Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

[yorkie]

The human race has never been particularly good at taking a pragmatic approach to estimating, and managing, risks.

This is a good article, which those who have an irrational fear really should be reading:

Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

As lockdown restrictions begin to be eased across the UK, understanding risk will be crucial.

www.bbc.co.uk

Some have argued restrictions need to continue until safety can be guaranteed. But those arguments generally ignore the fact that continuing to do so carries risk in itself.

UK chief medical adviser Prof Chris Witty often describes these as the "indirect costs" of the pandemic. They include everything from poor access to healthcare for other conditions through to rises in mental illness, financial hardship and damage to education.

So as restrictions ease, society and individuals themselves are going to have to make decisions based on balancing competing sets of risks.

Statistician Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, an expert in risk from Cambridge University and government adviser, says it has, in effect, become a game of "risk management" - and because of that we need to get a handle on the magnitude of risk we face. ...

I am certain that biggest risk to the vast majority of the population is it's not the virus itself, but the potential effects of people taking poor decisions based on irrational fear (from decisions made at a high level e.g. by Governments, through to decisions made by individuals).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The number of people afraid of flying (a very safe activity) is an excellent demonstrator of that.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I believe another BBC article included a comparison I quite liked. For those under the age of 65, the risk of death from the virus is comparable to the risk of dying in a car accident if you commute daily from Swindon to London. That puts it into perspective quite nicely - you shouldn't completely ignore the risk, but it shouldn't petrify you into completely changing how you live your life.

 

[Bantamzen]

The human race has never been particularly good at taking a pragmatic approach to estimating, and managing, risks.

This is a good article, which those who have an irrational fear really should be reading:

Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

As lockdown restrictions begin to be eased across the UK, understanding risk will be crucial.

www.bbc.co.uk

I am certain that biggest risk to the vast majority of the population is it's not the virus itself, but the potential effects of people taking poor decisions based on irrational fear (from decisions made at a high level e.g. by Governments, through to decisions made by individuals).

That is such a well written piece, sober, factual and treating us more like adults in getting a grounded conversation going. The only one thing I lament about it is that it is the BBC writers penning this, and not the government. Because it really should be the government putting this message out.

We've known, statistically at least, who is most at risk in our society. We are now well on our way to being able to identify them, and potentially when they need to be extra vigilant. And our incredible healthcare staff are rapidly adapting intensive care treatments to increase the chances of survival for those who become critically ill. We even have the spare capacity to offer specialist care away from the regular system if needs be. So how scared should we be? No more than being scared of the myriad of other diseases in our eco-system, or all the risks we face literally every day.

 

[Huntergreed]

you shouldn't completely ignore the risk, but it shouldn't petrify you into completely changing how you live your life.

Exactly, the risk is minimal (completely acceptable risk to take to get society moving again in my opinion), but the media and government have blew it massively out of proportion, convincing the masses that if they go within 1.99m of another soul they’ll be dead within the week.

How can we change the attitude of the public to a more sensible, realistic outlook? The messaging from the government definitely needs to change. Where I am in Scotland, Sturgeon has beeng good at maintaining fear of the virus in the population up here, saying things such as that if you don’t stay at home what will happen will be “catastrophic” and that if we don’t lockdown for a much longer period “many thousands of lives which could have been saved will be lost”. The “grown-up” conversation she promised us turned out to be a conversation with the “grown ups” who’ve totally blew the risks out of proportion. Whilst I accept it’s important to try and suppress this virus to a degree where it doesn’t overwhelm the health service, I do think the governments themselves are guilty of overpercieving the risk of this virus at the cost of causing vast damage to our economy and I’m fearful that it’ll be my generation that has to clean up the huge mess they’ve made through a simple oversight for many years to come.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Exactly, the risk is minimal (completely acceptable risk to take to get society moving again in my opinion), but the media and government have blew it massively out of proportion, convincing the masses that if they go within 1.99m of another soul they’ll be dead within the week.

How can we change the attitude of the public to a more sensible, realistic outlook? The messaging from the government definitely needs to change. Where I am in Scotland, Sturgeon has beeng good at maintaining fear of the virus in the population up here, saying things such as that if you don’t stay at home what will happen will be “catastrophic” and that if we don’t lockdown for a much longer period “many thousands of lives which could have been saved will be lost”. The “grown-up” conversation she promised us turned out to be a conversation with the “grown ups” who’ve totally blew the risks out of proportion. Whilst I accept it’s important to try and suppress this virus to a degree where it doesn’t overwhelm the health service, I do think the governments themselves are guilty of overpercieving the risk of this virus at the cost of causing vast damage to our economy and I’m fearful that it’ll be my generation that has to clean up the huge mess they’ve made through a simple oversight for many years to come.

