Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Average age of coronavirus fatalities

253 replies

SlugsTrout · 27/03/2021 13:53

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

That is all.

OP posts:
LindaEllen · 28/03/2021 11:48

You're kind of missing the point about it being mainly elderly people who die, because it has always been more about protecting the NHS from being overwhelmed - and protecting those who needed it for non-covid related reasons.

But even despite that, the elderly of course deserve to live. My grandad was living completely independently with his wife this time last year. They travelled abroad several times a year, had no help at home, did their own shopping and everything, even at the age of 79. They had a brilliant social life.

Fast forward one week and my grandad was fighting for his life in hospital.

He was in for a few weeks and thank goodness he came home and he's now back to normal - but it took a very very long time to get him there. He was weak for ages, but now he and my gran are independent again, going out for walks, and they'll be first in line at the pub when it opens!

They are very very loved family members, who contribute massively to the economy and the local community, and absolutely deserved to live.

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 28/03/2021 12:00

@titchy

Would you be ok if the government had said their new policy was not to treat anyone over the age of 70 for covid? So not admit anyone to hospital, no drug treatments, just left at home to either pull through or die?
Tbf, several countries had to do this after the virus got hold. Italy, Spain and parts of the US IIRC.

Unfortunately there’s no way of letting the virus spread uncontrolled among younger people that doesn’t seem to lead to the older age groups being infected. And if you want to prevent icu becoming saturated the age of people isolating is going to have to come right down.

titchy · 28/03/2021 12:01

Nobody is saying leave the elderly to die.

Then what's your arguments? You're implying that we shouldn't have locked down, shouldn't have postponed existing medical treatments etc? How could we have carried on as before to preserve the MH of the young, businesses etc AND treated the elderly for CV?

The NHS was pretty much overwhelmed even with lockdowns. How could it suddenly have managed without lockdowns, unless there was a policy decision not to treat the elderly?

Reallybadidea · 28/03/2021 12:06

What do you think should have happened then instead of lockdown? And why do you think that option wasn't taken?

Doyoumindfisithere · 28/03/2021 12:10

Nobody is saying leave the elderly to die... just we shouldn't have done the things we did do that helped limit deaths, and you have no alternative ideas Hmm

Tigerchips · 28/03/2021 12:12

You talk utter shite. It's a shame that you didn't actually follow through with that is all Hmm

Teacakequeen · 28/03/2021 12:16

This is people who died with Covid, not of Covid. It's quite different. We can't really judge how many people Covid has actually killed with the statistics we have unfortunately. The fact that it's mostly over 80s who have died is neither here nor there. You might argue over 80s are more likely to die of something anyway, but what about morbidly obese people in their 20s or 30s or disabled people ?

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 28/03/2021 12:20

Isn’t the average number of life years lost to covid in the U.K. 10 years, anyway? Possibly more for men.

Cornettoninja · 28/03/2021 12:32

I'd happily die for my grandchildren if it meant they would get to have the childhood and education they deserve

Good for you.

Back in the real world, lots of people dying in the same short time period (relatively short - allowing covid to spread could take months/years) means that there would be no healthcare available for your grandchildren. Are you happy with that?

I often see people saying they’d be happy not to receive any health care intervention but in real life that just doesn’t happen. People who feel like they’re dying seek help. People who come in to contact with people who they think might be dying seek help. I wouldn’t put my loved ones in the position of coping alone with me dying or having to deal with the removal of my corpse if I could possibly help it. It’s not a position that’s going to save anyone heartbreak or mental health trauma.

Covid doesn’t kill quickly in the majority of cases, if people just dropped dead with it we wouldn’t have half the problems we have.

I’ve been told I have to ‘accept death’ for months now (I do) but it’s clear most of these people have no clue what the reality of that actually means. I accept death absolutely, I don’t accept unnecessary suffering, particularly as the ones who suffer most are the ones left behind.

twelly · 28/03/2021 12:41

The elderly and vulnerable should have been allowed to lockdown - the rest of us carrying on. Maybe with masks improved hygiene and some social distance.

Abraxan · 28/03/2021 12:50
So because they are mainly, though not all, elderly it doesn't matter than a virus killed them? Even if they weren't ill enough to already be likely to die right now anyway? Even though they had to die alone in a hospital without their family with them?

