes. But those same restrictions also cause death and if not death then the financial pain that lies ahead for many is going to be utterly catastrophic. Right now we have caused the deaths of other elderly people (e.g people with dementia who declined drastically for having less human contact), we have seen suicides (two here local to me just recently and no doubt we will get far more as the recession bites properly), we haven't really started to see the impact of the lack of cancer screening and treatment - there has just been a study saying more treatment could be going ahead as many surgeries don't generate that much in the way of aerosols.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to value every individual equally - I have a great aunt in her 90's who is really sharp, extremely clever and she could live a relatively long while to come (she's very pragmatic about the idea of getting COVID and dying, by the way, as she considers herself to have had a good life and knows she has to die of something). But crashing the economy to save people in care homes - you are harming the life chances of much younger people, you are risking the lives of younger people who would otherwise not be at risk of dying. I'm not ok with that not because elderly people have less value but because it's utterly barbaric - dying is natural when you're old. I think even very elderly people can feel a very strong desire to live and I would be the same if I was old and in good health, but this is a pandemic, I wouldn't be sitting there at the age of 85 wanting young people to have a dreadful life ahead of them to give me a couple more years. If you've made it to 85, you're already very lucky.

And I don't want there to be no restrictions, but I don't think many of them have been necessary and some have definitely done more harm than good. We just can't see that harm yet.

@milveycrohn

A lot of the deaths happened in Care Homes, where I presume most of the residents are elderly. I read the median age for Covid deaths was 82, but I guess it varies a bit, by sex, etc I use the ONS figures, which I consider the be the most reliable, although they only release them a week later, as the data is retrieved from the death certificate. They release data on a weekly basis, and include the date registered and date occurred. We hear about the healthy 40 year old, etc because it is much more rare.

Lots of care home residents are younger people. They're for people with care needs - which includes many young disabled people.

We hear about the previously healthy 40 (or 20 or 30) somethings because of their disabling experiences of Long Covid.

@TheAdventuresoftheWishingChair
Morals aside, NOT containing Covid is what crashes the economy.

You can't have failed to see how much healthier the economies are for countries who've taken effective containment measures.

People are talking like dying of Covid is inevitable once a certain age is reached. It really isn't. Most people survive it even in their 80s.

The last two winters have been truly mild flu seasons. This is one reason there's a top heavy population bulge at the moment and was a contributary factor to there being so many deaths amongst the elderly back in March and April.

At some point in someone's life, they are going to die of something.

You can't have failed to see how much healthier the economies are for countries who've taken effective containment measures

Again, you pretend that all countries that have effectively controlled the virus have done the same things, when nothing could be further from the truth. Compare brutal lockdowns in China to Japan, which did hardly anything (certainly no widespread culture of wfh), to New Zealand who closed borders to the rest of the world and forced citizens into government quarantine facilities.

People are talking like dying of Covid is inevitable once a certain age is reached. It really isn't. Most people survive it even in their 80s

But that's not the point.

The lockdown is to prevent a lot of people, hundreds of thousands of people, becoming sick, or dying, in a very short space of time.

Suppressing the virus means that less people catch it all at once and the services can cope

[quote Ecosse]@SheepandCow

‘Long covid’ doesn’t exist. A very small number of people do suffer post-viral syndrome.

But this is the same as any other virus- there is no evidence at all that these after effects are any more common or severe with COVID.[/quote]
You're on a hiding to nothing here, @Ecosse.

Every single bout of ordinary flu (likewise Swine Flu) has, in my case, led to pneumonia, chronic fatigue, lung shadows, wanting to die, blah, blah, blah, for months after the main event.

But nobody is interested in this, because only our hallowed Covid counts for anything. "Long Covid" is the Covideer's pornography. If you've died while reading this post, don't bother reporting it unless you tested positive for fucking Covid in the meantime.

@Flaxmeadow

People are talking like dying of Covid is inevitable once a certain age is reached. It really isn't. Most people survive it even in their 80s

But that's not the point.

The lockdown is to prevent a lot of people, hundreds of thousands of people, becoming sick, or dying, in a very short space of time.

Suppressing the virus means that less people catch it all at once and the services can cope

@Flaxmeadow

"Fewer people", not "less people'.

If that's the point of lockdown, how long are you suggesting we need to lock down for?

It's a fucking virus. No more, no less.

"Fewer people", not "less people'.

Sorry I do apologise. I didnt realise this thread was a grammar competition

If that's the point of lockdown, how long are you suggesting we need to lock down for?

No one knows yet

It's a fucking virus. No more, no less.

Riiiiiight. No kidding

Flax, sorry for being pedantic. It's the only thing I can actually, concretely make better in this situation.

I take it you have not lost your job, and that your sector has not been comprehensively fucked, as a result of lockdown?