417 dead

[Standandwait]

417 people under 40 have died of CV in hospital in England from when the pandemic began to Jan 16, according to the NHS. Another 4,081 under 60 have died.

This is out of 60,921 total deaths NHS England recorded; by comparison, gov.uk counts 89,261 deaths total in England to Jan. 17, but they don’t break it down by age group. The quickest glance at deaths in care homes suggests those basically explain the difference in the two totals. I assume it's possible to come up with comparable figures for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too -- I just happen to live in England and got tired.

Lord knows, I'm not looking to "kill granny." I have a lot of dearly beloved family over 80, and am closer than not to 60. I also have a disabled child, which means I know not only him but many other very vulnerable families. I have followed lockdown rules quite faithfully, myself.

But I really, really am beginning to have grave reservations about locking down again and again. If you feel otherwise, please talk me around.

NikeDeLaSwoosh

Interesting thoughts about long term survival of the species Nike, but unfortunately, we are human beings that love and feel pain. We naturally want to survive.

It’s an interesting philosophical discussion to be had but perhaps not right now when people’s family members are dying horribly in massive numbers, people’s mental health is on the floor and we’re on the verge of a return to something like the pre-antibiotic era, with the collapse of the NHS??

Personally, I am not so pessimistic about the human race and don’t feel the need to draw a dichotomy between millions of people dying and suffering, and the survival of the planet. I hope there is something in between.

Ok, so where is this from?

What time period does it cover?

I can see nothing to confirm that this refers to Covid cases alone.

It’s meaningless.

And another:

Oops sorry, didn't post:

Another of these bloody threads.

Yes quite right, let's not lockdown, let 300,000 die and deal with the heaps of corpses and the long covid afterwards

You’re not talking about the same thing @NikeDeLaSwoosh

Deaths are not the same as hospital admissions.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-55586994

In the last few weeks, for example, adults aged 18-64 have accounted for 40% of daily Covid admissions to hospitals, data from Public Health England shows. This compares to 40% for 65-84 year olds and 20% for the over-85s.

And there has been a steep rise in the numbers of people in their mid-40s to mid-60s becoming seriously ill with Covid and being admitted to intensive care units.

Why don't you look at antinatalism Nike? May interest you.

Nike - 'Give me proof it's not 80 year olds in ICU'

Madhair - 'Here you are'

Nike - 'That's meaningless'

That doesn’t support your claim though.

You asserted that the ‘vast majority’ of Covid cases in itu are in their 40s/50s and 60s.

The graph you’ve posted doesn’t show that at all.

I am just reeling at the number of people who think that older and vulnerable people dying is somehow less important than the death of younger healthier people.

@titchy

Nike - 'Give me proof it's not 80 year olds in ICU'

Madhair - 'Here you are'

Nike - 'That's meaningless'

Any graph that doesn’t show the features I listed is inherently meaningless.

We teach that at KS1 these days.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh - How about the latest ICNARC report instead then? Figure 23 (page 28)

www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/4cd9c693-6657-eb11-912d-00505601089b

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

But it's not that age groups who form the vast majority of people in ICUs with covid at present. It's people in their 40s, 50s and 60s

Do you have a source for this? A lot of people make this point, but nobody has actually offered any data that supports it.

On the other hand the NHS’s own figures confirm both that the average age of a Covid death is 82, and furthermore only 377 healthy people under 60 have died.

These Actual, published stats really don’t support your claim.

I’m happy to be proven wrong though.

OK, so you don't care about 377 deaths. I suppose, then, that you don't want changes to the building regulations and flammable building cladding, because ONLY less than a hundred people have died in buildings with flammable cladding in the last few years???

Re car/driving deaths, I seem to recall the figures which showed most of the deaths were "self inflicted" in terms of speeding, drink/drug driving, driving without due care & attention etc or pedestrians doing dangerous things (i.e. not looking, crossing on red etc). Very few deaths occurred from "innocents" in other vehicles or on pavements/roads etc doing nothing wrong. So comparing motoring deaths is pretty irrelevant, when covid happily attacks "the innocent" who are doing nothing wrong or stupid.

This is the original source of the graph upthread showing split of ICU occupancy by age.
mobile.twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1350416445080006657

[quote PowerslidePanda]@NikeDeLaSwoosh - How about the latest ICNARC report instead then? Figure 23 (page 28)

www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/4cd9c693-6657-eb11-912d-00505601089b[/quote]
That refers to admissions though, not currently occupying beds.

