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.

Lord knows, I'm not looking to "kill granny.

That's exactly how your post reads though.

My daughter's covid ward of 30, had 12 people die in 36 hours last week. And they weren't all old. two in their early 60s and one in his 30s. None of them made it as far as ICU. The age cohort that is dying now is getting younger, she says.

She didn't intend to, but she's put the fear of God in me. I'm in my 60s and thought I had a decent chance of getting an ICU bed of the shit hit the fan. But apparently not.

Well, what age group would have an impact on your OP? Would it be my doctor niece in her 30s who was blue-lit to hospital? Would it be my schoolfriend in her 40s who spent 3 weeks in intensive care and has been left with permanent lung damage?
Would it be my DSIS who spent part of this week in ICU? What about the spike in school-children being diagnosed with diabetes after mild Covid cases?
Any of them, worth you stopping being so bloody selfish? Any of them, worth you thinking that maybe you should listen to the doctors, scientists and experts who are begging you to lock down?

You know these threads remind me of abusive men trying to force their partners into doing a continual 'pick-me' dance. Ooh, OP, let us be the ones to convince you of social and collective responsibility! You know what - don't. Just shove your selfishness and your selective stats. And take your abusive techniques to where the MRAs and TRAs and other trolls hang out.

I'm so fucking over these threads.

Well yes eventually we'll have to come up with something a bit better than claiming a cup of coffee kills. And a bit less ham fisted than making businesses pay thousands for equipment and a fucking certificate saying they're safe, and then making them close because they're not safe. I have no idea what that is though.

@Elephant4

“ Sorry - what I mean by the first bit @titchy is - if our NHS had been better funded and in a better place to start with (prior to the pandemic) we might not have to lockdown now.”

As I just said in my previous post, unfortunately it doesn’t matter how good your healthcare system is, uncontrolled spread of this virus would rapidly overwhelm any healthcare system, even a better one than ours.

Japan, Germany, Thailand, Singapore, Australia, take your pick.

4498 people under 60 have died, precisely because we have been locked-down all this time thus limiting the opportunities for people of this age group to catch the disease. Were we not locked down, far more under 60s would have been going about their work and business as usual which would have meant far more of this age group catching it (and a correspondingly larger number dying).

Plus don't forget that estimated 5-10% of people have symptoms lasting much longer than the course of the illness. I have two friends - previously healthy women in their 40s - who have still not been able to return to work after a bout of Covid in March-April.

Look also at the damage it can do to your lungs. A relatively small number from this age group will die, but many more will be disabled, or have to live with this "underlying condition", for the rest of their lives.
.

I agree with you, OP

the more people who get it the more likely it will mutate & that could be even more catastrophic than it is now - it might start effecting younger people more & killing them (to be blunt) that is the other reason
besides the fact that although younger patients have more chance of survival the more people who get it & need care the less able the nhs will be able to care for them for them at optimum level - THEREFORE more young people will die -
Many younger people who become hospitalised &many who are quite ill but not hospitalised take a long time to recover - some will have permanent damage to their health - requiring dialysis or having sever lung or heart damage or strokes. The other point is that people have died from these side effects after one month & these are not in their figures

not sever severe

Remember that when they talk about people with 'underlying health conditions', that includes a lot of people who are a lot 'healthier' than their friends and family.

Nobody really knows the real numbers. If a 30 year old surgeon with well managed diabetes dies 28 days after a positive test, it's recorded in the same category as a 30 year old with terminal lung cancer who tested positive.

Havent read all comments but this is what worries me, once the older and vunreble are vaccinated by say easter, are we all expected to go back to semi normal? If all the younger are at just the same risk then surely all we need to stay the same to protect the NHS and younger generation or maybe I'm dumb.

So 400 approx died aged under 40.... and the rest of those who died, what about them?

Do people not count aged over 40? If they do then what's your point op? It would be madness NOT to lockdown at this point in time.

People keep trying to balance out the figures with mental health and suicides/cancer patients, which yes is fucking awful, but can't seem to grasp that without a lockdown we might have lost around half a million people by now.

It's also interesting about no known underlying health conditions, are autopsy performed on these people?

A lady on TV earlier had no idea she had one kidney, half a womb, one tube and couldn't work out about her lungs and only found out during her third child birth and c section.

No it's not okay. Thousands die every year from flu and pneumonia etc, is more research into vaccines needed.

Yes the NHS is underfunded. But are posters seriously saying that if it was properly funded up to European average levels it would be totally able to cope with the pandemic running wild and we wouldn’t have to lock down? Seriously? Because I have news for them.

