Only 300 people under 40 have died. Source for all UK Covid-19 deaths broken down by age - where to find?

[lightattheendofthetunnel2021]

I heard from a senior contact in industry, who knows some of the most prominent figureheads for the pandemic response in the UK, that to date, less than 300 people aged under 40 have died since the start of the pandemic.

Other countries have very transparent data on this where deaths are broken down in small age brackets and by absolute numbers (not as a % of the total number of deaths or % of population). Is there something similar here? If not, why not?

thanks some helpful comments, many unkind ones too! But that's MN for you. I'm not a statistician and all I'm saying is that this kind of data is easier to find (yes you can scroll through ONS) and available on newsites and in newspapers abroad...not sure whey that doesn't seem to be the policy by media here?

Other countries will have very easily accessible data on all ICU patients (Covid), broken down by underlying condition, age, gender and deaths by those same categories and whether they died at home, in a care home or whether cared for at home. All relevant data - and more easily accessible for 'simpletons' like me.

Let's not even start talking about the way cases or defined...

I have just added all the weeks up and it’s 51 for 19 and younger. I think this must be for those without underlying conditions as the study I looked at for children said 65 had died?

@Chloemol

Typed in covid deaths by age in uk and got this to w ending 1st jan 21

www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19byageband

Am sure you can work the rest out adding it up. This shows more than 300 under 40 have died

Aha - was looking forJuly 2021 so didn't even bother looking / clicking on this link. thanks for that

Other countries will have very easily accessible data on all ICU patients (Covid), broken down by underlying condition, age, gender and deaths by those same categories and whether they died at home, in a care home or whether cared for at home. All relevant data - and more easily accessible for 'simpletons' like me.

Yeah I'm not sure that's actually true. Data protection laws for one thing. Particularly when combining age and underlying condition. Far too easy to identify individuals.

@AlecTrevelyan006

The key point is - how many of the under 40 deaths had no underlying health conditions

The answer is - not very many

Cool. Now do hospital admissions.

Death isn’t the only outcome of a covid infection.

If death and illness from covid don’t concern people then the lack of availability of health care should. We’re experiencing a taste of it with the humungous waiting lists as a result of covid protocols; this is one of the best case scenario, there was no ‘good’ option. If the hospitals are full of elderly and vulnerable there is simply no room for anything else. That’s where the word frightening comes in.

In the January wave the hospital I used to work in had seven wards full of patients requiring treatment for the same thing. ICU (including makeshift) was full. That’s not including isolation for the ‘with’ covid patients such as maternity patients. That simply doesn’t happen for any other disease or condition. Certainly wasn’t a good time to crash your car, get attacked or injured or experience a sudden onset of unknown illness. All that stuff that the NHS juggles coping with on a normal basis.

I’m still waiting for your “isn’t it great that the ONS data is so timely, consistent and transparent” OP.

@YouthfulIndiscretion

I’m still waiting for your “isn’t it great that the ONS data is so timely, consistent and transparent” OP.

May have said that had it not been for your sarcastic approach! ;) The ONS is great but could probably do a bit more with organising it in a more straightforward way as per some other countries. Still wonder why the figures branded about publically (TV, newspapers, gov announcements) do not contain this data.

This is like no other disease but mainly still, in terms of death, affect those who are old/frail and you will still be very unlikely to end up dead if you picked it up in the community (i.e. a lot of deaths were due to people having picked it up in hospital - most because they were frail/old or in hospital with serious underlying conditions). Very contagious and transmitting before people show symptoms - main driver.

But we also have to recognise that once a large portion of the population has been vaccinated and others have some immunity, this is (hopefully) not the beast we saw last year anymore.

@titchy

Other countries will have very easily accessible data on all ICU patients (Covid), broken down by underlying condition, age, gender and deaths by those same categories and whether they died at home, in a care home or whether cared for at home. All relevant data - and more easily accessible for 'simpletons' like me.

Yeah I'm not sure that's actually true. Data protection laws for one thing. Particularly when combining age and underlying condition. Far too easy to identify individuals.

Some Nordic countries, including Sweden, have a very strong policy of data sharing and their data is mostly in English too.

E.g. Sweden www.svt.se/datajournalistik/the-spread-of-the-coronavirus/

This data is very easy to find.

I do think the horror of it all is probably slightly exaggerates because it includes very elderly or sick people who may have died within the time frame anyway, but so many deaths in the 50+ categories are tragic.

@MakeCrisps

This data is very easy to find.

I do think the horror of it all is probably slightly exaggerates because it includes very elderly or sick people who may have died within the time frame anyway, but so many deaths in the 50+ categories are tragic.

Easy to find but not reported widely in a very pictorially straightforward way as per the SVT link I shared, where you clearly see not only the number of deaths / infections by area.

The way the data presented in the post from the person who shared the Mens Health Forum is the type of presentation I was referring to.

How many people under 40 are left with long lasting issues due to covid?

@AlecTrevelyan006

The key point is - how many of the under 40 deaths had no underlying health conditions

The answer is - not very many

This really isn't the key point. It's just a way to make it sound like they would have died anyway which simply isn't true. Many, many people have underlying conditions and still live full and active and generally healthy lives. They work, have children and contribute to society. Underlying conditions for the purpose of the death figures includes things we wouldn't even think about usually like 'mild asthma', 'pregnancy', 'controlled type 1 diabetes' etc. Saying 'well they had underlying conditions' minimises this disease, minimises the tragedy of their deaths and is callous towards the millions of people who also have underlying conditions (probably most of us by the top end of that age bracket).

