For people who like 'following the science' - what research shows about the impact of human relationships on health and life expectancy

[TheDailyCarbunkle]

Research with tens of thousands of people showed that it wasn't weight, alcohol consumption or even whether or not you smoked that was the greatest predictor of how long a person lives. In second place in the top ten factors that contribute to health and long life is close relationships, people you can rely on and talk to. In first place as in, the number one predictor of health and survival is the range of both strong and weak connections a person has, ie the extent to which they chat to people day to day - the person in the coffee shop, the cleaner at work, your neighbours. Conversely, not interacting with other people day to day, not having incidental conversations with people, has a massive impact on health. It is the primary factor that makes the difference.

This is an excellent talk about the effect of relationships on health, I'd recommend watching it: www.ted.com/talks/susan_pinker_the_secret_to_living_longer_may_be_your_social_life/transcript?language=en

@titchy I've even circled it for you in Red. These figures of from the PHE.

@TheDailyCarbunkle

Regardless this isn't about covid statistics.

It wasnt me who suggested statistics on this thread. People are flinging 115,00 deaths to shot in peoples faces whenever they say the lack of interaction and lockdowns have a bigger impact than Covid itself.

My grandfather died from isolation. He was shut in a room at his care home with no visitors allowed in order to protect him from covid. But all it did was give him a slow and miserable death all by himself

What I will say is that if you go back way before Covid there are many many many posts on here from people celebrating their antisocial tendancies. Moaning about minor irrigations from work colleagues who have the temerity to talk to them, refusing to answer door bells or phone calls because they are intrusive talking about how much they get an annoyed with everyone just for being alive . I think as a society we stopped aspiring to live like the people in that Ted talk a long time ago . The pandemic may be making things worse but our socially fractured society predates Covid by hundreds of years

Indeed it does - I did a lot of work on the politics of sixteenth century communities at one point in my career and people lived incredibly close, intertwined lives in their small communities (though they weren't as fixed or self-contained as people often assume) - and they frequently hated each other! The MNers who won't open their doors have nothing on their early modern equivalents, who would have happily taken their neighbour to court for slander if they called them a name in a (cart) parking dispute...

But I also think community is one of those things you don't know you've got until it's gone. I hadn't realised at all how much I valued my loose social connections - colleagues that I chat to in the kitchen, the woman in the coffee shop who knows my order, other parents I chat to before DS's swimming class - until they all disappeared from my life.

But there are credible reports that show for every three people who've died from Covid, at least two have died from the lock down.

Link to the reports please.

In terms of covid deaths, the thing that people seem to miss is that your risk from covid is pretty much pre-determined, so if you're young and healthy then the chances of you being badly affected by covid (ie very ill or dying) are practically zero. TO EMPHASISE FOR PEOPLE WHO LOVE TO JUMP ON THIS - THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT NO YOUNG AND HEALTHY PEOPLE GET ILL, JUST THAT THE NUMBERS ARE LOW. That's not speculation, that's just fact, supported by the data. So for some people, covid is not a personal health threat to them. IT MAY BE A HEALTH THREAT TO PEOPLE THEY LOVE I AM AWARE OF THIS SO DON'T SAY IT.

In contrast, lockdown is a health threat to literally everybody, including children, whose susceptibility to covid is extremely low. So lockdown takes a threat that is specific to some and spreads it to the entire population. On top of that, while covid is one specific threat, the threats posed by lockdown - the effects of longterm isolation, poverty, job losses, etc - are multiple.

So what lockdown does is guarantees that everyone suffers.

What a fantastic solution.

the woman in the coffee shop who knows my order

I used to travel to Manchester for work every fortnight (1 overnight stay) - the lovely staff in the supermarket knew my salad order for my dinner even tho' they saw me so infrequently;
-I'd always have a catch-up chat with the reception staff at the office building while I was going through the sign-in and security procedures (and they'd help me out with practical things because I have small-joint problems in my hands).

It is the little things like that which I'll probably not do again (not for at least 2 years).

I miss interactions too. Esp as someone with a toddler who does school run, or used to. Hard to see these days people still doing it happily.

I have noticed this lockdown that strangers are very nice with random chats. It’s not good enough substitute but small reprieve.

The idea that risk has been spread in op’s post is an interesting one.

but there is no way to determine if the Covid contributed to their death there fore should not be down as a secondary cause

Of course there is. Doctors use their judgement and experience to determine the cause.

If you're going to be completely reductive you ocould also argue that they died because their heart stopped beating. So how does the doctor know that the pneumonia caused that? There's no way to tell is there. Maybe the heart randomly stopped...

except of course the doctor is experienced enough to say the pneumonia caused the heart to stop. Same as they're experienced enough to say that the patient would normally have been expected to survive the pneumonia with treatment, but that because their respiratory function was impaired due to Covid they didn't.

What are the risks to the economy and mental health of the nation of letting covid run unchecked through the population given the huge number of deaths when there have been extreme control measures?

What are the impacts to the economy and mental health of the nation of letting covid run unchecked when if you catch it you may be out of action for weeks or longer?

What are the impacts to the economy and mental health of the nation of letting covid run unchecked and the NHS being unable to cope with the numbers of people needing ventilators, oxygen etc and the terrible decisions that would need to be made about access to interventions there?

It’s not as straightforward as lockdown = shit for everyone and no lockdown = great for most people is it?