I also have a useful graph showing who’s in ICU. It’s not the over eighties.

The lockdown isn’t about saving lives. It’s about ensuring the NHS has capacity to deal with the number of hospitalisations.

Fucking hell there’s some stupidity on this thread. Do you not realise if we don’t lockdown the virus will rampage through the population, the NHS will be totally overwhelmed, medical staff will all have breakdowns and no other conditions will get treated for a really long time? Plus the economy will massively tank. Jeez. But hey, let’s let all the old folk die eh?

@IdblowJonSnow

So 400 approx died aged under 40.... and the rest of those who died, what about them?

Do people not count aged over 40? If they do then what's your point op? It would be madness NOT to lockdown at this point in time.

People keep trying to balance out the figures with mental health and suicides/cancer patients, which yes is fucking awful, but can't seem to grasp that without a lockdown we might have lost around half a million people by now.

And when people balance out the figures with mental health etc they don't consider how everyone's mental health would be affected if we didn't have a lockdown and EVERYONE had family members pass.

@Babyroobs

The lockdown is to protect the NHS. News reports are showing ambulances queuing and 999 calls going answered and a person dying in a car as their relative tried to get them to hospital themselves after waiting so long for an ambulance. How much worse would this all be with no lockdown ??

Came here to say just this.

@FlyMyPrettiesFly

The lockdown isn’t about saving lives. It’s about ensuring the NHS has capacity to deal with the number of hospitalisations.

Isn’t that still saving lives? People who can’t be supported in hospital will die.

If our NHS was in a better place we might be able to keep going nearer to normal for longer

No it wouldn’t. Our numbers are horrific. A lot of places in the world would have been in lockdown with numbers lower than the numbers we had coming out of the last one. I don’t disagree that austerity has had an effect of the NHS but this is largely a problem of the second lockdown coming way too late and then being relaxed too early with a test & trace system that doesn’t really work well.

Not this again.

Okay. You have an accident. You fall from the loft and break your back and hit your head causing severe concussion while doing DIY. In normal times your dp phones 999 and they send an ambulance/air ambulance and you get a hospital bed.

If the NHS is overwhelmed, then you're told that there is no ambulance.
Ever phoned 999 and got through to a message "we are experiencing especially high levels of calls right now, and there is no operator to take your call. Please hang up and call again" and then the line goes dead?
I have. I had that at work. It took 3 times to get through with someone unconscious on the floor with suspected stroke. It is absolutely terrifying and you feel totally helpless. In our case we got through on the third time and then we were told we were high priority- only three hour wait.
We got the person to hospital in the car when they regained consciousness.
With a broken back and head injury you can't do that; potentially deadly if you try and move them.

And maybe there's no bed when you get there. And the consultant/surgeon you would normally have had is off isolating, so they've not got any one who can really deal with you.
And maybe you catch covid in hospital. You're now weak and vulnerable, so you may end up as one of those "doesn't really count" statistics.

Or are you suggesting the doctors look at people and say "you know, this person counts as vulnerable, they've had pretty bad asthma for twenty years, we can't afford the bed for them when we know we'll have someone who has a better chance of survival.
Do you know what's on the list for people with "underlying conditions"? There's certainly several you wouldn't expect to effect chance of survival-like mental health issues.
Maybe they look at your injuries and think "this person will need an ICU bed and we haven't got one" and have to make the decision they won't do the lifesaving operation because there are too many other people needing help with a better chance of survival than you.

That is what you are looking at if the NHS is overwhelmed.

You're not locking down just to stop the elderly dying from covid. You are locking down to enable people to get their cancer diagnosis, their heart operation, their kidney dialysis, their transplant they've been waiting for for three years... and your dc to be able to get urgent treatment when they present with symptoms of meningitis etc.
People will die and be left with life changing conditions because they will not have been able to access what they need. That is the reality of the NHS being overwhelmed.

I would have thought that after around ten months people would have been able to work this out for themselves rather than needing it spelt out.

I think it’s more about the amount of people needing hospitalisation which would put a huge strain on the nhs. Also the amount of people who would be off sick from work all the time, logistically workplaces wouldn’t be able to cope.

I don’t disagree that austerity has had an effect of the NHS but this is largely a problem of the second lockdown coming way too late and then being relaxed too early with a test & trace system that doesn’t really work well.

Absolutely. We went into the worst time of the year for respiratory illnesses with case numbers far, far too high and there was no action until the situation was absolutely dire.

@Kettlingur good point