Deaths from Covid alone in 2020 = 9,400

[Whydidimarryhim]

There has been a freedom of information release from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) - Jan 7th 22
There data show that total deaths from Covid in 2020 - this is the number of deaths from adults who had NO underlying issues ie heart disease/diabetes etc - the total No is 9400.
From Jan 2021 to Sept 2021 the total deaths from Covid alone - was 0-64 age range = 2225 and 65+ 5746. All this is for England and Wales
This information is on utube from Dr John Campbell - He has been covering Covid since late 2019.
What is interesting is that this info hasn’t been on the news.

does mean that if/when a pandemic happens again, we might be better able to find a response that protects the vulnerable without destroying the education, mental health and livelihoods of millions of people.

But those vulnerable people will be teachers, pupils, mental health practitioners, doctors, nurses, lorry drivers etc etc.

They aren’t a distinct subclass who can just be locked away so nobody else in inconvenienced

What’s the number of those that died from covid WITH underlying conditions

Who if they hadn’t got covid would not have died?

Statistics can be made to show anything
For example 25% plus of people with no underlying conditions have died from covid.

67m uk population estimated 15million had covid
5% of People have no underlying conditions at all.
which means 5% of 15m is 75K

If we assume a third of covid cases were in 2020 - a third of no underlying covid cases could be 25k

25 % of 25k is around 6k that would mean the 7k plus quote in OP is 25% of those with no underlying conditions.

Time to panic healthy people!

Cant we just seen that excessive deaths show that more people have died than should have because of the pandemic and that is bad weather the person was healthy, had depression, had recovered or was still being treated from covid. Hell its even bad if the person was on end of life care from something else but the pandemic meant that families were less able to spend time with their loved ones at this point.

@hamstersarse

I don’t know how accurate this is but on the back of this a stat has been produced that the average life lost is 7 weeks.

Significant to know

No, it's meaningless.

Have a little think about it. If you produced a similar 'stat' for cancer, or suicide, or deaths due to domestic violence, or pretty much anything really, it would be similarly low, because (tragic as all these deaths are) they only affect a tiny minority of the population. Does that mean it's nothing to worry about? Of course not.

If your 7 week 'stat' was produced on the back of the ONS data posted by the OP, it's even more pointless, for the reasons people have explained.

Tune in this time next week for another installment of 'Critical thinking skills for the perennially confused'.

@LethargicActress

Thanks for posting that OP, I think it’s interesting, and it’s adds to the questions around whether our covid responses have been proportionate to the risks, especially considering the massive impact on education.

Obviously, thinking about that doesn’t automatically mean that I consider people’s lives to be disposable just because they have an underlying condition. But it does mean that if/when a pandemic happens again, we might be better able to find a response that protects the vulnerable without destroying the education, mental health and livelihoods of millions of people.

So basically you dont understand why we did what we did then

@Sirzy

does mean that if/when a pandemic happens again, we might be better able to find a response that protects the vulnerable without destroying the education, mental health and livelihoods of millions of people.

But those vulnerable people will be teachers, pupils, mental health practitioners, doctors, nurses, lorry drivers etc etc.

They aren’t a distinct subclass who can just be locked away so nobody else in inconvenienced

^this

And some perfectly healthy people may become irreversibly damaged by a novel virus.

What’s Dr John Campbell’s PhD in, do you know?

It's in nursing education, so a related topic but he's not a medical doctor m.

@MissTrip82

What’s Dr John Campbell’s PhD in, do you know?

Good question. He’s a retired nurse and trainer as I understand?

But those vulnerable people will be teachers, pupils, mental health practitioners, doctors, nurses, lorry drivers etc etc.

I realise that, and as another poster pointed out, the response was mostly because of a need to protect the NHS thanks to years of underfunding. There’s no denying though that as a country, we were woefully unprepared to deal with a pandemic, as were individual hospitals and care settings. Covid is still, for the vast majority, a mild illness. Considering the damage that lockdown did, I think that once we are truly at the end of this, it is appropriate to look back and assess whether there’s a better way to protect everyone and be better prepared in future.

Campbell is a red herring here. He's a YouTuber, a video opinion columnist in effect. Sometimes he's sharp and bang-on about certain subjects and sometimes he's really not.

The ONS published that data, you can't really monster Campbell but leave them out of it.

It's how the data is represented that matters more, I think. And people's understanding of what it means.

I cannot see what OP is doing wrong here by simply reporting the facts which are readily available for anyone to access on govt-reporting websites.

Are you generally bad at reading between the lines?

"I don’t know how accurate this is but on the back of this a stat has been produced that the average life lost is 7 weeks.

