COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[MillionMilesAway]

Latest figures suggest only 332 under 45 have died in this country from CV19
Is it therefore right to keep them from going back to work?, seems very harsh to me that they are being held back whilst the economy regresses.

why 45 though? Not 48? or 50?
It presumably skews high, but where do you put the cut-off point?

And they'll still contract and potentially pass it on.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Latest figures suggest only 332 under 45 have died in this country from CV19
Is it therefore right to keep them from going back to work?, seems very harsh to me that they are being held back whilst the economy regresses.

The issue is not the health of or risk to those individuals, it's the risk it poses to everyone else.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The irony of course being that herd immunity is the best way to eradicate the virus in the absence of a treatment or vaccine, and therefore the best way to protect against a second wave and the vulnerable. It also avoids all the excess deaths that are coming due to the recession caused by the lockdown.

Herd immunity is the inevitable outcome, not the solution.

You cannot say it protects against a second wave by allowing those who would have died in the second wave to die in the first one! A good dose of cyanide prevents anyone from dying of cancer, but it is not a solution to cancer.

 

[Scottyboi]

Belgium deaths shot up today haven't they! Worst affected in the world if you take out the tiny nation of San Marino.

 

[jonmcity]

how many young people have been very ill in hospital though?

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Latest figures suggest only 332 under 45 have died in this country from CV19
Is it therefore right to keep them from going back to work?, seems very harsh to me that they are being held back whilst the economy regresses.

It’s not just about those who aren’t dying though, it’s about being asymptomatic when you do have it and passing it on to too many people.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

The issue is not the health of or risk to those individuals, it's the risk it poses to everyone else.

so what’s the difference between under 45s not visiting elderly or vulnerable now and releasing them to work or hobbies and saying you still can’t see the elderly or vulnerable .

either way the old and vulnerable are protected exactly the same.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

But you are applying hindsight.

At that point was there any indication that what appeared to be a localised outbreak in northern Italy was actually a precursor to what would happen in Spain, France and the UK?
Apart From Italy there was virtually no measures anywhere in Europe on the 10th March.

Yes because on that very date the WHO called it a pandemic. And there were Drs and scientists telling the WHO to call it a pandemic prior to that date. That might prick the ears of our scientists and govt!

There were tables and graphs at the time showing all this two week head start on Italy as well. Videos from the likes of Dr Campbell at the very time saying “we appear to be about two weeks behind Italy”. It was in all regions of Italy by 3rd March, not just Lombardy. And even when Lombardy went into lockdown we allowed flights into the country from Lombardy unchecked.

And it was around the world before Italy. So we actually had 8 weeks prior warning, not just the warning from Italy.

Between 5th-10th January WHO started reporting about the virus. 23rd January reported h2h transmission. 10th March the WHO declared it a pandemic.

That’s not us just looking at it as a small outbreak in a small region in Italy and not knowing what might happen.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Only 11 under 20 years old. Time to put the yoof to work.

In youth internment camps, picking asparagus.

 

[Chippy_boy]

so what’s the difference between under 45s not visiting elderly or vulnerable now and releasing them to work or hobbies and saying you still can’t see the elderly or vulnerable .

either way the old and vulnerable are protected exactly the same.

Depends what you mean by elderly and vulnerable. If you suggest we let everyone under 45 go back to work providing they avoid all contract with anyone over 45, then yes OK. But I am not sure you are suggesting that though, are you?

At the moment it's only the over 70's who we are suggesting should not be mixing. Bringing it down to the over 45's would be quite tricky, and unless you did that then any surge in infections in the under 45's (which would be inevitable) although not causing a huge number of deaths in the under 45's, would cause a surge in infections and huge number of deaths in the older demographic.

That said, I am sure it is this *kind* (not specifics) of progressive relaxing that I think we will inevitably have to do.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

so what’s the difference between under 45s not visiting elderly or vulnerable now and releasing them to work or hobbies and saying you still can’t see the elderly or vulnerable .

either way the old and vulnerable are protected exactly the same.

because a bunch live with their parents or have gone home because a lockdown was coming in?

 

[sir baconface]

Only 11 under 20 years old. Time to put the yoof to work.

Yeah but, yeah but.

 

[sir baconface]

so what’s the difference between under 45s not visiting elderly or vulnerable now and releasing them to work or hobbies and saying you still can’t see the elderly or vulnerable .

either way the old and vulnerable are protected exactly the same.

Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are millions in the 46-69 age group?

