Average age of coronavirus fatalities

[SlugsTrout]

www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19

That is all.

No, they don’t prevent mutations. New variants arise all the time, including during lockdowns. You could argue that we need to keep up restrictions to prevent any new mutations from spreading quickly through the population but that basically means locking down forever.

I don’t dismiss elderly people but people have to die and die of something.

I get your point OP and I agree but be prepared for an absolute flaming.

@MrsHastingslikethebattle

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

Study showing the overall death and hospital admission rates are declining even though cases are rising (probably due to the increased testing).

People love the doom and gloom of all this but won't have faith in the scientists and vaccines. Well i trust them to do their job.
We have vaccines with high efficiency rates, the mortality figure is shocking low to have the country locked up!

It’s great isn’t it? Israel is showing some really promising results as the nation furthest along with their vaccination programme.

However I disagree with your final sentence. The UK isn’t quite far enough along with its vaccination programme to start relaxing to extremes; however we are relaxing measures gradually because there’s still a need for caution to protect the unvaccinated and ensure the efficacy of the vaccines we’re using. This is the scientific advice if your supportive of the science.

To be concerned about the efficacy of vaccines against variants is just realism. So far we seem to be doing ok but it’s a possibility that can’t and shouldn’t be ignored. We need a good few months (if not longer) to gain any real confidence. I’m confident we’re nearing the end of this pandemic but the proof of that will take a while yet and it would be madness to get gung-ho about it at this stage.

@bumbleymummy

No, they don’t prevent mutations. New variants arise all the time, including during lockdowns. You could argue that we need to keep up restrictions to prevent any new mutations from spreading quickly through the population but that basically means locking down forever.

The factor that is most helpful in terms of generating mutations is simply the number of cases. The greater the number of cases - the more opportunity there is for new mutations to arise. This is why it's critical to drive cases down to a very low level before relaxing many restrictions.

The most effective way to generate vaccine resistant mutations is...

• Have half the population vaccinated.
• Have the virus running rampant in the other half - with very high numbers of cases leading to the generation of many new variants.

This is why, even with half the population vaccinated - it's not safe to completely relax restrictions on the half.

The b.1.1.7 variant arose in a chronically infected immunosuppressed person. There will always be new variants. The sooner that people accept this and decide to get on with their lives anyway, the better. Iirc flu mutates more often.

@titchy

There is absolutely no suggestion or evidence vaccines wont work on new strains.

Yes I know. But allow the virus to run riot in the under 50s now, could lead to a strain that the vaccine isn't effective against. The new vaccines have only been developed to cover the new strains that exist now. Viruses mutate. Lockdown and vaccines prevent that.

No booster jabs prevent that.

As you say, viruses mutate, they will continue to mutate so by this logic we need to keep on with the lockdowns? even though deaths and hospital admissions are declining despite new variants?

This logic is what scares the hell out of me.

@MrsHastingslikethebattle

You say booster jabs like they don’t take time to develop and physically get into arms.

If we had an influx of vaccine escaping variant then there is a possibility milder restrictions wouldn’t cut it and lockdown would have to be seriously considered again but the overall is there are no absolutes.

We have low cases and falling hospital admissions right now, largely as a result of lockdown not vaccinations. Lifting restrictions gradually is because we need to be cautious about the positive impact vaccines can provide until we have proof.

Chile is currently being discussed on the data thread because although they’re further along with vaccinations than we are they’re facing another lockdown. Whether that’s due to vaccine efficacy (it should be noted Israel doesn’t seem to be facing the same issues but they’ve a different predominant vaccine afaik) or other factors such as reopening too quickly at a too low complete vaccination level (that’s really badly worded! )

@Cornettoninja

Vaccine escaping variants? What? Show me where these are please. Every vaccine so far has shown high efficiency over every single variant.
(www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.11.435000v1) Novavax
(www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.11.435000v1) Astrazenca
(www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102179) Moderna, Pfzier
Hospitals and deaths declining over lockdown? Is that why were in our 3rd one? Hardly anyone is sticking to not seeing family this time and still mixing.
I would take a long shot guess and say that the majority of vulnerable being vaccinated, which there is evidence of the vaccines stopping transmission too (which I can link) is why hospital admissions are actually declining

@Cornettoninja - Vaccine escaping variants? What? Show me where these are please. Every vaccine so far has shown high efficiency over every single variant.

That's simply not true.

Try this recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine on the poor effectiveness of the Astrazeneca jab against the South African variant...

Efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2102214

"A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant."

@MrsHastingslikethebattle you’re asking for evidence that doesn’t exist?

The concern around vaccine efficacy is legitimate, so far it’s been okay but that’s not an absolute certainty to continue for the length of the pandemic and beyond is it? Efforts to monitor are for the sole purpose of catching any issues before they reach the scale of the last twelve months - or would you rather we just said to hell with it and then act all surprised if we’re caught off guard again?

Hospitals and deaths declining over lockdown? Is that why were in our 3rd one

Well yes because we’ve also relaxed restrictions in between. So far the only proven method we have of significantly reducing hospital admissions is lockdown. Vaccines should contribute to that but as we’ve yet to fully open we don’t actually know anything hence the gradual lifting of restrictions.

Hardly anyone is sticking to not seeing family this time and still mixing

Anecdata at best. Your experience is not universal.

I would take a long shot guess and say that the majority of vulnerable being vaccinated, which there is evidence of the vaccines stopping transmission too (which I can link) is why hospital admissions are actually declining

So you’re happy with ‘long shot guesses’ deciding on how to manage covid?

