Still not sure what an ‘excess’ death is. Who decides, and on what basis, does a death become the first ‘excess’ death of the year ? Is a death on the 1st of January an excess death if nobody expected the person to die ? Or does somebody somewhere say that the expected number of deaths this year is 247,812 and if that number is reached by October 3rd is everything from the. 4th onwards considered excess ?
I assume if you’d said at the start of the year that we were going to experience a recurring pandemic then the number of deaths expected might have been higher ?
I guess the point I’m making is that statistics, as ever, can mean so many different things to so many different people they are actually meaningless.
Just my opinion (observation only) but the majority of our fans on match days are over 50, and quite a few are much older.
As age is the main factor in prioritising who gets the vaccine first, I hope that there will be a good take-up amongst Vikings supporters so that, when the season kicks off in a couple of months, there will be a sizeable crowd inside the stadium to cheer on our team.
Definitely yes for me, three of my friends have sadly died as a result of the virus, although they were of senior age like me, 60 plus, they had no major health issues.
It saddens me to see ‘educated’ idiots such as Piers Corbyn demonstrating about invasion of civil rights when so many are suffering or dying. As for those who say excessive deaths are low just think for a moment what the figures would have been without lockdowns and other restrictions.
Then we have the crazy’s who thing a chip is being inserted to track their movements, they express this point by posting on social media using phones etc that track their movements anyway!!! Education is a wonderful thing😂😂
Roll on the jab.
I cannot get it soon enough. Everyone should have it.
For those who still think Covid is only affecting the old and those with others conditions I would recommend that they read the comments of comedian John Bishop. On Christmas Eve he was tested positive and describes himself as never feeling so ill and debilitated, and this is someone who is a super fit man.
As of 27/12/2020, number of people in the UK under 60 with no previous underlying health conditions that have died of Covid-19?
388.
As of 27/12/2020, number of people in the UK under 60 with no previous underlying health conditions that have died of Covid-19? 388.
Or, put another way, using the figure have provided, at least 388 lives could have been saved had we had a vaccine at this time last year ? Who knows how many more lives with those having ‘underlying health conditions’ too ?
As of 27/12/2020, number of people in the UK under 60 with no previous underlying health conditions that have died of Covid-19? 388.
Define underlying health conditions? I would guess there are millions upon millions with one, that are in no way life threatening at all. Also it uses under 60 as if that's a specific number, when in today's society you're only about 2/3's through life.
By your example someone with very mild asthma that has never been life threatening ever wouldn't fall into that statistic, which seems to have been made to support an argument!
Of the 74,000 in the UK how many have died that weren't about to die in the next couple of days/weeks anyway? That's how you measure it's impact. Also how many more would have died without measures being taken.
As for an earlier comment someone heard about young/old etc. lets hope none of their family ever catch it & have complications.
An underlying health condition is a chronic or significant condition that requires long-term treatment.
The NHS definition includes organ transplant, cancer & cancer treatment, heart disease, diabetes, lung disease (fibrosis, COPD, severe asthma), sickle cell, in dialysis; stuff like that.
Last analysis said that 90%-95% of UK Covid-19 deaths were carrying an underlying condition.
The reason 60 comes up in the analysis is that, for most people of working age, the chance of contracting the virus and suffering debilitating symptoms is low, the chance of succumbing to it is next to none. Yet, apart from key workers, most are sat at home while the Govt rack up a £350B bill for furlough and grants. In addition, businesses across the country continue to go to the wall, other conditions such as mental health and domestic violence spiral out of control and those same people who suffer from the underlying health conditions are being denied treatment.
You should offer your expertise to the Government.
So your answer is that the 74,000 covid deaths in the UK and the 1.8m deaths worldwide should be ignored, as most of these people would have died anyway from an underlying illness and anyway they contributed nothing to the economy. I think that was Harold Shipman's defence.
Have these people died earlier than they would have done through the underlying condition? Would they have recovered from the underlying condition? Who are you to simply dismiss their deaths through covid earlier than it would have happened, as they would have eventually died anyway.
I think someone should arrange for you to visit an intensive care unit or speak to someone who has lost a close family member to covid and you can debate with the nurses and families, the value of the economy compared to the value of life.
Why do you get aggressive when someone has a different opinion to yours?
No-one, the Govt, the NHS or the ONS, has yet provided a figure of how many people have died OF Covid-19.
All I have said in this thread is that, if you are under 60 and have no underlying health conditions, there is a significant probability that you have nothing to worry about.
Protecting the vulnerable, elderly and infirm is a completely separate discussion point, and a viewpoint I agree with.
Why do you get aggressive when someone has a different opinion to yours? No-one, the Govt, the NHS or the ONS, has yet provided a figure of how many people have died OF Covid-19. All I have said in this thread is that, if you are under 60 and have no underlying health conditions, there is a significant probability that you have nothing to worry about. Protecting the vulnerable, elderly and infirm is a completely separate discussion point, and a viewpoint I agree with.
Nothing to worry about except passing it on to a loved one who may not survive. Countries around the world and taking similar measures to combat this virus for a reason. Hospitals are reaching capacity because there are selfish people who only think of their self and will not stick to the rules. People with underlying health conditions that are being managed successfully can continue to have a relatively good quality of life and live for many years, in these cases of death covid should be stated as the main cause and not as a contributor.
Why do you get aggressive when someone has a different opinion to yours? No-one, the Govt, the NHS or the ONS, has yet provided a figure of how many people have died OF Covid-19. All I have said in this thread is that, if you are under 60 and have no underlying health conditions, there is a significant probability that you have nothing to worry about. Protecting the vulnerable, elderly and infirm is a completely separate discussion point, and a viewpoint I agree with.
I'm assuming it's all interlinked though? If you catch something like pneumonia when getting treated for cancer which goes down as cause of death? would 1 have happened without the other, or death occurred if only 1 problem?
How do you do that though, as people have to mix? This bit...
if you are under 60 and have no underlying health conditions, there is a significant probability that you have nothing to worry about.
That's true, but is also a massive part of the problem as loads of selfish people think "I'll be fine so sod everyone else". The I'm alright Jack brigade.
See no. of raves/house parties etc. that have been held.
Why do you get aggressive when someone has a different opinion to yours? No-one, the Govt, the NHS or the ONS, has yet provided a figure of how many people have died OF Covid-19. All I have said in this thread is that, if you are under 60 and have no underlying health conditions, there is a significant probability that you have nothing to worry about. Protecting the vulnerable, elderly and infirm is a completely separate discussion point, and a viewpoint I agree with.
I hope I’m not sounding aggressive GPO - it’s certainly not my intention. This is the most serious topic of conversation in a generation at least and I’m just trying to understand what people mean by the new terms that are appearing, hence my concern re ‘excess deaths’.
One point I would make though is that people under 60 not at significant risk for their own perspective can still represent a very, very serious risk to those who are more susceptible or at a higher risk level, which I am sure you appreciate but which isn’t necessarily obvious (at least to me) in what you are saying.
As said, the most vulnerable, elderly or infirm in our society should be protected.
Those least at risk should be charged with carrying on our way of life.
It's an absolute joke that pubs and restaurants have suffered whilst shops, gyms and schools haven't. That's 100% NOT a scientific argument.
It's too late for this way of thinking anyway. We are now saddled with everyone's way of life being compromised for at least a generation. For what? No-one can provide the stats.
It is what it is. Welcome to a shallow future.
I'll bow out now, good luck everyone.