One of the most callous parts of this pandemic is the way that 'underlying conditions' has all too often meant 'going to die anyway so why should we bother about them'

If you were diagnosed with cancer, you fall into the CEV (going to die anyway) category, no mattter how good your chances of a good recovery and the prospect of near normal lifespan. But if you weren't diagnosis before the pandemic, the same person with the same cancer and the same prognosis is now presenting a crying shame that their treatment might be more complex because of delays.

It seems like we only matter sometimes. And it's not a nice thing to be on the receiving end of

[quote YouthfulIndiscretion]Here you go OP.
But I definitely want a “gosh aren’t the ONS good!” in return.
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales[/quote]
And among all this data and links - which is the one with a table such as

Total deaths to date
0-9
10-19
20-39 etc

May well be there and the data there and probably if you are used to navigating the website it seems very straightforward but, for others, a bit of searching is required. Or adding up numbers (which of course we can do but is kind of beside the point). I don't do sarcasm.

@Chloemol

Typed in covid deaths by age in uk and got this to w ending 1st jan 21

www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19byageband

Am sure you can work the rest out adding it up. This shows more than 300 under 40 have died

This is useful, was a Freedom of Information request, if I'm not mistaken . Any others like this to date?

What age are you op. Under 40 by any chance ?

If you’ve downloaded the weekly figures you’ve got them in a spreadsheet. It’s literally a press of one button to add them up and then another on the 2020 spreadsheet.

There may be other tables available with the running totals by age elsewhere already added up for you, I don’t know, although I don’t think anyone would have a specific practical use for that so maybe not.

But with so much data out there it’s inevitable that not every metric is available instantly in a pre-prepared form in exactly the way you want it. If you want something specific out of curiosity as opposed to needing it then you can go to the weekly raw data and slice and dice it yourself.

FWIW I don’t disagree that the GBP have frequently underestimated the extent to which age is the dominant risk factor in this pandemic. You see it in a hundred different ways. But the information is very much out there, both raw and pre-digested, and the ONS have played a blinder. I’d personally give a shout-out to the volunteer actuary committees as well, who’ve done remarkable impartial work, showing their sources at each point.

@Crazycrazylady - no, he said he was 55 with an underlying condition.

God, the poor guy just wanted data & repeatedly said he wasn’t trying to trivialise any deaths, just he wanted to see figures. Calm the hell down!

And there are figures! Bucket loads of them. Which posters have linked to. We're pretty good at open data in comparison to the rest of the world. Then he (or she?) asks why don't journalists comment on the data.... to which the only answer is 'derrrrr'

The problem is that it then leaps up, and a hell of a lot of critical people are over 40 - e.g. probably most of the senior nurses and doctors. If we let infection get out of control it affects medical care, supply chains etc as we've been seeing.

Death shouldn't be the only metric.

And the comparison to terrorist incidents is a good one I think - we don't just throw our hands up and say 'oh well only a tiny number of people get killed in each bombing, let's not bother with anti-terrorism measures and investment'.

Just narrowly focusing on one group achieves nothing much, unless you think you can separate all the under 40s from the over 40s. Apart from anything else a hell of a lot of children are cared for by over 40s, so who's going to look after them if they're dead or disabled?

It's just such a weirdly narrow way to look at data, I don't understand the point?

Hi OP,

I've been reading MN for years but your post has finally made me join because I think this is the sort of data you might find useful and I think the pile on to ridicule you is shocking:

www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

It's from the NHS and it details all the people who have covid on their death certificate since March 2020 and who have died in hospital. You have to scroll down about half way and each day can be downloaded as an excel file. There is also a weekly update file that shows how many have died, which health trust, age and if they had any underlying health conditions.

Sadly the one thing it doesn't show is death related to BMI which I think would make very interesting reading.

I assume all the other deaths that don't appear in the NHS data have occurred in care settings and so have been older adults and those with serious health problems - although I'm sure someone will be along in minute to tell me about their sister who is only 30 but chooses to live in a care home because she loves spending time with older people so much and now she is seriously ill with covid etc etc etc....

I find it somewhat reassuring to see that since the start of the pandemic just over 700 people with no underlying health conditions have died from covid.

This is where I add the caveats that:

• It's still a tragedy for those 700 and their families
• People with underlying health conditions matter too
• Older peoples lives matter too
• Long covid etc etc. These points usually go without saying but I'm going to mention them anyway.

I'm sure I've missed mentioning an important caveat that someone will pick up on and use it as a stick to beat me with

Anyway, long post for my first ever MN post. I hope you find this data useful OP and anyone else who wants to look at it and I hope my link works

[quote lightattheendofthetunnel2021]E.g. Sweden www.svt.se/datajournalistik/the-spread-of-the-coronavirus/[/quote]
That's a journalist writing. Not the Swedish Gov equivalent of ONS. Which almost certainly exists of course, but will be data and stats. Just like ours. Not a commentary that ties it all together. If you want that in the UK you need to follow some of the more credible bloggers/journos etc. And there are plenty of those. There are even some links to some on MN threads.

@AlecTrevelyan006

The key point is - how many of the under 40 deaths had no underlying health conditions

The answer is - not very many

Oh well thats ok then, i suppose the deaths of people with underlying condition, s dont matter 🙄