[quote DuchessofHastings1]@titchy I've even circled it for you in Red. These figures of from the PHE.[/quote]
Do you understand that if something is stated on a death certificate as not the underlying cause, then in the opinion of the clinician it still contributed to their death? So while the pneumonia was the underlying cause of death, them having covid was a contributory factor.

See section 4.1:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877302/guidance-for-doctors-completing-medical-certificates-of-cause-of-death-covid-19.pdf

@noblegiraffe

What are the risks to the economy and mental health of the nation of letting covid run unchecked through the population given the huge number of deaths when there have been extreme control measures?

What are the impacts to the economy and mental health of the nation of letting covid run unchecked when if you catch it you may be out of action for weeks or longer?

What are the impacts to the economy and mental health of the nation of letting covid run unchecked and the NHS being unable to cope with the numbers of people needing ventilators, oxygen etc and the terrible decisions that would need to be made about access to interventions there?

It’s not as straightforward as lockdown = shit for everyone and no lockdown = great for most people is it?

No of course not. But I'm baffled by the assumption that the only two possible options are 'running unchecked' or lockdown. There also seems to be an assumption that the havoc wreaked by lockdown is simply unavoidable while the supposed havoc wreaked by any other approach to covid must be avoided at all costs. Why are people choosing obvious harm?

Furlough was only in place initially for 8 weeks or thereabouts iirc

Whilst scientists talked about rolling lockdown I do wonder if some thought was that it would be shorter than it has been

If lockdown were simply annoying but beneficial I could understand people being accepting of it. But lockdown will, definitely, kill people. It already has. So as a 'solution' it is itself is 'deadly' (to use a term so favoured when describing covid). So why is 'deadly' covid to be avoided no matter what, but 'deadly' lockdown is embraced with open arms?? I can't fathom the thinking at all.

Lockdown is a response to a rapid and alarming increase in cases caused by too much social contact.

It’s a boom and bust cycle. People arguing against lockdown tend to be against many or any restrictions.

What are you in favour of?

What I also don't get is this: being susceptible to a virus is terrible, but it is a fact of life. The virus happened, it's shit, but there's no turning back time on that one.

It makes sense to protect people from a virus. But killing people to do so? Extending harm beyond the virus itself, to people who are not susceptible to it? Ensuring everyone suffers? What is the point?

@noblegiraffe

Lockdown is a response to a rapid and alarming increase in cases caused by too much social contact.

It’s a boom and bust cycle. People arguing against lockdown tend to be against many or any restrictions.

What are you in favour of?

I'm in favour of measures that take everyone's needs into account. Children need education for example, so closing schools should only be done when there is a very very strong, evidenced argument for doing so, where the harm caused by it is definitely outweighed by the benefit. Currently, all the evidence indicates that closing schools causes a lot more harm than good.

I'm in favour of seeing human contact as a necessary, vital part of keeping people alive and healthy, not purely as a vector of disease. I'm in favour of people's need for human contact being recognised as a fundamental need, not as a frivolous thing that can just be ditched for other reasons. I'm in favour of not storing up absolutely astronomical problems for the future by having a panicked reaction to one threat that goes on and on into absurdity.

I am also in favour of the transmission of disease being recognised as a natural consequence of being human, not as a massive moral failing or as something that must be avoided at all costs, even at the cost of people's lives.

What are you in favour of?

Because you appear to be up for sacrificing those susceptible to the virus as a fact of life, with no consideration of the impact that would have?

yy Tornado. My MH issues were on and off for years and while it still flickers every so often (thank you menopause and being a LP) this isn't actually that awful. I'm able to focus and push through.

I also think we over egg the good of digital communication and on screen replacement.

There was a phrase for rl contact. Meaningful contact? Maybe can’t remember.

But finally it was a acknowledged that shutting people in a room, eg care home with a screen lacked this.

I'm in favour of seeing human contact as a necessary, vital part of keeping people alive and healthy, not purely as a vector of disease. I'm in favour of people's need for human contact being recognised as a fundamental need, not as a frivolous thing that can just be ditched for other reasons. I'm in favour of not storing up absolutely astronomical problems for the future by having a panicked reaction to one threat that goes on and on into absurdity.

That's unspecific. I'm sure everyone would agree with bland statements like that. Specifically, how would YOU square the circle of reducing deaths and NHS pressure, with continuing human context. What specifically would you have open, and what restrictions would you have? How many people would die or be saved with each of those?

It's dead easy to sit at a keyboard saying 'this has to happen', but how do you then mitigate the effect that has on the NHS etc? Money where mouth is please.

(And as I said earlier I don't underestimate the effect lockdown is having on people's MH at all, but equally don't underestimate the effect on the MH of those incredibly worried about catching CV that no lockdown would cause.)

@noblegiraffe you reminded me that at least a week before lockdown - and 3 to 4 week before in most cases - people were taking personal action to minimise interaction with others if they could.

So even with no lockdowns people wouldn't be interacting with others as "normal".

@TheDailyCarbunkle so how do you stop children bringing it into their family homes, and infecting more vulnerable family members who take up hospital beds?

I know more than one family where the person who brought the infection in to their homes is a child.

Currently, all the evidence indicates that closing schools causes a lot more harm than good.

Even the anti lockdown group that is pushing hard for schools to re-open before 8th March don’t claim this.

@noblegiraffe

What are you in favour of?

Because you appear to be up for sacrificing those susceptible to the virus as a fact of life, with no consideration of the impact that would have?

I don't understand how you got this from what I said.

It is interesting though that you call it 'sacrificing' as though we're somehow offering them up to be killed. Are the people killed through lockdown also 'sacrificed'?