Link away, I’ve seen the data too and it’s incredibly promising which makes me happy. Doesn’t mean that we should throw caution to the wind and fling open everything at once with gay abandon and fingers crossed. Not when we have the opportunity to actually measure success before relying on it because it’s what we want to hear. Oh and maybe get a decent percentage actually fully vaccinated before deciding that everything is hunky dory.

@dividedwefall

I love all the people coming on to defend this with 'do you not care about old people'

Straw men to defend the indefensible.

We are hearing that all those dying after the vaccine would have died anyway as they were so old and frail. So which is it people?

What on earth do you mean?

Dying after the vaccine? What killed by the vaccine - actually none in the UK despite what 25m people having had it...

Dying of other causes after the vaccine? You do realise that the vaccine doesn't protect against dementia/heart disease etc etc

Dying of covid after the vaccine? Some have had covid after receiving the vaccine - the vaccine doesn't work on everyone and takes time to build up the antibodies so if you get covid the day after having the vaccine and die then..... it doesn't mean the vaccine didn't work

As you say, viruses mutate, they will continue to mutate so by this logic we need to keep on with the lockdowns? even though deaths and hospital admissions are declining despite new variants?
no of course not. We are slowly unlocking. Which is sensible. Totally unlocking in one fell swoop would be stupid though given that we're nowhere being fully vaxxed.

Mutations will happen of course, but the slower the spread, the slower the mutations develop.

Given that it probably takes a few months to spot and the same to develop a vaccine for a new variant we need to unlock slowly so we have time to check any subsequent mutations.

Unlock fully tomorrow, we'll have a vex resistant mutation by the summer and it'll take another few months to get a new vax for that one. In the meantime people die of the new variant.

Mutations will happen of course, but the slower the spread, the slower the mutations develop.

But we can’t keep the spread slow forever can we?

No, but we can go slow enough to reduce the number of further deaths as much as possible.

It is still the same balancing act with thousands of scientists across many disciplines working behind the scene to keep us all as safe as possible!

@MinnieMous3

Mutations will happen of course, but the slower the spread, the slower the mutations develop.

But we can’t keep the spread slow forever can we?

This is a point that many people don't consider.

We slow the spread so no new mutations can come but do we do this forever?
We open up now they could be a vaccine resistant mutation?
We open up in September and they could be vaccine resistant mutation?
We can open up next year..? You get the drift.

Though no mutation/variant so far has been resistant. Studies have shown the vaccines give a high protection from variants (which I can link if needs be).

To have lockdowns with mass devastating effects to 'slow down the spread' and 'stop mutations' is nonsensical.

The actual caution is positive; why the hyperbole and determination to interpret it as something else?

@CuriousaboutSamphire

No, but we can go slow enough to reduce the number of further deaths as much as possible.

It is still the same balancing act with thousands of scientists across many disciplines working behind the scene to keep us all as safe as possible!

What? For the rest of our lives?

Don't be daft! That sort of hyperbole helps noone! Nor does the To have lockdowns with mass devastating effects to 'slow down the spread' and 'stop mutations' is nonsensical. stuff.

Anybody who refuses to see that there is a global need to balance commerce and health has blinkers on, or just has their fingers in their ears, eyes tigh shut and are murmering no no no no.

Yu may not like it, you may have opinions on how well/badly any government has/is handling it. But to decide that the steps taken have been 'nonsensical' lacks critical thinking!

"I would take a long shot guess and say that the majority of vulnerable being vaccinated, which there is evidence of the vaccines stopping transmission too (which I can link) is why hospital admissions are actually declining."

I would also think vaccinating vulnerable would lower hospital admissions (a big part of helping NHS cope) and deaths. Isn't that why they are amongst the first to be vaccinated?

Now now yoyo that's common sense. Stop it!

@yoyo1234

"I would take a long shot guess and say that the majority of vulnerable being vaccinated, which there is evidence of the vaccines stopping transmission too (which I can link) is why hospital admissions are actually declining."

I would also think vaccinating vulnerable would lower hospital admissions (a big part of helping NHS cope) and deaths. Isn't that why they are amongst the first to be vaccinated?

Yes it is but to use a metaphor do you run a bath then stick your hand in to test the temperature or do you just hop in?

We have some really good initial findings from the vaccines but we haven’t tested their real life efficacy in unrestricted conditions.

Israel is showing some excellent results with 54% of their adult population fully vaccinated, Chile isn’t and is talking about another lockdown with 34% at one dose. What do you think we should pay attention to here?

@SymphonyofShadows

My cousin was 47, no underlying conditions. Two other people I know were in their 30’s. Take your stats and shove them up your arse.

They are clearly outliers then, as the stats show that age is overwhelmingly the risk factor, along with obesity and underlying conditions

I don't think we should cull old people or anything like that but I do think pretty much everyone would rather die at 80 than 20.

The other thing, of course, is that I feel like plenty of the people happy to say "oh but young people risk long COVID" would change their tune the minute those people with long COVID need benefits or concrete help from the government.
In fact, whether Mumsnet is Logan's Run or not, we live pretty much in a gerontocracy where the government is mainly concerned with property-owning pensioners. And outside the topic of long COVID, when it comes to the fact that most jobs lost were lost by young people, people's attitude changes to "it's their fault for eating avocado toast". So forgive me if I think some people's concern over young people and long COVID is mainly performative (no, I don't want to get long COVID but at least part of why I don't want to get it is that the welfare system in this country has been getting more and more inhumane for the last decade or more and I don't want to have to deal with it if possible.)

@pucelleauxblanchesmains

I don't think we should cull old people or anything like that but I do think pretty much everyone would rather die at 80 than 20.

I'd rather die painlessly at 20 than in a nasty way at 80.