One way is to make it clear that while the virus might not kill you, it is quite likely to be rather miserable. By all accounts it's worse than a bad flu, and can cause quite severe pain even if it doesn't come close to killing you.

That would hopefully encourage those people not at risk to be sensible, since they would want to avoid being infected and risking a rather horrible disease. But they would also be more balanced in their view, seeing it as nasty rather than deadly, and so would be less petrified.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One way is to make it clear that while the virus might not kill you, it is quite likely to be rather miserable. By all accounts it's worse than a bad flu, and can cause quite severe pain even if it doesn't come close to killing you.

That would hopefully encourage those people not at risk to be sensible, since they would want to avoid being infected and risking a rather horrible disease. But they would also be more balanced in their view, seeing it as nasty rather than deadly, and so would be less petrified.

It'll be unpleasant, but it isn't, to be honest, enough to scare me, no. My actions are pretty much solely based on posing risk to others who are more at risk than me.

Were it the (hypothetical, and impossible of course) case that becoming infected could only harm me I would not be taking any additional precautions over normal whatsoever. As I live alone I barely am anyway, I'm just assuming I'm infected in terms of interacting with others.

 

[37424]

Exactly, the risk is minimal (completely acceptable risk to take to get society moving again in my opinion), but the media and government have blew it massively out of proportion, convincing the masses that if they go within 1.99m of another soul they’ll be dead within the week.

How can we change the attitude of the public to a more sensible, realistic outlook? The messaging from the government definitely needs to change. Where I am in Scotland, Sturgeon has beeng good at maintaining fear of the virus in the population up here, saying things such as that if you don’t stay at home what will happen will be “catastrophic” and that if we don’t lockdown for a much longer period “many thousands of lives which could have been saved will be lost”. The “grown-up” conversation she promised us turned out to be a conversation with the “grown ups” who’ve totally blew the risks out of proportion. Whilst I accept it’s important to try and suppress this virus to a degree where it doesn’t overwhelm the health service, I do think the governments themselves are guilty of overpercieving the risk of this virus at the cost of causing vast damage to our economy and I’m fearful that it’ll be my generation that has to clean up the huge mess they’ve made through a simple oversight for many years to come.

If you have no underlying health conditions and under 50 then yes the risk appears to be fairly low and it seems to me many in that group are already acting as if the risk is low, but you should still follow the guidelines that we currently have in my view given the infection rate is still quite high. If you have underlying health conditions and/or you are over 50 then the risks start to become much greater and frankly you need to be much more cautious in these groups and lets not forget this a fairly significant chunk of the population

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you have no underlying health conditions and under 50 then yes the risk appears to be fairly low and it seems to me many that group are already acting as if the risk is low, but you should still follow the guidelines that we currently have in my view given the infection rate is still quite high. If you have underlying health conditions and/or you are over 50 then the risks start to become much greater and frankly you need to be much more cautious in these groups and lets not forget this a fairly significant chunk of the population

Or maybe you don't. Maybe the risk is acceptable to you.

If I was 80 I would be ignoring shielding, to be honest. I might as well make use of the limited time left, and if it takes me out that's better than a stroke or dementia, as at that age it would be quite quick.

 

[deltic]

Your views are also affected by your own experience. If you know no-one effected and are fit and healthy then you will probably regard our response as being over the top. As one of my work colleagues died of Covid-19 early on in the outbreak, I am getting to an age where my risk of death or complications is rising if I was to catch it and as a regular bus user, having seen an above average number of bus drivers die then I am slightly more sanguine.

New York's experience has been sobering with more than 20,000 deaths. It will be interesting to see what happens in Sweden which has taken a more relaxed attitude to lockdowns. Its infection rate per head of population is getting close to the UK's with half the level of testing so there is probably some under reporting. While its care homes are also badly affected accounting for around half of its deaths to date.

 

[yorkie]

If you have no underlying health conditions and under 50 then yes the risk appears to be fairly low ...

This is a huge understatement!

Replace "fairly low" with "tiny"; for the higher risk groups the overall risk is "fairly low" when you consider that almost all activities have some element of risk and you cannot eliminate risk; also many people currently categorised as higher risk may not be; as more research is carried out, the situation becomes clearer.

It's disingenuous to suggest people in the 50-69 age bracket are higher risk; yes of course they are more at risk compared to younger people, but the vast majority of deaths are in the over 80 category, with 70+ generally being considered the age where you are deemed to be of higher risk.

Have you read the article in full? If not, I suggest you do, as it's very good as it is important to take a pragmatic view, which takes into account the bigger picture.

Your views are also affected by your own experience. ....

Absolutely; people who have had it severely or known someone who had it severely (or even died from it) are going to find it difficult to be objective (whether they realise that or not) and separate their emotions from the facts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely; people who have had it severely or known someone who had it severely (or even died from it) are going to find it difficult to be objective (whether they realise that or not).

