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

[quote RedMarauder]@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.[/quote]
Yes, children bring infections into the home. That has always happened. What's the solution? Keep children in boxes? Close all schools permanently?

Yes, children bring infections into the home. That has always happened.

You do understand that a novel virus pandemic situation is different to what has always happened?

[quote 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[/quote]
I'm sure you're right that lack of interaction would have a detrimental effect. What does research say would happen if we let millions die, let the hospitals close for lack of staff/resources and were unable to get food to those in need?

Wouldn't a lot of those people be unable to interact with family because their family had died or because transport and communications had broken down?

What's the solution? Keep children in boxes? Close all schools permanently?

That betrays such a complete lack of imagination.

Restrictions to bring the infection rates down to a low rate (lockdown) and then mitigation measures to control the spread within schools (there were very few in Sept and infection rates spiralled in secondary school children as a result).

Combined with other restrictions, an effective test and trace system (also not in place) these could stop the boom and bust cycle.

@noblegiraffe

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.

If you're referring to us for them, then I don't know how you drew that conclusion because it's wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that closing schools benefits children more than having them open?

If you're referring to us for them, then I don't know how you drew that conclusion because it's wrong

Hah. What a surprise that you know what I’m talking about.

But see their campaign posters asking for the government to quantify the harms and benefits.

If U4T had the evidence it would be front and centre of the campaign, not framed as a suggestive question.

@noblegiraffe

What's the solution? Keep children in boxes? Close all schools permanently?

That betrays such a complete lack of imagination.

Restrictions to bring the infection rates down to a low rate (lockdown) and then mitigation measures to control the spread within schools (there were very few in Sept and infection rates spiralled in secondary school children as a result).

Combined with other restrictions, an effective test and trace system (also not in place) these could stop the boom and bust cycle.

I can't believe people are still touting the 'millions dying' nonsense @LastTrainEast. There is no evidence at all not a single shred that that would ever happen in any scenario and yet it is so effectively keeping people afraid, making them believe that the horrendous harm being done now is genuinely to avoid this fictional apocalypse.

Every single shred of evidence from the entire world shows that the 'millions dead' scenario categorically would not happen, no matter how few restrictions were in place, simply because covid isn't deadly enough.

So if you're basing your acceptance of the destruction of your children's future on that, don't.

You do know the main study was on nuns. The variables to someone living out of cloisters are massive. And they are talking about a huge chunk of your life- not a fees years. FFS

And the other study group was 11 people.

You obviously know nothing of scientific method if you think a TED Talk is a convincing set of evidence.

There is already over a million dead worldwide.

The current total is 2.36 million.

And that is an under estimate because some third world countries will have no idea how many people in rural communities have died.

@noblegiraffe

If you're referring to us for them, then I don't know how you drew that conclusion because it's wrong

Hah. What a surprise that you know what I’m talking about.

But see their campaign posters asking for the government to quantify the harms and benefits.

If U4T had the evidence it would be front and centre of the campaign, not framed as a suggestive question.

How very selective of you. If you look at the many other pieces of evidence they reference, you will see there is plenty of proof that children who are kept at home fall behind, suffer social isolation, are greater victims of abuse etc.

Honestly though I really really can't believe that I have to argue that children being at school is better for them than not being at school. Surely that is just obvious??????

@BelleSausage

There is already over a million dead worldwide.

The current total is 2.36 million.

And that is an under estimate because some third world countries will have no idea how many people in rural communities have died.

What I was referring to was millions within the UK. But you knew that.

@bumblingbovine49 i agree with everything in your post, and the OPs. We are losing any sense of how vital human contact is to our physical health, not only mental health. And also any ability to question why we should be preserving life at all costs, without regard to life quality.

@TheDailyCarbunkle

No, I didn’t.

Any comment on the 2.36 million worldwide? That’s a lot of people.

I believe Boris talked about 500,000 dead without lockdown. Considering we’ve already hit 114,000 then I don’t see how that’s so impossible.

Your scientific method sucks.

[quote BelleSausage]@TheDailyCarbunkle

No, I didn’t.

Any comment on the 2.36 million worldwide? That’s a lot of people.

I believe Boris talked about 500,000 dead without lockdown. Considering we’ve already hit 114,000 then I don’t see how that’s so impossible.