Is this also your thought for the clinically vulnerable who have also died? They had a health condition anyway, so it doesn't matter that they died?

What about the doctors and nurses who died when exposed via their work, especially early on? Well, they have a risky job so it doesn't really matter?

What about those who didn't die but are still suffering the consequences of covid weeks and months after - well, they didn't die so what's the problem?

Other than the above I can't see what else your point could be tbh.

Abraxan · 28/03/2021 12:53

@FlibbertyGiblets

Can I say here please that not all cancer treatments halted in March last year. Some carried on, with adjustments.
Quite and often an ignored by many with an agenda.

I know of two friends plus a friend's baby who have had lumps investigated, cancer diagnosed and treatment started within the last 12 months.

I know my FIL continued to have cancer treatment and then end of life treatment for cancer during covid time.

Not everything stopped.

SlugsTrout · 28/03/2021 13:06

@twelly

The elderly and vulnerable should have been allowed to lockdown - the rest of us carrying on. Maybe with masks improved hygiene and some social distance.
This is my point. Unless someone can conclusively prove why this wouldn't be a viable option, I don't see why we can't adopt better ways to protect the NHS, the elderly and clinically vulnerable.
OP posts:
Doyoumindfisithere · 28/03/2021 13:09

@twelly

The elderly and vulnerable should have been allowed to lockdown - the rest of us carrying on. Maybe with masks improved hygiene and some social distance.
Great idea! Genius!

I mean, it has been scientifically discredited and would have caused far more deaths, but why not!

Abraxan · 28/03/2021 13:09

Children and young families have been living in isolation long enough

Most children have been out of lockdown for at least 3 weeks.
Most were in school for 4 months before Christmas.

During 'lockdown' 2 schools stayed open.

It was only in lockdown 1 that playgrounds were closed. In every lockdown we have been allowed out including for children to run around and play, albeit from a distance of others. Though in September to December and March to now children have had no SD during their school hours and play as normal in most cases.

Few children are really living in isolation - almost all have at least one parent with them, most are seeing both parents, many have their siblings. It's not ideal, but it's now someone totally in their own. Based on the parks and playgrounds round here since last summer many are mixing happily with other children. Many, based in talking with children, have seen family and friends to some extent - albeit not in the same way as normal.

I teach and almost all of our young children in school are doing well, academically and emotionally. It's not perfect but it's nowhere near the catastrophe some posters talk about. I know individuals may well have suffered. It as a whole group it really doesn't yet appear to be causing the overwhelming disasters for children as some posters want us to believe.

For almost all children this past year will be a small part of their,lifetime and by the time they are grown up it will be little more than a strange thing that happened in their past.

I'm not saying any of this is good, or that lockdown hasn't been hard. It has. For various reasons, including deaths and illness, the last year has been the hardest most challenging year I have every experienced personally. But I also know there is an end in sight, and eventually this will be a blip in a lifetime.

It's also something we have just had to go through and live through. As individuals also we can't change that so we need to change its mindset a bit and try to look for any positives, and try to see beyond this past year or so to move on from it.

Come the summer the chances of lockdowns continuing is limited. I don't think schools will ever close again in the same was ever again, from now onwards.

Last summer we were legally able to travel, visit family, see friends, eat out, go on holidays, etc. Even October half term, 5 months ago, that was allowed. There's no real reason to suppose that won't happen again this year. The numbers are falling, vaccine numbers are rising, we know more about the virus, the treatments are better known.... things are looking good for the future.

Doyoumindfisithere · 28/03/2021 13:12

@SlugsTrout it has been completely discredited as an idea by people who understand epidemiology.

Why don't you explain how shielding would work? Oh, you can't.

This thread is just boring repetitive lockdown denial with no science at all.

titchy · 28/03/2021 13:13

Because the elderly and clinically vulnerable don't live in isolation from the rest of us. Strangely enough they also need food, bought from supermarkets, care, provided by carers, and (you might want to sit down for this) some of them have jobs! I know right.