This is why I oppose "X's Law" type interventions. Victims of a given crime are typically the worst placed to advise on what the law with regard to that crime should be.

 

[Huntergreed]

This is why I oppose "X's Law" type interventions. Victims of a given crime are typically the worst placed to advise on what the law with regard to that crime should be.

Exactly, and yet given our PM has been in this very situation, that’s exactly what’s happening here. I’m beyond baffled that not one person in government seems to have raised concerns that the damage caused from other things is still happening, the government seem so blindsided on ridding this virus that it seems a lot of rational, logical thought has went out the window and they’re placing a good 90-95% of the population at risk in the long term to save the small 5-10% that’s at risk in the short term.

 

[geoffk]

I'm 73 and live on my own and am gradually getting back to doing what I did before, except going to the pub, playing in an orchestra and travelling by train. I'd feel quite safe on the train at off-peak times as those going past my window are virtually empty. The main risk is probably going to the supermarket but I've started to wear a mask there now. Some of us are expecting orchestra to restart in September, heritage railways pubs opening maybe. Life is for living and shutting ourselves away wondering if we're going to die in the next year is not living. Nor is worrying about whether the things we value will still be there afterwards.

 

[Smidster]

I think you are right - the public at large are rubbish when it comes to understanding things like absolute and relative risk.

The classic example is when you get the reports that eating bacon increases your risk of cancer by 30% and don't take into account that means an increase from 0.3% to 0.4%. Is it worth knowing? Yes...Should it change how you live? Probably not (unless you have bacon twice a day) Equally having long interactions with people at short distance is not advisable has turned into a genuine fear of people being within 2m for a millisecond (see those who dart into the road for fear of walking past someone on the pavement)

As we move into the next stage I do think there is a strong argument that we need to do more to balance the short and long term risks to society. Every day we have more and more data on who is most likely to have a negative outcome and yet we don't seem to be using any of that data in our response.

 

[37424]

This is a huge understatement!

Replace "fairly low" with "tiny"; for the higher risk groups the risk is "fairly low" when you consider that almost all activities have some element of risk and you cannot eliminate risk.

I'm not sure I would entirely agree with that particularly in the higher risk groups, while the risk of catching the virus may be fairly low the consequences of catching the virus is potentially very high.

So given I was advised by my consultant to limit my exposure to crowded environments well before this virus arrived, we are looking at this from two different ends of the spectrum and as such are not likely to agree.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it worth knowing? Yes...Should it change how you live? Probably not (unless you have bacon twice a day)

And if you do[1], it's fairly likely that you've got greater health problems than a small added chance of cancer - it's likely that you are morbidly obese, for a start (or if you're not your arteries are probably invisibly furring).

[1] I know lean bacon in something like a risotto isn't unhealthy per-se barring that risk, but most people who eat bacon twice a day will have it as part of something altogether less healthy. It's sausages that are much more calorific!

 

[northernchris]

This is a really well balanced article which puts a lot of things in perspective. I'm glad the BBC are highlighting only around 1 in 20 people who become infected need hospital treatment and that deaths among the under 65s are uncommon. Whilst it probably won't help in changing the views of those who are pro-lockdown it does show the reality of the future we have, at least in the short term

I've no doubt that in some cases it is a nasty illness amongst the healthy, but as one of the professors said recently on one of the daily briefings, for around 80% of those who catch the disease it is a mild to moderate illness. The risks need to be weighed up, and these will be different for everyone.

 

[yorkie]

I'm 73 and live on my own and am gradually getting back to doing what I did before, except going to the pub, playing in an orchestra and travelling by train. I'd feel quite safe on the train at off-peak times as those going past my window are virtually empty. The main risk is probably going to the supermarket but I've started to wear a mask there now...

...the main purpose of that (other than as a placebo effect ) is to protect others though (see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-to-be-encouraged-with-no-compulsion.203732/ for further discussion in this topic)

I'm not sure I would entirely agree with that particularly in the higher risk groups, while the risk of catching the virus may be fairly low the consequences of catching the virus is potentially very high.

I don't think you've read the article, as what you are saying is not consistent with it.

I believe you are using emotive language to further your point, but without considering the statistics. Many cases are asymptomatic and go undetected; many are also very mild. Of those cases that are severe, the vast majority do survive, even in the higher age brackets. Even in Italy, which ran out of ICU beds (which didn't happen in this country), 80% of the most affected age range, the Over 80s, survived. You have been trying to portray people in their 50s as high risk, but in Italy 99% survived. And of course this does not take into account asymptomatic / undiagnosed cases, so the true survival rates will be even higher. Stats from: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-age (edit: this data isn't current, and if anything I'd expect the mortality rates to have reduced even further since then, as more testing results in more cases coming to light)

So given I was advised by my consultant to limit my exposure to crowded environments well before this virus arrived, we are looking at this from two different ends of the spectrum and as such are not likely to agree.