Your scientific method sucks.[/quote]
It is a lot of people. I wonder how many lockdown will kill? Or do they just not count?

The poster I was replying to said 'millions dead' and she was talking about in the UK. That's what I was replying to.

I don't know what 'your scientific method sucks' is supposed to mean sorry.

I have to argue that children being at school is better for them than not being at school.

Well duh. But we’re in a pandemic.

No restrictions applied is of course better for individuals. We all want to go about our business, see friends, go to work.

Of course it’s better.

But in the context of a pandemic, it might not be possible.

[quote BelleSausage]@TheDailyCarbunkle

No, I didn’t.

Any comment on the 2.36 million worldwide? That’s a lot of people.

I believe Boris talked about 500,000 dead without lockdown. Considering we’ve already hit 114,000 then I don’t see how that’s so impossible.

Your scientific method sucks.[/quote]
Sounds about right. No lockdown we get to 80% of population catching it. IFR of 1% is 528,000 dead.

@noblegiraffe

I have to argue that children being at school is better for them than not being at school.

Well duh. But we’re in a pandemic.

No restrictions applied is of course better for individuals. We all want to go about our business, see friends, go to work.

Of course it’s better.

But in the context of a pandemic, it might not be possible.

And what I'm saying in response is that denying people those things does them harm, so under the guise of 'protecting' people they are being harmed. Just saying 'it's not possible' for people to access things they need in order to live (eg having a salary to buy food) and stay healthy (contact with other humans) isn't acceptable in my view. It is exchanging one harm for another, which is not a solution.

Lockdown won't kill half a million due to social isolation FFS. There's no evidence that supports that at all.

It is exchanging one harm for another, which is not a solution.

I don't think anyone's denying that are they? But a solution which kills 10 people and saves 2000 is a decent solution in the absence of any alternative.

@titchy

Lockdown won't kill half a million due to social isolation FFS. There's no evidence that supports that at all.

No of course not. That's not what I said.

The number one predictor of health and longevity is social interaction with others - face to face. That is currently banned, ie the government has prevented people from engaging in the number one activity that prevents disease and death. To put it in context, the impact of this measure is greater than if the government forced everybody to start smoking. That will have a huge impact on health, not just in terms of death but in terms of overall susceptibility to illness - cancer, for example.

Add that to the biggest recession the UK has ever experienced, massive damage to the next generation's education, job losses, Brexit, etc etc and the impact of lockdown is astronomical.

@titchy

It is exchanging one harm for another, which is not a solution.

I don't think anyone's denying that are they? But a solution which kills 10 people and saves 2000 is a decent solution in the absence of any alternative.

So it's a numbers game? Are you happy to be one of the 10? As in, would you be happy to be a person who has nothing to fear from covid but who is killed in exchange for those who are?

It also baffles me that people think the deaths from lockdown will be low.

How is that possible? The number one predictor of death, beyond the behaviours referenced in the research I mentioned, is poverty. Lockdown is creating poverty beyond anything the UK has experienced in decades. It is creating the conditions in which death rates soar - unemployment, poverty, poor educational outcomes. I perfect storm of massive risk factors.

So it's a numbers game? Are you happy to be one of the 10? As in, would you be happy to be a person who has nothing to fear from covid but who is killed in exchange for those who are?

Well I've a far lower chance of being the one in 10 than I have of being the 1 in 2000!

But yes, it is a numbers game. It can't be anything else. For the 10, it's nothing but a tragedy. But bluntly - better 10 tragedies than 2000 tragedies.

@titchy

So it's a numbers game? Are you happy to be one of the 10? As in, would you be happy to be a person who has nothing to fear from covid but who is killed in exchange for those who are?

Well I've a far lower chance of being the one in 10 than I have of being the 1 in 2000!

But yes, it is a numbers game. It can't be anything else. For the 10, it's nothing but a tragedy. But bluntly - better 10 tragedies than 2000 tragedies.

Do you understand that lockdown will create 'tragedies' for decades to come? Or do you believe that somehow we can just not experience any of the usual fallout of mass unemployment and poverty?

The number one predictor of death, beyond the behaviours referenced in the research I mentioned, is poverty.

I'm glad you've realised the error of your opening post where you said:

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