Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

[LAX54]

So with every flu epidemic we get from now on, will we go into 'lockdown' ? those that are elderly and at risk, are it seems advised to stay indoors in every bad flu season, yet we seem to ignore that ! They say it was to protect the NHS, NOT us as such, but what about all the news reports over the past few winters, where Ambulances were waiting outside hospitals fopr 8 hours or more, as there was no room, no beds etc, people also passing away at home dure to lack of beds / ambulances etc, the word Pandemic seems to have struck fear into us, yet it just means a lot of Countries have the same illness at the same time, wheras epidemic is fewer Countries, maybe 1 or 2

 

[CaptainHaddock]

So with every flu epidemic we get from now on, will we go into 'lockdown' ? those that are elderly and at risk, are it seems advised to stay indoors in every bad flu season, yet we seem to ignore that ! They say it was to protect the NHS, NOT us as such, but what about all the news reports over the past few winters, where Ambulances were waiting outside hospitals fopr 8 hours or more, as there was no room, no beds etc, people also passing away at home dure to lack of beds / ambulances etc, the word Pandemic seems to have struck fear into us, yet it just means a lot of Countries have the same illness at the same time, wheras epidemic is fewer Countries, maybe 1 or 2

Indeed. I'm amazed at the contrast between the majority of rational posters on here and the exciteable lockdown enthusiasts on other forums. Now that the coronavirus is starting to fade out we really need to think about how, as a society, we deal with future possible pandemics. It's clear that a lockdown of the severity the UK has had isn't a long term solution.

 

[37424]

So with every flu epidemic we get from now on, will we go into 'lockdown' ? those that are elderly and at risk, are it seems advised to stay indoors in every bad flu season, yet we seem to ignore that ! They say it was to protect the NHS, NOT us as such, but what about all the news reports over the past few winters, where Ambulances were waiting outside hospitals fopr 8 hours or more, as there was no room, no beds etc, people also passing away at home dure to lack of beds / ambulances etc, the word Pandemic seems to have struck fear into us, yet it just means a lot of Countries have the same illness at the same time, wheras epidemic is fewer Countries, maybe 1 or 2

But isn't that the point we were starting with a health service barely able to cope with a bad winter, then add this virus the severity of which was unclear in its early stages and dependent on information from a non democratic country not exactly known for its openness.

 

[jumble]

Well it’s nice that you’re all such tough guys and not scared of a disease that has killed 50,000 in the UK alone so far. However please do carry on obeying the law and government guidelines. I don’t want you to give it to me!

This is true if you believe that 50,000 people have died of Covid rather than died with Covid which is a completly different concept and I do not believe for one moment that this is the case.
I hope you realise that if you were in a fatal car accident and you had a very mild dose of Covid as many people have had, and then tested positive for Covid in your PM you would be counted as one of the 50K you mention?

I am not a tough guy but I live in London and have travelled on the tube and whilst i am in the slightly higher risk than average I am convinced that I have had a very mild dose and so I am not scared at all
I just want to get on with my life and not be like Howard Hughes
I respect your not wanting to catch it and this is why I am obeying lockdown.
I went to see business contact who invited me in
They are Indian, overweight,Diabetes and High Blood pressure and I said absolutely no way !
I have another friend who is fit and strong and theoretically as I have not seen him since lockdown if he invited me in I would be far less concerned

 

[scarby]

In interesting insight. What are trains like over there? Are they still quite busy? I assume leisure travel is still allowed?

I was on two inter-city trains at the start of the month and they were very quiet. However, during this past holiday period (the actual holiday day was on Thursday) I believe some trains were fully booked - on inter-city services at present all the gangway seats are not for sale, so the trains can only be half-full. Also the general service level has been cut by about 50%.

As for local Stockholm train services, which are running as normal, these seem to be quieter than usual, with many people working from home, but by no means empty.

Regarding whether leisure travel is still allowed. No domestic travel is prohibited, but it was recommended not to travel (outside your home town) "unless you must" and particularly not to travel to meet friends and relatives. Obviously "must" was open to considerable personal interpretation. It also didn't say on SJ's website that you shouldn't be travelling. From a railway interest point of view, another interesting measure is that flexible fares have been reduced in price - presumably to encourage people to buy flexible tickets and postpone journeys if they feel ill.

The recommendation has recently been relaxed to it being okay to travel the 1-2 hours' journey by car for any reason, which again is open to some interpretation. Judging by the fact that some inter-city trains were fully booked in the past days, people must be travelling longer distances for leisure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. I'm amazed at the contrast between the majority of rational posters on here and the exciteable lockdown enthusiasts on other forums. Now that the coronavirus is starting to fade out we really need to think about how, as a society, we deal with future possible pandemics. It's clear that a lockdown of the severity the UK has had isn't a long term solution.

The purpose of a lockdown was a reset button - to get cases back down so track and trace was feasible.

I fear because T&T isn't ready we are going to go there again.