It sounds like you need to do a very different course of action than the rest of us and it now seems it's not really anything to do with the virus, so I don't think there is much more to debate on that. You need to do what's best for you and the rest of us need to do what's best for us.

 

[Yew]

That was a nice article, It would have been nice to see some more statistical comparisons along the lines of the often quoted "commuting daily from Swindon to London". How far must a child walk on the way to school before they're at more risk of an accident, than of death by COVID-19 caught in the classroom?

 

[Jamesrob637]

I'm not massively scared for myself however I have relatives in their 60s and 70s whom I fear it will affect more closely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not massively scared for myself however I have relatives in their 60s and 70s whom I fear it will affect more closely.

The concern I have is my parents, specifically the vector of kids back to school and then going to visit. I hope they will be restrained about how they act when they see them much as hugs will be tempting.

 

[xc170]

I've worked throughout the pandemic in a position where Social Distancing only works on paper, not in practice, I'm still alive and I've yet to trip over any dead bodies in the street, so no, I'm not scared of this virus.

I'm starting to see people out walking who are wearing masks and gloves, these people then generally panic if you walk past them within 2 meters, usually resulting in them walking out into the road without looking... It's laughable.

 

[37424]

...the main purpose of that (other than as a placebo effect ) is to protect others though (see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-to-be-encouraged-with-no-compulsion.203732/ for further discussion in this topic)


I don't think you've read the article, as what you are saying is not consistent with it.

I believe you are using emotive language to further your point, but without considering the statistics. Many cases are asymptomatic and go undetected; many are also very mild. Of those cases that are severe, the vast majority do survive, even in the higher age brackets. Even in Italy, which ran out of ICU beds (which didn't happen in this country), 80% of the most affected age range, the Over 80s, survived. You have been trying to portray people in their 50s as high risk, but in Italy 99% survived. And of course this does not take into account asymptomatic / undiagnosed cases, so the true survival rates will be even higher. Stats from: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-age (edit: this data isn't current, and if anything I'd expect the mortality rates to have reduced even further since then, as more testing results in more cases coming to light)


It sounds like you need to do a very different course of action than the rest of us and it now seems it's not really anything to do with the virus, so I don't think there is much more to debate on that. You need to do what's best for you and the rest of us need to do what's best for us.

I object to your comment that I am using emotive language, and would report that except of course you are an an administrator so it would be a waste of time. At this stage I would be wary of the accuracy of any statistics until we get a bigger picture and I imagine there is more than one set of stats floating about. While someone 50+ might not be as high risk as someone older, the 50+ band is where the risks start to increase even according to the stats you are quoting and there are likely to be increasing over 50's in the specific health at risk groups. There have been a number of scientists in the past month that have suggested that people in the 50 to 70 age group need to be more careful and possibly shielding like the over 70's.

You seemed to be determined to minimize the risk of this whereas I take a different view that people in higher risk group like myself need to be more concerned I don't see that as being emotive, and even if I wasn't in a high risk group I am not sure I would entirely trust the stats in the article at this stage.

 

[Scrotnig]

possibly shielding like the over 70's.

Over 70's are not shielding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I object to your comment that I am using emotive language, and would report that except of course you are an an administrator so it would be a waste of time.

The reporting system is not for reporting comments you don't happen to agree with, even if he wasn't. Admin time isn't to be wasted on such things. The correct thing to do is to debate those points (which you have).

I'm an admin elsewhere, and I always reject such reports. Reporting is for inappropriate content (e.g. inappropriate language, images, personal attacks etc) and off-topic posts. Which this probably is, to be fair

 

[Bletchleyite]

You seemed to be determined to minimize the risk of this whereas I take a different view that people in higher risk group like myself need to be more concerned I don't see that as being emotive, and even if I wasn't in a high risk group I am not sure I would entirely trust the stats in the article at this stage.

And that is your own choice, of course. Shielding is strong advice and you are at liberty to decide that you accept the risk or don't - the advice explains that. Just like you make many decisions about your own safety every day.

Personally, I doubt I would fully shield.

 

[scotrail158713]

Over 70's are not shielding.

Are they not? I thought they were.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are they not? I thought they were.

Not any more. The advice has shifted based on learning about the virus, and over 70s are now just advised to take specific care to avoid contact rather than fully shield.

Originally it was going to be everyone who was entitled to a free flu jab, which would have been excessive.

 

[Bantamzen]

Are they not? I thought they were.

My mother isn't, nor are some of the others members of our family, nor their friends, or for that matter my 83 year old neighbour. And judging by the demographics of people I see walking about there a plenty others also not hiding.