Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

[Skimpot flyer]

For information, these are the probabilities of death from coronavirus for different age groups, based on official data from England & Wales
(photo of page from Private Eye):

The statistics show that for each of the following age brackets, the chance of dying from coronavirus are:



0-14: 1 in 5,337,266

15-24: 1 in 278,550

25-44: 1 in 44,423

45-64: 1 in 4,388

65-74: 1 in 1,143

75-90: 1 in 225

90+: 1 in 81

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Sweden is often cited as a comparison because of its lack of harsh lockdown measures. Sweden has about one sixth the population of the UK. It has about one eighth of the number of infections (assuming the reporting regime is similar in both countries). Sweden's population density, of course, is far lower than the UK (60 per sq.m as against 725). But just about the only lockdown measures they have introduced is the closure of high schools and the prevention of gatherings of more than 50 people. Most schools remain open; nearly all shops continue to trade and most significantly restaurants and bars remain open. This is an enormous difference to the UK and intuitively I would expect their infection fact to be considerably higher, even allowing for their comparatively rare population density. Something else of significance is that whilst the UK's rate of reported new infections has undoubtedly slowed since the beginning of May (seven day average was 4,800 on May 1st, 2,400 yesterday), Sweden's has not shown such a similar decrease (565/502). But....and it's a very big but, whilst Sweden may have to live with a relatively high rate of new infections for longer than the UK, their economy has not been trashed. More than that, I doubt there's anything like the fear factor there that there is here. They don't need much of an "exit strategy" - something which I believe the UK government is going to find extremely difficult to formulate and implement. The reason I believe this is that there is certainly a fear factor which has been introduced by the government and many people now are fearful of the lockdown being eased. (Many are also quite happy to remain at home whilst being paid, but that's another argument). I have believed all along that an extended lockdown would end up causing more problems than it prevents and some of the proposals now being bandied about for when restrictions are eased are frankly ludicrous. All they will do is reinforce the fear that is rife among the population and will take some shifting.

Population density is a red herring, surely? Crowded shops, bars, or restauranta are still crowded, irrespective of how many people live in whichever country that establishment is located. So if this virus is as contagious and, more relevantly, as deadly as we have been told, why are Sweden’s hospitals not submerged with cases to the point they cannot cope? Could it be, that for the overwhelming majority of people, it will make them ill, certainly, but not actually kill them, despite what we’ve been told ?
I suspect that there are many people there and here that have already had the virus, but had relatively mild symptoms.

 

[xc170]

Could it be, that for the overwhelming majority of people, it will make them ill, certainly, but not actually kill them, despite what we’ve been told ?

Exactly this, the media have put so much emphasis on the death aspect, the fact that this, for the vast majority is mild and doesn't require hospital treatment has been lost along the way.

It's far from a death sentence.

 

[greyman42]

Exactly this, the media have put so much emphasis on the death aspect, the fact that this, for the vast majority is mild and doesn't require hospital treatment has been lost along the way.

It's far from a death sentence.

I agree, but why are the general public so taken in by it. I'm no rocket scientist but I know when news is being sensationalised.

 

[Struner]

Actually, the number of UK deaths so far represents 0.0541% of the population.

you are out of order by an order of magnitude...

 

[takno]

you are out of order by an order of magnitude...

Looks right by my calculation. Are you sure you aren't reading it without the % sign?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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

You beat me to it. I was about to say that. I once said to a pilot after a flight with plenty of turbulence “ And now for the riskiest part of my journey, the drive from the airport home”. He replied “exactly”.

For the record I would get on the tube, the Hex a train or a plane tomorrow.

 

[Clayton]

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.

Well an awful lot of people have had it and even if they weren’t hospitalised they were pretty ill for a couple of weeks, so I can see it as being something I’ll do my best to avoid. My main concern would be how worried my wife would be if I caught it.

 

[Clayton]

Exactly this, the media have put so much emphasis on the death aspect, the fact that this, for the vast majority is mild and doesn't require hospital treatment has been lost along the way.

It's far from a death sentence.

It’s mild compared to very serious diseases, but can still make you very ill for weeks, so don’t be too complacent.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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.

As you know I am trying to avoid politics, but do you think BoJo having had the virus very badly is affecting his ability to make sound/pragmatic but difficult decisions?

 

[Skimpot flyer]

It’s mild compared to very serious diseases, but can still make you very ill for weeks, so don’t be too complacent.

Similarly, don’t get too complacent that the suspension of routine screenings for various cancers will not impact your life expectancy or of those you care about.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You beat me to it. I was about to say that. I once said to a pilot after a flight with plenty of turbulence “ And now for the riskiest part of my journey, the drive from the airport home”. He replied “exactly”.

For the record I would get on the tube, the Hex a train or a plane tomorrow.

