Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m in the same boat mate, except I’ve booked for Spain.

You have to wait for them to cancel or you’ll lose the lot.

The Martin Lewis website is very good for explaining the ins and outs of it all.

No matter what that nugget O’Leary says, there won’t be any foreign hols for Brits this Summer.
We've booked to go to Tenerife with Jet 2, but we've only actually paid £60 each for the deposits with the rest due in a few days time.

It's a decision now whether to just lose the deposits, which I am inclined to do, or pay up the full amount and take the chance or probably getting a refund.
 
I was going to post the following on my Facebook but thought I’d stick it in here first and see what the reaction is. I’m literally just interpreting statistics. I’m not attempting to make any suggestions on how people should live their lives over the next few weeks or months. Those decisions will be partly dictated by the government decisions and also your own judgement.

I’ve just spent a little time on the website of the Office of National Statistics (LINK) looking in to the death rate from Covid-19 to see what the real risks are and to see who is really vulnerable. The results were both shocking (because it’s not something I’d seen reported in the news) and not shocking (because it seems to show what I’d expect).

The first death reported in the UK occurred in the week ending 13th March. In the following 8 weeks up to the week ending 1st May there have been a total of 33,365 deaths relating to Covid-19. It is totally unknown how many of these deaths were actually caused by Covid-19 as the only reported stats just show those that die while having the Covid-19 virus in their body at the time of death. It’s possible they may have been showing absolutely no symptoms of Covid-19 and their death was caused by something else. We’ll never know the real numbers of actual Covid-19 deaths.

What I have found interesting however if the deaths split by age range.

Age 0 to 39 - 0.64% of total covid-19 related deaths up to 1st May 2020
Age 40 to 41 - 1.52%
Age 50 to 59 - 5.03%
Age 60 to 69 - 10.59%
Age 70 to 79 - 23.64%
Age 80 to 99 - 58.58%

To me it seems very clear that those most at risk are the over 60s and that the older you are, the greater the risk. That sounds familiar, that just sounds like death in general. The older you are, the more you are at risk of dying.

But what shocked me the most is the relatively small percentage of people under the age of 60 who have died relating to Covid-19. Just 7.19% of all Covid-19 deaths have been under the age of 60 and an even smaller 2.16% if you are under 40. Some of you may say that is still too many, well yes, no one wants anyone dying but the cold hard truth is that people die of illnesses every single day. Life is a risk, life has a finite time limit, life comes to an end. But if you are sat at home in lockdown and too scared to go back to work or send your kids back to school or to go to the supermarket more than once a week, just look at the statistics and do your own risk assessment.

If you are under 60 there is only a very small chance that you will be adversely affected by Covid-19. If you are under the age of 40 this risk becomes even smaller, so small that it shouldn’t really be any real concern or affect your life too much. So when the government tell you to ‘Be Alert’, maybe you should be alert to the risks of Covid-19. Children will potentially be returning back to school in the next few weeks because they are in the very lowest of risk categories. The statistics show that those children will be relatively safe and at very little risk. What parents need to be aware of in the coming months is that children shouldn’t be spending time with the elderly. Unfortunately the only way to keep the death rate as low as possible is to keep the over 60s as isolated as possible. Most over 60s are going to be retired and therefore won’t need to return to work. Although they may want their lives to return to normal, they are the ones that need to make the sacrifice and continue their lockdown.

It is the transmissibility of the virus that is the issue.

The elderly and medically vulnerable share homes with other family members in some cases, so the risk to them must surely increase with the easing of lockdown measures.

I'm not arguing that strict lockdown can be indefinately extended without severe economic, and other non-Covid related public health consequences. The lockdown should be eased very gradually and cautiously and with robust and refined testing, tracing, and isolation measures in place.

Each and every death and experience of critical illness due to Covid has ripple effects throughout the deceased persons family and community. That equates already to hundreds of thousands of people in the UK alone who have been affected by this pandemic.

There are no easy answers and no easy balance. But in the wider context, what is good for public health is good for the economy. Caution should be the by-word when dealing with this outbreak.
 
Er - we don’t have a larger population than France. And our deaths are considerably higher despite the epidemic hitting us later.

They are not massively different, within 10m I reckon, but France is 4 times the size of us. So we are all crammed in.

Someone posted the actual folk per square mile, and the difference between UK and France was remarkable, even in Paris v London.
 
They were taken by surprise, we saw what was happening there and did nothing.

We had the luxury of a warning and didnt heed it.

We saw dead lying in hospital wards and turned our heads whilst we watched horse racing.

Partly true. We saw people lying on trolleys and on the floor and in terrible conditions. Our NHS did not experience any of that. Even though we built extra hospitals to cover, we never ran out of ICU beds, the Coronavirus sick never took up more than 60% of ICU beds and no one was lying on floors or trolleys. The death toll is horrendous but lines up and the NHS, despite all the issues over PPE, ventilators, etc, has not once been overrun. Could we have done better, absolutely, could it have been worse, absolutely. Certain groups within the NHS, Military etc, deserve a lot of praise and I think we should stop the self flagellation......
 
We've booked to go to Tenerife with Jet 2, but we've only actually paid £60 each for the deposits with the rest due in a few days time.

It's a decision now whether to just lose the deposits, which I am inclined to do, or pay up the full amount and take the chance or probably getting a refund.

If it’s covered by ABTA, you’re as well paying up and either swapping to next year or taking the full refund.( whenever it comes through )
 
Er - we don’t have a larger population than France. And our deaths are considerably higher despite the epidemic hitting us later.

We do, not by much but we do, and Spain is only about 2/3rds of the UK population contained within a much bigger landmass....
 
Know the CDC at one point said 20% of hospitalizations were in under 44s but despite being sure I saw it somewhere can’t find equivalent UK data. In the US of course that has other impacts beyond health - most people couldn’t easily afford a hospital stay, will likely bankrupt a lot of them.
Among 508 (12%) patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged ≥85 years, start highlight36%end highlight were aged 65–84 years, 17% were aged 55–64 years, 18% were 45–54 years, and 20% were aged 20–44 years. Less than 1% of hospitalizations were among persons aged ≤19 years (Figure 2). The percentage of persons hospitalized increased with age, from 2%–3% among persons aged start highlight≤19end highlight years, to ≥31% among adults aged ≥85 years. (Table).
Why do you think the over 85s are 4x less hospitalised than their immediate younger group? Is it numbers (less of them) or another strange anomaly of Covid19?

Also reading that hospitalised patients are now routinely injected to thin out the blood to avoid clots....and discharged with blood thinning tablets: New Statesman....

Coronavirus gains entry into human cells by binding to a cell-surface receptor called ACE2. This is present in large amounts in the linings of the upper airways, where it is thought most people’s infections take hold. It is abundant, too, in the tiny air sacs deep inside the lungs (alveoli) – the battleground in Covid-19 pneumonia. But ACE2 is also found on cells in many other tissues and organs, including the lining of blood vessels.

The formation of clots inside arteries and veins has long been recognised as a complication of any major illness, but so-called thromboembolic disease appears to affect 20-30 per cent of hospitalised Covid-19 patients – far more than in other serious infections. The mechanisms are still being elucidated, but it is possible that coronavirus can directly infect cells lining blood vessels, provoking inflammation that in turn causes clots to form. This evolving insight is leading to rapid changes in hospital practice: Covid patients are now routinely treated with blood-thinning injections in an attempt to prevent thromboembolism.
 
I don’t particularly like using comparison charts or numbers, but as a claim was made, obviously based on numbers, they had to be challenged.....and our numbers do line up....

“line up” here presumably means “consistently above”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top