https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation
..."Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19...."
My own opinion... While we can all accept that at the beginning of this pandemic we were facing a new and untested situation with regard to precautionary measures, its unlikely that any country would repeat them if these numbers bear up. The financial, psychological and developmental (think kids out of school) costs do not not justify such an approach.
Can you reference one of the report about the reduction in life expectancy? I haven't seen anything like this. Thanks.I think there are two things not reflected in the above - (a) the lockdown is meant to protect the vulnerable as much as the less vulnerable. So younger people are included as much to avoid them passing it on to the older population and (b) while healthy younger people do survive, there also seems to be a longer term impact - still unknown. I've seen reports that the impact even for a healthy person is up to 10 years reduction in life expectancy.
But it's so new - they are still learning the consequences
Can you post a link please?I've seen reports that the impact even for a healthy person is up to 10 years reduction in life expectancy.
Can you reference one of the report about the reduction in life expectancy? I haven't seen anything like this. Thanks.
One report here -
COVID-19 Patients are Losing 13 Years of their Lives on Average: Study
Men are losing on average, 13 years of their lives while women lose 11 years before they naturally die because of the coronavirus pandemic.www.sciencetimes.com
Also reported here -
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/497097-those-who-died-from-covid-19-lost-more-than-a-decade-of
I think the source report they refer to is this one -
COVID-19 – exploring the... | Wellcome Open Research
Read the original article in full on Wellcome Open Research: COVID-19 – exploring the implications of long-term condition type and extent of multimorbidity on years of life lost: a modelling studywellcomeopenresearch.org
I think you'll also find similar reports in The Telegraph, Guardian etc - but they seem to be sourcing the same University of Glasgow research
That's what I thought was being saidAh, I understand now, I thought you were saying that young people who had the virus and recovered would have 10 years taken off their expected life span. Thanks for the links.
The second point in the linked article addresses this. The vast majority of younger people who get the disease do not require hospitalisation.Surely the issue isn't just fatal cases though. A lot of younger people (<65) have required hospitalisation and even intensive care treatment with the virus. The health service could be very quickly overrun and then you would have more fatalities because they wouldn't be able to cope. Protecting the elderly is important but we can't just let it run rampant in younger people either. Even though, I do agree that we seem be taking an extremely conservative approach to lifting restrictions compared to other countries. So will be interesting to see what approach works out.
In Ireland, just over 45% of hospitalised cases are people under 65 so we can't just ignore the impact on younger people
Absolutely, but you can be sure that most of that group were over 45 and that the vast majority have at least one underlying condition.In Ireland, just over 45% of hospitalised cases are people under 65 so we can't just ignore the impact on younger people
Purple how on earth did you find such shrillness in the response you quoted? I didn't read anything other than a point being made that almost half of the hospitalized cases are under 65. The poster even said that they agree that our approach seems quite conservative.I find the "will someone please think of the children!" type shrillness of the response worrying
My comment wasn't directed as Sunny, whose opinion I place great value on, but at much of the coverage in the media.Purple how on earth did you find such shrillness in the response you quoted? I didn't read anything other than a point being made that almost half of the hospitalized cases are under 65. The poster even said that they agree that our approach seems quite conservative.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that but we have any amount of respirators and as many ICU ventilators as we want. An oxygen delivery respirator costs less than a thousand euro and will suffice in most cases. That's the one with the mask (they now use a full-face mask) which increases the oxygenation of the air, as opposed to the intubated ICU Ventilator which works instead of your usual lung function.The situation in mid/late March was quite worrying. ICU beds were filling up quickly and capacity was in danger of being reached within a few days.
One of the problems with this virus is that the treatment is supportive only, it tries to get oxygen into the patient's lungs and that support has to stay with the patient until such time as their own body overcomes the virus. Average ICU stay is measured in weeks for this virus. If the rate of ICU admission had continued into April and May, while the admissions who came in March still required treatment it would have been truly horrendous. Relatively fit people in their 50's or 60's would have been denied access to mechanical ventilation or invasive oxygen therapy. The numbers would have been in the hundreds, at least, maybe thousands.
I don't know if the lockdown was solely responsible for the change which has happend, as ICU admissions decrease, or if the virus has a natural cycle of infection, dormancy, re-infection, or if it is simply going to fade away. Fact is, no-one knows, but the evidence from those weeks in March was clearly indicating that this virus was highly infectious, spreading quickly in the community and had a devastating effect on a substantial number of people who caught it.
We should tread very carefully, because this virus is very different from anything seen before and it does have the potential to overwhelm any health service.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?