So would I, and the only reason I am not going for a nice long train ride this weekend is that I have been asked not to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s mild compared to very serious diseases, but can still make you very ill for weeks, so don’t be too complacent.

So can flu but I don't go out of my way not to get that. (Well, I had the jab once because the pharmacist offered it when I happened to be there anyway).

 

[AM9]

Population density is a red herring, surely? Crowded shops, bars, or restauranta are still crowded, irrespective of how many people live in whichever country that establishment is located. So if this virus is as contagious and, more relevantly, as deadly as we have been told, why are Sweden’s hospitals not submerged with cases to the point they cannot cope? Could it be, that for the overwhelming majority of people, it will make them ill, certainly, but not actually kill them, despite what we’ve been told ?
I suspect that there are many people there and here that have already had the virus, but had relatively mild symptoms.

What isn't a red herring in comparing the impact of a pandemic on two countries ad different as Sweden and the UK is the health of the population. Sweden has a far more healthy population than of the UK, (yes, the UK's health really isn't that good by European standards being well below the average of the whole EU population). Going by the number of claims that the UK is advanced and wealthy amongst European nations, this country doesn't make a good job of benefitting the population.
In the most recent year that I can find figures for - 2018, the average number of healthy life years at birth in the UK are 60.8 and 61.5 years for women and men respectively, whereas the equivalent figures for Sweden are 72.0 and 73.7 years respectively. The figures are just as striking when taken as the number of healthy years left at age 65. The UK then has 10.7 (f) & 10.2 (m) vs Sweden's 15.8 (f) & 15.6(m). So comparing the figures of infection and death is a meaningless exercise and say nothing about the relatively less restrictive regime that the Swedish government imposed.

The figures are here: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/stati...years_statistics#Healthy_life_years_at_age_65

 

[Enthusiast]

Population density is a red herring, surely? Crowded shops, bars, or restauranta are still crowded, irrespective of how many people live in whichever country that establishment is located.

Yes I quite agree. However, when I've argued this elsewhere the first reaction I get is "Ah, but Sweden has a far lower population density, you see." But they still have large cities with plenty of congested areas. We were told that without the lockdown the NHS would be overwhelmed, up to half a million people would die and there would be so many people sick that the country would not be able to function. Sweden's lower population density cannot explain why they did not suffer a similar apocalyptic outcome despite imposing virtually no lockdown measures.

Now that none of that has happened here we're told that it's only because of the lockdown that it didn't. We'll never know, but I don't agree. The seven day average of new infections peaked in mid-April, then declined slightly but then rose and peaked again on 7th May. Since then it has more than halved. But it took more than six weeks of lockdown for that decline to properly begin and it is still being maintained despite the lockdown being less strictly observed as time goes on and the recent relaxations on 13th May. With an incubation period said to be three weeks maximum I would have expected the decline to begin far sooner than that.

I am coming to the conclusion that the total lockdown (rather than concentrating on protecting vulnerable groups) has been a colossal folly and, keeping in touch with the title of this thread, has instilled completely irrational and unfounded fear among the population. Yes, lots of people have died and that's tragic but many of them had serious underlying health problems to such a degree where just a bad bout of 'flu may have finished them off. When the country looks back at this and assesses the serious economic damage that has been caused I think there will be very pertinent questions asked about such a strategy.

What isn't a red herring in comparing the impact of a pandemic on two countries ad different as Sweden and the UK is the health of the population. Sweden has a far more healthy population than of the UK,...

That would be fair when examining the death rates. I have really majored on the rates of infection (which is what the lockdown set out to control). As an aside, Prof. Ferguson's model which produced a forecast 500,000 deaths here and directly led to the introduction of the lockdown was used in Sweden (presumably with suitable adjustments) and it forecast 40,000 deaths there by May 1st. To date they have suffered 3,998.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Regarding the comments several posters have made upthread and on other threads about people being terrified to even step outside now, an item on the local BBC London news after the main news at 18.50 tonight makes the point exactly.

The other day there was a major fire on a balcony in a block of flats in Deptford which spread to the whole roof, started by a barbeque. The pictures being shown on the news showed flames 20 to 30 feet high covering the entire roof of the block.

On the news, they said that people were shouting out to residents to get out, but "...many of them were reluctant to do so because of the coronavirus..."

If that doesn't make the point, nothing will.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am coming to the conclusion that the total lockdown (rather than concentrating on protecting vulnerable groups) has been a colossal folly

Not half as colossal a folly as keeping children locked up inside their homes entirely for 2 months like the idiot Spanish Government did. Institutional child abuse, that.

Allowing exercise doesn't seem to have made our curve much worse than other countries (perhaps a little slower to fall) and may have been a public health masterstroke if all these people out walking and cycling continue the habit.