Still wouldn't have worked though would it. As many have pointed out, the elderly and vulnerable WERE locked down, same as the rest of us, and the NHS was still overwhelmed, and they still died. So how was having a more limited lockdown ever going to make things better.

Abraxan · 28/03/2021 13:14

This is my point. Unless someone can conclusively prove why this wouldn't be a viable option, I don't see why we can't adopt better ways to protect the NHS, the elderly and clinically vulnerable.

But you don't appear to believe the scientists and virologist who have provided this evidence and information, on which many policies have been based in this country as well as across the world. So why would you believe a random Mumsnetter?

And you do realise that the 'priority groups' as defined for the vaccine is almost half the populations? Many of these people work, and many work in jobs that are essential to the running of the economy. Without them, because they'd be at home under your guide, then jobs would be not done - who will do that work for them?

Abraxan · 28/03/2021 13:16

Also remember, those elderly and vulnerable people who did already die were also locked down alongside everyone else. It didn't work to prevent their deaths then, so why would it help them if it was only them locked down?

Look at care homes - locked down massively. That didn't work so successfully for many did it?

Reallybadidea · 28/03/2021 13:20

The average age of covid patients in icu in the 2nd wave was about 60. Shielding the elderly wouldn't have prevented icus being overwhelmed. You might argue that those in icu were 'vulnerable' but the vast majority of patients were living normal lives and their comorbidities were things like diabetes, obesity, hypertension. A huge proportion of adults have 1 or more of these - something like 30% of adults in the UK are obese. Think about the 9 priority vaccination groups who are considered at the highest risk for covid - that's about 30 million adults. Who would have been left to carry on as normal and run essential services if they were all shielding while the virus infected everyone else?

Movinghouseatlast · 28/03/2021 13:20

For Christ's sake, do you still not understand?

We locked down to protect the NHS from overload. Because if ICU's are full of people with Covid there is no room for people who have had a car accident, or have haemorrhaged in childbirth, or had a huge heart attack.

So then we would just have to decide who dies and who lives. Our society tends not to want to leave people who need urgent care to die because there is no room for them in hospital.

Why can people not grasp that this is not about individual choices?

dividedwefall · 28/03/2021 13:26

@Teacakequeen

This is people who died with Covid, not of Covid. It's quite different. We can't really judge how many people Covid has actually killed with the statistics we have unfortunately. The fact that it's mostly over 80s who have died is neither here nor there. You might argue over 80s are more likely to die of something anyway, but what about morbidly obese people in their 20s or 30s or disabled people ?
This is exactly the point. SO many of those who did sadly die in the care homes at age 80+ were going to die soon of underlying conditions. Many of those did not die from COVID, as we now know. That's why so many of us are struggling to understand the response beyond the initial emergency, and the ongoing response.
dividedwefall · 28/03/2021 13:27

@Reallybadidea

The average age of covid patients in icu in the 2nd wave was about 60. Shielding the elderly wouldn't have prevented icus being overwhelmed. You might argue that those in icu were 'vulnerable' but the vast majority of patients were living normal lives and their comorbidities were things like diabetes, obesity, hypertension. A huge proportion of adults have 1 or more of these - something like 30% of adults in the UK are obese. Think about the 9 priority vaccination groups who are considered at the highest risk for covid - that's about 30 million adults. Who would have been left to carry on as normal and run essential services if they were all shielding while the virus infected everyone else?
Can you show me the stats for this please? Interested in seeing them.
AfternoonToffee · 28/03/2021 13:36

It was on the news the other day that on average the people who died lost 10 years of life which is tragic.

One thing covid has shown is that people struggle with the concept of death and life ending. The average life expectancy is just that, not a defined moment in time. Last week my MIL had a life expectancy of another 5 years. Her funeral is this week. It is no guarantee, life isn't and we need to start accepting that.

bobbiester · 28/03/2021 13:43

Two quotes from OP...

#1 @SlugsTrout - I think the mental health and emotional well-being of the general public is more important than 20,000 deaths in the 50 - 70 age bracket who likely may have have died of seasonal flu or other viral infection.

#2 @SlugsTrout - Nobody is saying leave the elderly to die.

I guess 50-70 isn't elderly is it? So I suppose your second claim is techincally correct - you're only saying leave the 50-70 year olds to die.