Significant to know"

That is pure misinformation and also a great example of people misremembering information so that it fits into their existing mental model with all its biases. There are studies on this. The average life time lost when someone dies of COVID is about 11 years in the UK, here's a Daily Mail article the poster might be able to digest: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273783/More-20million-years-life-lost-Covid-study-claims.html

Other studies have come up with somewhat different estimates, but the poster probably mis-remembered 7 YEARS as 7 weeks.

What I would like to know about all the people with underlying health conditions (whose deaths you don’t want to count), how many would have been expected to die within, say, 12/24 months due to their condition?

That data would be much more insightful - people who have died ‘early’ due to covid.

reporting the facts

Reporting the facts is not the same as reporting a fact.

The amount of healthy people of all ages, not just 65+!!!, however, who ended up with vaccine-induced health issues are staggeringly high compared to those who died of covid without any health issues

Comparing people who've had health impacts with people who've died is not an equal comparison.

@Sirzy

does mean that if/when a pandemic happens again, we might be better able to find a response that protects the vulnerable without destroying the education, mental health and livelihoods of millions of people.

But those vulnerable people will be teachers, pupils, mental health practitioners, doctors, nurses, lorry drivers etc etc.

They aren’t a distinct subclass who can just be locked away so nobody else in inconvenienced

And even if the vulnerable people don't have work outside the home, they may have spouses who do, or children who go to school.

And a lot of them will indeed be seriously disabled and/or very elderly and require help from carers, either professional or family. And those carers have spouses who work as bus drivers, doctors, teachers, waiters, or children who go to school.

Apart from a small proportion of competent self-contained people who work from home or are retired, and live alone and can have everything delivered, "the vulnerable" are part of a huge societal web. You can't just protect them and let everyone else get on with it in the next pandemic.

And that's without the nonsense of the stat in the OP which classes everyone with an underlying condition, however common, as "the vulnerable".

@Blubells

The big moral question is how long do those who are unlikely to die from it restrict their lifestyles to try protect the vulnerable?

Yes, and what is an 'acceptable' level of death?

We could try to prevent every single death but that would obviously be very costly, so what level of costs/benefits are we happy to accept?

It’s an interesting and important discussion but I’m not sure it’s one that can be had without the context of specific conditions at various points.

Generally speaking, the fatality/life changing effects rate for covid is currently ‘acceptable’ in terms of individual risk but high infection rates and subsequent impact on healthcare marginally raise the rates of fatality/life changing effects for other illness and injuries due to the large numbers (even if a small percentage) generated by covid infections.

Now there’s a debate to be had about how this is managed going forward and how the current healthcare infrastructure can expand to accommodate that but these are pretty complex questions that require a period of stability to determine exactly what is needed longer term.

From a moral perspective the one certainty we do have is that people will be adversely affected on many levels. Throughout the pandemic the balance has shifted between health and economic/societal harm many times but there has always been a balance. It’s impossible to completely ‘save’ one group or another, it’s always come down to less harm not no harm.

@Rocket1982

"I don’t know how accurate this is but on the back of this a stat has been produced that the average life lost is 7 weeks.

Significant to know"

That is pure misinformation and also a great example of people misremembering information so that it fits into their existing mental model with all its biases. There are studies on this. The average life time lost when someone dies of COVID is about 11 years in the UK, here's a Daily Mail article the poster might be able to digest: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273783/More-20million-years-life-lost-Covid-study-claims.html

Other studies have come up with somewhat different estimates, but the poster probably mis-remembered 7 YEARS as 7 weeks.

I think the 7 week statistic is based on average years lost divided among literally everyone in the UK (rather than just the people who actually died). Which is daft, really.

We should all pray that we NEVER see a pandemic that knocks years off the average person's lifespan -even an average of one year would be carnage.

I agree that the NHS is seriously underfunded. But all the European countries with well-funded healthcare systems also felt the need to lockdown or implement serious restriction. A well-funded NHS would not have meant we could have stayed open.

Comparing people who've had health impacts with people who've died is not an equal comparison.

But it very much is, as they are the ones who carry on living with the impact on their quality of lives (+ their loved ones) often long term.

@Whydidimarryhim only reporting data?

Why? Why did you think this is significant and require your reporting?

You obviously have an opinion on the data, you want to ensure people are aware of it.

For what purpose?

@OperationRinka

It's in nursing education, so a related topic but he's not a medical doctor m.

Also worth noting he's gone rogue since he fell into the ivermectin void.

Why would it be in the news? It's not news. We've always known that people with underlying conditions were much more likely to die from covid. Why did you think some people were shielding? Have you really missed this over the past two years?

If we locked down to protect the NHS then please explain why in spring/summer 2020 when cases were low, my children still weren't allowed to go to school?