 

[Enthusiast]

The other day there was a major fire on a balcony in a block of flats in Deptford

Must have been this one:

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/...wary-barbecue-devastates-deptford-flat-block/

Firefighters are urging Londoners to be wary of balcony blazes after an out-of-control barbecue devastated a Deptford flat-block.


It took around 80 firefighters to bring Tuesday’s incident on Childers Street under control, which damaged a fifth floor flat, most of the roof of the building and part of the roof of the adjoining block.


Ahead of the Bank Holiday weekend, the Deputy Commissioner is writing to manufacturers highlighting concerns about barbecues marketed for use on balconies and urging the public to take care.

Deputy Commissioner Mills said: “These balcony barbecues are a staggeringly irresponsible idea and are being marketed carelessly, with hardly any thought as to how dangerous they are.

No mention of people being afraid to leave but apparently the LFB are dealing with four balcony fires each week. Another cost of the continued lockdown, I would suggest.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Must have been this one:

Firefighters issue warning after barbecue blaze devastates Deptford flat-block

Firefighters are urging Londoners to be wary of balcony blazes after an out-of-control barbecue devastated a Deptford flat-block.

www.newsshopper.co.uk

No mention of people being afraid to leave but apparently the LFB are dealing with four balcony fires each week. Another cost of the continued lockdown, I would suggest.

Yes, it was that one. The reluctant to leave comment was on the broadcast news, as was the 4 a week comment, but I can't find anything at all on the BBC news website that even mentions the fire. If they put the local news on iPlayer then a trawl of that might yield it.

 

[Clayton]

Similarly, don’t get too complacent that the suspension of routine screenings for various cancers will not impact your life expectancy or of those you care about.

Yes, absolutely - that was one of my first thoughts about the lockdown

 

[Clayton]

So can flu but I don't go out of my way not to get that. (Well, I had the jab once because the pharmacist offered it when I happened to be there anyway).

It seems to be quite a bit worse than flu, even for fairly healthy middle aged people

 

[yorkie]

It seems to be quite a bit worse than flu, even for fairly healthy middle aged people

It can be, but many people will not even know they had it.

Kids under 15 are more likely to die in a road accident than of the virus. 50 deaths per year compared with three in two months. I presume that all the people saying they won't send their kids back to school will also stop driving them to school when they eventuall do go back?

The problem is that our society is accepting of some risks and not others; it's not based on any logic or sense of perspective whatsoever. It's partly driven by media reporting.

 

[takno]

It seems to be quite a bit worse than flu, even for fairly healthy middle aged people

It operates over a wider range than flu, with possibly as many as half of people not even knowing they've got it, a reasonable number of people getting it about the same as they get the flu, and a relatively small number of people being absolutely battered by it for a couple of weeks, or in a few cases for months. I don't think people are being complacent about that. I also don't think it's worth putting your life on hold, potentially forever, to avoid.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

How afraid should we be? I absolutely totally refuse to be afraid of Covid. If I die I die end of...

 

[sheff1]

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

I am in this group and frankly I can assess for myself whether I "need to be much more cautious". Having taken the known facts regarding Covid-19 into account, alongside other information regarding probabilities and possibilities, my conclusion is that I should not be scared of continuing life much as before, as long as I do not do things which are now illegal even though they were perfectly legal 3 months ago.

I see no reason to swerve into the road to avoid passing within 2m of someone coming the other way. I see no reason to avoid going for lengthy daily walks and to greet and briefly chat with other people doing the same. I see no reason to recoil if someone comes within 2m in the supermarket. When pubs/restaurants reopen I will not be at all scared of going into them. Once hotels reopen I will not be scared to stay in one.

My partner has made the same assessments and come to the same conclusions.

So a simple answer to the question in the title - I see no reason to be scared at all.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It can be, but many people will not even know they had it.


The problem is that our society is accepting of some risks and not others; it's not based on any logic or sense of perspective whatsoever. It's partly driven by media reporting.

Correct imho. People will drive on the M1 motorway - how crazy is that ?

 

[Starmill]

I'm not afraid of the disease's effect on me, but then, I think it's exaggeration to say most people are.

Instead, they're afraid of it's effects on others. This is where there obviously is risk.

Further, many people are afraid of the government, who are failing to... well, govern. This isn't a political issue, it's one of competency. It's obvious they can't cope with the scale of the challenge. I am afraid of that.

None of the above could sensibly be described as "irrational".

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Instead, they're afraid of it's effects on others. This is where there obviously is risk.

Again very true. I am not afraid but - my mother is 85 so it kills me that I cant travel back to the UK and hug and kiss her. I am afraid that I could transmit to her after having traveled across an ocean and through at least 2 airports.