 

[Crouchinho]

They're starting to ease restrictions here a bit. Rumours of schools opening next month but I doubt it

I can see the lockdown ending with more people infected than before lockdown, but the media will come out with some blinder "we flattened the curve" its hard not to get all conspiracy theory on all this

 

[Chippy_boy]

Yes because on that very date the WHO called it a pandemic. And there were Drs and scientists telling the WHO to call it a pandemic prior to that date. That might prick the ears of our scientists and govt!

There were tables and graphs at the time showing all this two week head start on Italy as well. Videos from the likes of Dr Campbell at the very time saying “we appear to be about two weeks behind Italy”. It was in all regions of Italy by 3rd March, not just Lombardy. And even when Lombardy went into lockdown we allowed flights into the country from Lombardy unchecked.

And it was around the world before Italy. So we actually had 8 weeks prior warning, not just the warning from Italy.

Between 5th-10th January WHO started reporting about the virus. 23rd January reported h2h transmission. 10th March the WHO declared it a pandemic.

That’s not us just looking at it as a small outbreak in a small region in Italy and not knowing what might happen.

Not to mention the countless warnings from Italy at the time saying (in terms) "get ready because this is coming your way".

 

[Vic]

But you are applying hindsight.

At that point was there any indication that what appeared to be a localised outbreak in northern Italy was actually a precursor to what would happen in Spain, France and the UK?
Apart From Italy there was virtually no measures anywhere in Europe on the 10th March.

You mean apart from the WHO warnings?

 

[hgblue]

Herd immunity is the inevitable outcome, not the solution.

You cannot say it protects against a second wave by allowing those who would have died in the second wave to die in the first one! A good dose of cyanide prevents anyone from dying of cancer, but it is not a solution to cancer.

The idea is that the young and healthy who are largely unaffected by this virus continue to work and go to school whilst the elderly and vulnerable are shielded. Once sufficient of the healthy population have had the virus the crisis is over and those who’ve had to be shielded can live a normal life again. Long term this is the best way to protect the elderly and vulnerable + no second wave + no mountain of debt for future generations to pay off + no excess deaths due to mental health issues etc + no excess deaths due to the massive recession that’s coming + millions of people not losing their jobs + an entire nation not scared shitless at the prospect of leaving their house.

 

[sir baconface]

Depends what you mean by elderly and vulnerable. If you suggest we let everyone under 45 go back to work providing they avoid all contract with anyone over 45, then yes OK. But I am not sure you are suggesting that though, are you?

At the moment it's only the over 70's who we are suggesting should not be mixing. Bringing it down to the over 45's would be quite tricky, and unless you did that then any surge in infections in the under 45's (which would be inevitable) although not causing a huge number of deaths in the under 45's, would cause a surge in infections and huge number of deaths in the older demographic.

That said, I am sure it is this *kind* (not specifics) of progressive relaxing that I think we will inevitably have to do.

Agree. Re your last para, though, relaxation needs to be on non-discriminatory grounds. An age 45 cutoff is completely arbitrary, as you and others have said. It’s possibly up for legal challenge too. It’s little different from saying everyone can go back except BAME people, who also apparently have a higher death rate. Imagine how that would go down!

Transition needs to be based on objective principles and creating a safer environment. That includes introducing a firm and coherent policy on wearing face protection on public transport and in every workplace. Physical distancing ditto. Of course we want, and indeed need, people to return to work but many would feel very vulnerable as things presently stand.

 

[Phil1]

The idea is that the young and healthy who are largely unaffected by this virus continue to work and go to school whilst the elderly and vulnerable are shielded. Once sufficient of the healthy population have had the virus the crisis is over and those who’ve had to be shielded can live a normal life again. Long term this is the best way to protect the elderly and vulnerable + no second wave + no mountain of debt for future generations to pay off + no excess deaths due to mental health issues etc + no excess deaths due to the massive recession that’s coming + millions of people not losing their jobs + an entire nation scared shitless at the prospect of leaving their house.

You’ve no idea wherever or not there will be a second wave if you go down the herd immunity route.
Everything is guess work at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Don't forget that on the 14th Jan WHO said no evidence on H2H and the were still saying no need to ban flights into FEB. I would be careful using WHO as a useful source and as for YouTube bloggers making money out of death stats I would stay well clear. Here is his PayPal link if you want to donate to his "project" https://www.paypal.com/donate/?toke...0ceySTTBAEB7uGvqDfPW&country.x=AU&locale.x=AU

I’m not using WHO as a useful source, I’m using their timeline for when certain things were announced. If even they and Dr Campbell can forewarn us of things well in advance of them kicking off here then we have no excuse.