Whilst this was undeniably awful, it did mean we had no issues around climate change, overpopulation etc. I do wonder if accepting those deaths as a normal part of life might have been a better strategy for the long term survival of our species.

I’ll go you one further. If climate change, overpopulation etc. renders homo sapiens extinct, something else will fill the niche, so to place our species above the needs of our replacements is almost, well, speciesist. It’s life that’s important, not human life in particular. Call it the ultimate pro-life position.

Jesus, these threads. At least it got me to look up antinatalism, which is about as far from a site called mumsnet as can be imagined.

[quote FindHungrySamurai]This is the original source of the graph upthread showing split of ICU occupancy by age.
mobile.twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1350416445080006657[/quote]
Your source is from Social Media?

Your source is from Social Media?

You might want to google the credentials of the author of the tweet...

OK, so you don't care about 377 deaths. I suppose, then, that you don't want changes to the building regulations and flammable building cladding, because ONLY less than a hundred people have died in buildings with flammable cladding in the last few years???

It’s about proportionality.

If changes to buildings regs resulted in the whole country having their civil liberties removed to prevent a few hundred deaths, then no, it shouldn’t become policy.

Taken to its extreme, incarcerating the whole population at birth would arguably keep us all ‘safe’, so why don’t we do that?

Yes the professor in question feels strongly about communication and social engagement, especially at a time like this, so when she feels that her analysis of government data would be enlightening to the general public she puts it on her Twitter feed.

Objecting because “it’s social media” is like calling everything from random facebook conspiracy theories to the ONS “something you got off the internet”.

That refers to admissions though, not currently occupying beds.

But it clearly shows that people in ICU are not the over 85s at all, and that younger age groups are more likely to be admitted to ICU.

Your mental gymnastics to deny this is astounding. The information is out there and evident in every hospital.

And yes, I attached a graph from a trusted source, not just 'social media'.

If changes to buildings regs resulted in the whole country having their civil liberties removed to prevent a few hundred deaths, then no, it shouldn’t become policy.

The issue here is that you are minimising the other 90,000 covid deaths as not worthy of counting, in order to suit your narrative.

Plus the fact that deaths are not the main factor involved in lockdown decisions, as people keep explaining so clearly and patiently. Sigh.

@Standandwait

417 people under 40 have died of CV in hospital in England from when the pandemic began to Jan 16, according to the NHS. Another 4,081 under 60 have died.

This is out of 60,921 total deaths NHS England recorded; by comparison, gov.uk counts 89,261 deaths total in England to Jan. 17, but they don’t break it down by age group. The quickest glance at deaths in care homes suggests those basically explain the difference in the two totals. I assume it's possible to come up with comparable figures for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too -- I just happen to live in England and got tired.

Lord knows, I'm not looking to "kill granny." I have a lot of dearly beloved family over 80, and am closer than not to 60. I also have a disabled child, which means I know not only him but many other very vulnerable families. I have followed lockdown rules quite faithfully, myself.

But I really, really am beginning to have grave reservations about locking down again and again. If you feel otherwise, please talk me around.

Perhaps the government could send you photographs of all those who died. Maybe little profiles so you know who they left behind. People who are childless, motherless or fatherless, but at least if you have your way they could go out to a coffee and go clothes shopping.

Perhaps we could also ask for photos of everyone under 40 who died of anything last year?

*Yes. People get sick, and sometimes it’s horrible and life ruining.

It’s a normal part of the human experience though, I’m honestly really surprised by the number of adults who genuinely seem to believe they, and their relatives, will live completely healthy lives forevermore.

It’s as if people have literally only just found out that sickness and death are actual things.*

Not true at all. Of course we know that these are actual things. Certainly I do; I experienced chronic illness in my youth (fortunately I'm now much better) and also had family members with even more serious illnesses and as result of that have an INFINITE TERROR of long-term ill-health.

No one thinks they'll be alive and healthy forever, but that's no reason for just allowing people to die or become chronically ill if one doesn't have to!

There could be grounds for arguing that the economic damage of lockdown could end up causing more illness and death than it prevents. If we weren't on the verge of controlling the situation through a vaccine, I might take this argument seriously. But it is absolutely not fair to demand that people accept unnecessary ill-health or unnecessarily premature death, just because death at some point and some degree of illness are inevitable. The logical conclusion would be that we shouldn't have bothered to improve sanitation and nutrition and medicine in the last 200 years, and just be satisfied to see about one child in four dying before the age of 5 , and few people living into old age, because after all illness and death are natural!