Will cure be worse than disease?

[Steve (sdh2903)]

2 hours ago, corsechris said:

That graph is what I was alluding to in my post. Simple choice, let the old & sick die and carry on, business as usual, or try to minimise deaths while trying to minimise economic and collateral damage. All the facts & figures in the world won't really help to inform that decision.

 

Is there not a halfway though where we continue to shield the vulnerable and older people whilst those who can, get the economy moving? 

 

I dont mean for that to be patronising to anyone but there's not really a non patronising way to say it. 

[Arm]

Yes I think so Steve. Takes us back to the phrase I didn't like Herd Immunity. 

 

Exposure is currently the only certainty.  Likewise the many who are ranting about slow lock down.  So long as it's within nhs capacity  that's best we can achieve

[corsechris]

There is no good answer until (IF!!!) a vaccine becomes available. Anything that forces specific behaviours on targeted groups is quickly going to cause problems, although admittedly worse for the group under lockdown than those free to roam. Sadly, I have no clue as to any kind of good answer, simply plenty of misgivings about all the proposals to date.

 

This seems to be an authoritative piece on herd immunity:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/why-herd-immunity-will-not-save-us-from-the-covid-19-pandemic

 

Clearly explains why it won’t help us here.

 

 

And for absolute clarity, I’m NOT advocating we just crack on business as usual and ‘let nature take it’s course’.

[corsechris]

14 hours ago, Steve (sdh2903) said:

 

Is there not a halfway though where we continue to shield the vulnerable and older people whilst those who can, get the economy moving? 

 

I dont mean for that to be patronising to anyone but there's not really a non patronising way to say it. 

This seems to be the way forward that’s starting to make it’s way into the zeitgeist if today’s press releases are to be believed.
 

For the sake of balance, the endless 24/7 reporting and punditry does nothing to quell fears or bring any sense of perspective.

[DonPeffers]

22 hours ago, Blatman said:

 

That's because the government changed the rules on what constitutes a reportable disease and added Covid 19 to the list. I think the idea was that it would provide for better numbers of infections. The unintended consequence is that people dying of others things are reported as Covid 19 deaths. I am hoping the statistics are further refined when time allows.

My understanding is once the W.H.O. declared covid-19 a pandemic on 11 mar 2020 Governments were required to record deaths where covid is a factor, as the cause of death.

Other ailments such as a weak heart would make a patient more vulnerable to dying but covid might have been the last straw IYSWIM.

 

Thinking back to covid deaths figures in China, with about 75% occurring before pandemic declared (11 mar 2020), it could be that many deaths in China were recorded as other than covid thereby leading to an impression that cases and deaths were lower than was the case.

 

[DonPeffers]

On 06/05/2020 at 15:05, Nick - Joint North East AO said:

2) According to Press reports ( No i've not checked) only 332 under 45's have died of it, and given what is said above, makes you wonder even more. 

 

Given the damage that is being done to the economy currently, you have to think what the right thing is to do. ??

           07 may 2020  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692

 

[Nick Algar - Competition Secretary]

22 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

           07 may 2020  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692

 

Thanks Don, now that is a really staggering graph. It really does make set things out starkly.

[XTR2Turbo]

I would like to see the breakdown of the 45-64 group.  If the majority are in the 60-64 range it really would be even more stark.

 

[jeff oakley]

The other thing we need to see is what their condition was pre Covid. Very few younger people have died because simply they are fitter and in the main not obese. 

 

I saw a chart which was from China which showed other issues, heart failure, old age as you are less able to fight things off. Respiratory conditions etc.

 

Until there is a full open discussion as to who recorded what, who did what then all these attempts to make out the UK lost control and these 29000 deaths were all unavoidable, is just speculation and media hype.

[Blatman]

 

55 minutes ago, jeff oakley said:

these 29000 deaths were all unavoidable, is just speculation and media hype.

 

The media (printed, broadcast or internet) can only speculate because no-one has the breakdown. In this day and age of 24 hour immediate news with news organisations competing to be "first" so they can win a BAFTA (don't get me started on that...) speculation has taken the place of facts for quite a few hours of the day. This is annoying for many of us. Unfortunately for a great many people because "they said it on the news" means the statement is an actual fact, as if "may" or "could" or "possible" means the same as "will" "can" or "definitely". Boils my number 1's...

 

[DonPeffers]

3 hours ago, XTR2Turbo said:

I would like to see the breakdown of the 45-64 group.  If the majority are in the 60-64 range it really would be even more stark.

 

Haven't yet seen 45-64 age breakdown but did see   

09 apr 2020  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8203673/NHS-figures-92-coronavirus-victims-England-60.html   

 

"NHS figures show 92% of coronavirus victims in England are over 60 ------- while only FIVE under-20s have died from the killer infection"

"More than half - 52 per cent - were 80 years old or over, NHS England data shows."

 

40 per cent aged 60-79 and 52 per cent over 80, leaving just 8% under age 60.

 

From  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8027501.stm   Flu pandemics: facts and figures.

 

52 years ago "the 1968 Hong Kong flu killed 30,000 in UK and an estimated 1 Mn worldwide." There was no vaccine, no lockdown and football and F1 continued with Graham Hill becoming champion for the 2nd time and Manchester United winning the European Cup.

 

02 may 2020  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/02/britain-handled-1968-flu-epidemic-shutdown-avoided-second-wave/

"Half a century ago stoic Britons battle a similar health crisis without any lockdown."

"Worldwide response to Asian flu was similar in many ways to Covid-19, except people went to work and lockdown was prevented."

 

16 apr 2020   https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/04/ons-survey-highlights-pre-existing-conditions-most-commonly-associated-covid-19-deaths

 

"ONS survey highlights pre-existing conditions most commonly associated with Covid-19 deaths."

 

"The figures come from an ONS study of deaths in March registered before 6 April. It found that that more than nine in 10 people who died due to Covid-19 had a pre-existing health condition, and many of those who died had multiple pre-existing illnesses. 14 per cent of those that died had ischaemic heart disease, making it the most common pre-existing condition associated with Covid-19 fatalities, followed by pneumonia, dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease."

[Blatman]

The difference between seasonal flu and Covid-19 is the R number.

[DonPeffers]

The R number indicates how infectious a disease is (say 2.5 covid and 1.5 flu) but the lethality is surely more important. Nobody worries about the coronavirus common cold R rate.

 

17 mar 2020    https://theconversation.com/why-are-older-people-more-at-risk-of-coronavirus-133770

 

"The (covid-19) death rate for those with no underlying chronic conditions is approximately 1%.

 

For those with cardiovascular (heart) disease the death rate is 10.5%, for diabetes it’s 7.3%. Chronic respiratory disease (such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) has a 6.3% death rate, for hypertension (high blood presure) it’s 6.0% and cancer is 5.6%."

[Blatman]

4 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

The R number indicates how infectious a disease is (say 2.5 covid and 1.5 flu) but the lethality is surely more important. Nobody worries about the coronavirus common cold R rate.

 

I wasn't saying otherwise. I think we accept that Coronavirus is lethal under certain circumstances where the common cold is not. Surely to do all we can to prevent death means looking at the R number alongside all the other variables. This is especially important for those who have as yet undiagnosed underlying health issues which I think is an important potential that is being overlooked. The down side of making Covid-19 notifiable is that (as I understand it) autopsies are not carried out so we may be missing an important piece of the puzzle. Not that I think we could do all the autopsies required if that were to be the case. There have been far to many deaths already for that to be practical. None-the-less it is possible we are missing an important data-set.

[DonPeffers]

You could apply to join SAGE as currently their number is one down.