• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

In the UK 294 people under age 60 have died of Covid 19 with no pre existing conditions as of 10/6/20 From one report I saw (happy to be corrected)

What a cluster fudge this whole thing has been.

Deaths that didn’t need to happen if we shielded properly and financial hardship/other causes of death for those that didn’t need be locked up -if we spent the time shielding the at risk.
 
Last edited:
Legohamster said:
In the UK 294 people under age 60 have died of Covid 19 with no pre existing conditions as of 10/6/20 From one report I saw (happy to be corrected)

What a cluster fudge this whole thing has been.

Deaths that didn’t need to happen if we shielded properly and finical hardship/other causes of death for those that didn’t need be locked up -if we spent the time shielding the at risk.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I wonder how the term 'no pre existing conditions' is being defined and used here. For example, does it mean absolutely no diagnosed health conditions at all whatsoever, or does it mean none that are recognised as causing vulnerability to covid?

Prior to this, I would have considered myself a generally healthy, able-bodied adult with no significant health concerns. But I actually have several diagnosed minor-moderate conditions and I suspect probably at least one or two others undiagnosed, though none of them officially make me vulnerable as far as I am aware. So, if it came to it, presumably I'd be classed as being with pre-existing conditions...would I?

I wonder what proportion of the population genuinely have not a single diagnosed health condition?
 
Seedy Ron said:
The 294 would presumably be a fair bit higher if we hadn't locked down though?

Some good news, from the sound of it:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53061281
Click to expand...

In my view there has been a larger number of under 40s working in key jobs to make that number higher if the risk was higher

Parklaner81 said:
I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I wonder how the term 'no pre existing conditions' is being defined and used here. For example, does it mean absolutely no diagnosed health conditions at all whatsoever, or does it mean none that are recognised as causing vulnerability to covid?

Prior to this, I would have considered myself a generally healthy, able-bodied adult with no significant health concerns. But I actually have several diagnosed minor-moderate conditions and I suspect probably at least one or two others undiagnosed, though none of them officially make me vulnerable as far as I am aware. So, if it came to it, presumably I'd be classed as being with pre-existing conditions...would I?

I wonder what proportion of the population genuinely have not a single diagnosed health condition?
Click to expand...

No I get it, nothing is going to be perfect in this - however harsh it sounds, people were always going to die - but we are now in a situation in which more people are going to suffer and die - 10 million on the waiting list for the NHS by the end of the year, how long is that going to take to clear? Will it ever get cleared without a large percentage of them dying?

Think the logical choice and from the data we had was to keep the under 40s working that could fill we had more data.

There is also the view (I’ve only seen a few charts) that suggests the rate was coming down before the lock down was in place.

We have to move on from the lockdown quickly, the 1m debate is interesting as this along side track and trace will be the key.

The media have made the task of unlocking quickly impossible due to scaremongering through fear porn and the gov via being idiots

The riots/protests could be the best thing to happen to the UK if no spike.
 
Parklaner81 said:
I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I wonder how the term 'no pre existing conditions' is being defined and used here. For example, does it mean absolutely no diagnosed health conditions at all whatsoever, or does it mean none that are recognised as causing vulnerability to covid?

Prior to this, I would have considered myself a generally healthy, able-bodied adult with no significant health concerns. But I actually have several diagnosed minor-moderate conditions and I suspect probably at least one or two others undiagnosed, though none of them officially make me vulnerable as far as I am aware. So, if it came to it, presumably I'd be classed as being with pre-existing conditions...would I?

I wonder what proportion of the population genuinely have not a single diagnosed health condition?
Click to expand...

As I’ve said many times before on here, pre-existing conditions in this context covers everything from high blood pressure, obesity and mild asthma through a hundred other major and relatively minor illnesses. It probably could be applied to at least 50% of the UK population.

People are already forgetting that a major reason for lockdown was the (probably realistic) belief that the NHS couldn’t have coped if we didn’t.
 
Mikey10 said:
As I’ve said many times before on here, pre-existing conditions in this context covers everything from high blood pressure, obesity and mild asthma through a hundred other major and relatively minor illnesses. It probably could be applied to at least 50% of the UK population.

People are already forgetting that a major reason for lockdown was the (probably realistic) belief that the NHS couldn’t have coped if we didn’t.
Click to expand...

Out of interest what is your view on the coming weeks? Reckon we can deal with stuff? Think the likely 1m not 2m as advised by WHO is good or bad?
 
Mikey10 said:
As I’ve said many times before on here, pre-existing conditions in this context covers everything from high blood pressure, obesity and mild asthma through a hundred other major and relatively minor illnesses. It probably could be applied to at least 50% of the UK population.

People are already forgetting that a major reason for lockdown was the (probably realistic) belief that the NHS couldn’t have coped if we didn’t.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure about that.

The NHS specifies two higher risk groups - high risk/extremely vulnerable, and moderate risk/vulnerable. The second of those groups includes everyone over 70 and a fairly short list of specific conditions, but including asthma and high obesity. I could have this wrong, but I have it in the back of my mind hearing that this group accounts for something like a third of the population.

What I'm not clear on is whether these lists form the criteria for categorising a patient as having a 'pre-existing condition'. As I said in my previous post, I for example have several - but none, so far as I'm aware, that feature on these particular lists.

If however it's even close to true that the second list covers a third of the population, I'd imagine extending it out to include many or most diagnosed health conditions would shoot way over your 50% figure.
 
Last edited:
Mikey10 said:
As I’ve said many times before on here, pre-existing conditions in this context covers everything from high blood pressure, obesity and mild asthma through a hundred other major and relatively minor illnesses. It probably could be applied to at least 50% of the UK population.

People are already forgetting that a major reason for lockdown was the (probably realistic) belief that the NHS couldn’t have coped if we didn’t.
Click to expand...

I suppose one side-effect will be that for the next year or so we'll see a reduction in deaths from certain other causes because Covid-19 hastened the end.
 
A great contribution to the apples versus orange debate. You can't compare a country with the largest densely populated region in Europe (urban England), with one of the most interconnected cities in the world, and a country that is so isolated it gets left off half of internet maps.
 
jts1882 said:
A great contribution to the apples versus orange debate. You can't compare a country with the largest densely populated region in Europe (urban England), with one of the most interconnected cities in the world, and a country that is so isolated it gets left off half of internet maps.
Click to expand...

As I'm sure you know from reading previous pages in this thread, no one is saying NZ and UK are a direct comparison, however the principles of how to deal with a pandemic, which doesn't give a flying fcuk about international borders, still apply.
 

Attachments

  • VID-20200617-WA0012.mp4
    6 MB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back