 

[ChrisC]

I am in this group and frankly I can assess for myself whether I "need to be much more cautious". Having taken the known facts regarding Covid-19 into account, alongside other information regarding probabilities and possibilities, my conclusion is that I should not be scared of continuing life much as before, as long as I do not do things which are now illegal even though they were perfectly legal 3 months ago.

I see no reason to swerve into the road to avoid passing within 2m of someone coming the other way. I see no reason to avoid going for lengthy daily walks and to greet and briefly chat with other people doing the same. I see no reason to recoil if someone comes within 2m in the supermarket. When pubs/restaurants reopen I will not be at all scared of going into them. Once hotels reopen I will not be scared to stay in one.

My partner has made the same assessments and come to the same conclusions.

So a simple answer to the question in the title - I see no reason to be scared at all.

Way back at the beginning of March, in the days leading up to the lockdown, I wasn’t scared at all. I thought those people who beginning to worry about the situation were over reacting and when I visited Sainsburys during the week before lockdown I was surprised and amused to see all the empty shelves. My only real concern was for the safety of my 85 year old mother.

With the announcement of the lockdown my views began to change, I realised that this was something serious, and I became more cautious of the situation. It was as I read more in the newspapers and watched the tv news that I began to think that I was perhaps not as safe as I first thought. As a fairly fit 63 year old with no health problems except for slightly higher than normal blood pressure I wasn’t worried. Then I began to see that men, especially those aged 50+ seemed to be at risk more than was first thought. I found the pictures that I saw on the tv news of very ill people my own age who had been on ventilators for weeks really frightening.

Living in a village, I have found myself quite isolated from lots of the aspects of lockdown. I have not been in a large supermarket since the week before lockdown and therefore have not experienced the queues. I have shopped at my local Co op, where there have been no queues or crowds and also used the local bakers, butchers etc in a neighbouring village. I’ve been able to go out walking over the fields near my house every day where I have seen no one else. The one time that I had to go into my nearby town to pick up some medicine from Boots I found quite worrying after not leaving my village situation for many weeks. Also, except for a weekly trip to the next village for shopping I haven’t used my car for all this time.

I think living in a rural situation, and not leaving this location for over 2 months, has left me with a fear of the unknown. What will it be like to go into a town or city again. I know that it is something that I will have to begin doing again in the coming weeks. I need to get back to living a fairly normal life again at some point. It’s been quite nice staying local and I have felt quite safe and sheltered from the virus. However, I do now find it quite scary facing the prospect of coming out of this lockdown.

 

[Domh245]

It can be, but many people will not even know they had it.

Case in point being the BBC's own health correspondent: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52762939

Antibody tests which show that you have had a Covid-19 infection will be rolled out to NHS and care staff from next week. So what happens when you test positive? Carry on as before - and I should know.

Part of the job of a medical correspondent is getting involved. That means volunteering for medical trials, tests and so on. I forget the number of times I've rolled up my sleeve to give blood to illustrate some story, or gone into an MRI scanner to image my brain. It's what we call "show and tell" in the TV trade. So when home antibody tests were first in the news I set out to show how they worked.

The tests all vary a bit in how you perform them. All you need is a drop or two of blood, which you squeeze into a hole, add a bit of chemical and then within a few minutes you get your result.

A positive result comes, as with a pregnancy test, if you get two lines across the sample window. I did the finger-prick test on camera and was surprised, and pleased, to find that I was positive for antibodies. I've since done further reports on antibody testing and had the same positive result each time. You can see the photo - excuse the blood - of three positive results, although one of them does have a faint line.

Imperial College London are testing these finger-prick home antibody tests for accuracy and ease of use. One of the team there calculated that my repeated positive tests made it incredibly unlikely that I was continually producing a false result. In other words, it seems I have definitely had coronavirus.

So when was this? I've not had any symptoms in recent months. I'm rarely ill, but I did have a bout of pneumonia in early January. I was off sick for about 10 days and had a cough and a high temperature. I couldn't shake it off. My GP in Windsor diagnosed a bacterial infection and gave me antibiotics. These helped a bit, but in late January I needed another course of antibiotics. These seem to have done the trick. Was it really Covid-19?

I don't think so. The first confirmed case of coronavirus in the UK was in late January when two people from China fell ill in York. It wasn't until a month later that the first cases of domestic transmission occurred. Note that although I'd been reporting on the outbreak in China by mid-January, the farthest afield I'd been in recent months was Christmas in Brussels.

So I don't think I missed a story here - the first coronavirus case in the UK was not me. But after that I've had no symptoms at all. Not a cough, not a high temperature, smell and taste normal, and no aches and pains, headaches, diarrhoea, conjunctivitis, skin rash or any of the other possible warning signs listed by the World Health Organization.