Everton (A) | Game Postponed

GortonBlue62 said:
Just 438 people under 60 with no underlying health conditions have died of Covid in England.

In comparison during 2019, 955 under 60s died on England's roads.

The country is on it's knees (economically) because we have failed to grasp the point that if you are under 60 with no underlying health conditions Covid poses very little risk.
Click to expand...
Read that they count anyone with there blood pressure 140/80 in the bracket as the “vulnerable”
 
GortonBlue62 said:
I'm quoting from official government statistics. You're emoting.
Click to expand...
How is he emoting? Have you any idea of what percentage of the population has an underlying health condition? It's far larger than you think. Almost 5 million have diabetes alone. A far more interesting stat would be the %age of the population under 60 who have underlying health conditions.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
Just 438 people under 60 with no underlying health conditions have died of Covid in England.

In comparison during 2019, 955 under 60s died on England's roads.

The country is on it's knees (economically) because we have failed to grasp the point that if you are under 60 with no underlying health conditions Covid poses very little risk.
Click to expand...
Fortunately our society integrates and values people over sixty years.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
Just 438 people under 60 with no underlying health conditions have died of Covid in England.

In comparison during 2019, 955 under 60s died on England's roads.

The country is on it's knees (economically) because we have failed to grasp the point that if you are under 60 with no underlying health conditions Covid poses very little risk.
Click to expand...
To add to the points made by others re: disregarding millions of people, you also only consider that dying is the only variable that makes it bad. If someone catches it and ends up on a ventilator for months but doesn't die, they don't count in your statistic and covid posed 'very little risk' to them.
 
117 M34 said:
To add to the points made by others re: disregarding millions of people, you also only consider that dying is the only variable that makes it bad. If someone catches it and ends up on a ventilator for months but doesn't die, they don't count in your statistic and covid posed 'very little risk' to them.
Click to expand...
That’s an excellent point. I myself have been hung up on the death rates statistic and using the relatively low rates for all deaths in this wave compared to April (vs the 5 year average) as being positive news, but as you say, they are drastic outcomes from some those that do not die, which need taking into account too.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
I'm quoting from official government statistics. You're emoting.
Click to expand...
Actually went and looked up some stats for you.....approx 15 million people have an underlying health condition

www.kingsfund.org.uk

Long-term conditions and multi-morbidity

About 15 million people in England have a long-term condition. We look at how long-term conditions tend to be concentrated in the more disadvantaged sections of society.
www.kingsfund.org.uk www.kingsfund.org.uk
 
GortonBlue62 said:
Just 438 people under 60 with no underlying health conditions have died of Covid in England.

In comparison during 2019, 955 under 60s died on England's roads.

The country is on it's knees (economically) because we have failed to grasp the point that if you are under 60 with no underlying health conditions Covid poses very little risk.
Click to expand...
You make a valid point, but it’s all about balance of risk, and of impact isn’t it? It’s interesting you say the country is on its knees economically, but I’m reading today of a house price boom - presumably because a lot of people have saved money over the last 9 months. I also read that the size of the economy has reduced by 8%, which sounds awful, and is for those affected, but then to think 92% of our economy is still functioning is incredible really.
I suppose what I’m saying is that there is no simple ‘right way’ here, and it’s a question of numbers/impact whatever perspective you take.
 
Last edited:
GortonBlue62 said:
Just 438 people under 60 with no underlying health conditions have died of Covid in England.

In comparison during 2019, 955 under 60s died on England's roads.

The country is on it's knees (economically) because we have failed to grasp the point that if you are under 60 with no underlying health conditions Covid poses very little risk.
Click to expand...
You miss the point. You say there is little risk involved if you are under 60 with no underlying health issues, absolute nonsense.
There may well be a lesser risk of your own death but there is still a very good chance of contracting the virus, whether full on, or with few symptoms, maybe even asymptomatic. You then pass this on to all and sundry..... and so it goes on, with parents and relatives who may not be under 60 or in perfect health having a significant risk of death.
I suspect the vast majority of people now know someone who has had the virus, it took my dad (he was 87) but a mate had a tickly cough for two days so he checked it out as he was in the area where they were doing testing... Yep, off you go and stay in for 10 days (he is 52). COVID is bad news.
This general COVID stuff should be off topic. If it involves City and the current scenario, keep it in here.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
Just 438 people under 60 with no underlying health conditions have died of Covid in England.

In comparison during 2019, 955 under 60s died on England's roads.

The country is on it's knees (economically) because we have failed to grasp the point that if you are under 60 with no underlying health conditions Covid poses very little risk.
Click to expand...
At a quick view your thought seems to make sense,
but going into detail it doesn't.

We can't protect our risk group in aging societies
as the group simply is too big:

In Germany there are 83m people.
The risk group is:
>13m aged 70+ (not even 60+, as you suggest!)
8m asthmatics
7.8m severly disabled persons
1.7m with heart conditions.

That's roughly 30m or 36% without other specific risk groups included. All of them are among us, everywhere,
in families, shops, public transport, whatever.

Believe me, if there would have been a way to protect our profit greedy economy (like UK's), our political leaders would have done it. In our free and pluralistic societies - we can't.
 
waspish said:
Read that they count anyone with there blood pressure 140/80 in the bracket as the “
Click to expand...
manimanc said:
I still await any kind of response from Everton saying they wish our players and staff a speedy recovery and to keep safe.

What, nothing?

Ah well it just shows how up their own arse they are because they are second or was at the time.
Click to expand...
I’m presuming no need given they’re all. Over 60 ;)
 
ZanteWeatherman said:
You miss the point. You say there is little risk involved if you are under 60 with no underlying health issues, absolute nonsense.
There may well be a lesser risk of your own death but there is still a very good chance of contracting the virus, whether full on, or with few symptoms, maybe even asymptomatic. You then pass this on to all and sundry..... and so it goes on, with parents and relatives who may not be under 60 or in perfect health having a significant risk of death.
I suspect the vast majority of people now know someone who has had the virus, it took my dad (he was 87) but a mate had a tickly cough for two days so he checked it out as he was in the area where they were doing testing... Yep, off you go and stay in for 10 days (he is 52). COVID is bad news.
This general COVID stuff should be off topic. If it involves City and the current scenario, keep it in here.
Click to expand...
I think the fact nobody in the world has taken the step of isolating everyone over 60 to protect them, and not to stop covid spreading is telling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top