 

[Enthusiast]

Whatever happens when the lockdown is eventually removed, the plain fact is that the vast majority of people who contract this virus will see little or no symptoms. Many - probably most - of the people who have died had serious existing health problems. If you look at the death statistics where "pneumonia" is mentioned on the death certificate you will find that in England & Wales more 30,000 people die annually from that condition. In fact, rather than "stand alone", the condition is very often contracted whilst people are otherwise extremely sick and pneumonia finishes them off. Many with cancer and other serious illnesses succumb to pneumonia.

Looking at the mental health side, many people are now getting seriously P'd off with the whole matter. I said at the start that the beginning of June would see the population's patience near enough exhausted. I think the government is easing the lockdown regardless of the statistics simply because of that. Either they do, or the lockdown will simply end up being ignored.

The lockdown needs to be lifted as quickly as possible. Those who may fall into the groups above must obviously be protected as far as is practical. Of course we can all be sensible; no more hugs when you see the maître d' when you enter a restaurant. But the idea of restricting public transport to 10-20% of its capacity is ludicrous. The country cannot - simply cannot - afford to replicate the lockdown again. It is doubtful if anybody under the age of about 50 will see the economy fully recovered from the last two months. If the lockdown is repeated anybody born yesterday will see a crippled economy for their entire lives. The fear factor of that for me is very real and large and it will almost certainly affect me profoundly. The fear factor of contracting the virus is there, but is proportionate. I believe the measures the country took to "control" the virus were not.

"Track & Trace" is unlikely ever to be ready in a useful form. It relies entirely upon people reporting the fact that they have symptoms. Huge numbers of people who have got or have had the disease are/were unaware of it.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Indeed. I'm amazed at the contrast between the majority of rational posters on here and the exciteable lockdown enthusiasts on other forums. Now that the coronavirus is starting to fade out we really need to think about how, as a society, we deal with future possible pandemics. It's clear that a lockdown of the severity the UK has had isn't a long term solution.

I’m both heartened and dismayed by this chain. Heartened that there are people who feel like me (I don’t particularly want to get ill, let alone die, but I’m not so big headed to think that my death will be anything other than a minor blip societally.) We all die and we all pay taxes, I have a feeling my payment of the latter may go up for a number of years to come.

Dismayed that we‘ve come to this position, in which we have misunderstood risk, have treated death as if it’s something that never actually happens and we’d normally all live to 100 in full health, running marathons and solving Fermat’s last theorem.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I have a feeling some people on this thread are confusing the word "scared" with "sensible" or "cautious".
Indeed it is the same kind of tone that was used by a lot of people who didn't pay any attention to the lockdown to begin with.

Suggesting that people don't travel half way across the country to go to a packed beach, or that maybe we shouldn't be cramming as many people as possible onto a bus / train / tube right now, or that maybe having mass events where people from across the country travel large distances to gather closely together isn't a great idea, or suggesting that maybe people who can continue to work from home do so. None of that is being "scared" or whatever you want to call it. It is called being sensible given the current situation.

Sure, as time progresses and (hopefully) the number of people dying on top of what we would normally expect decreases too, then some of the things above will start to change. But the idea of rushing back to what we had before doesn't seem like the most sensible idea in the world to me. Take small steps yes, but make sure those steps are careful enough that we can monitor what is going on based on them.

If people are refusing to leave the house at all, etc etc, then that is a different ballgame. But very few people I have seen are talking about those situations.

Also just to add - for all of this talk about the people who died would have died anyway, well apart from that fact that is true for all of us - we won't know how deadly COVID-19 was for a fair few months yet. Sure, maybe most of the people who have already lost their lives from it may have died in a few months time anyway. But if that is the case we should expect to see a drop in the number of excess deaths compared to previous years. If we don't, and we still see that excess deaths compared to previous years are higher (or only drop to match the same level), then we will obviously had a lot of extra deaths just due to COVID.

 

[yorkie]

I have a feeling some people on this thread are confusing the word "scared" with "sensible" or "cautious"...

I don't think so at all.

Indeed it is the same kind of tone that was used by a lot of people who didn't pay any attention to the lockdown to begin with.

I didn't see much evidence of anyone not paying attention to the lockdown.

Suggesting that people don't travel half way across the country to go to a packed beach, or that maybe we shouldn't be cramming as many people as possible onto a bus / train / tube right now, or that maybe having mass events where people from across the country travel large distances to gather closely together isn't a great idea, or suggesting that maybe people who can continue to work from home do so. None of that is being "scared" or whatever you want to call it. It is called being sensible given the current situation.

Some of the actions are not proportionate to the actual level of risk though. The use of hyperbole doesn't negate that.

Sure, as time progresses and (hopefully) the number of people dying on top of what we would normally expect decreases too, then some of the things above will start to change.

How long do you think we could wait before thins start to change? There has to be a limit.

But the idea of rushing back to what we had before doesn't seem like the most sensible idea in the world to me. Take small steps yes, but make sure those steps are careful enough that we can monitor what is going on based on them.

But some people are opposed even to the small steps we have taken, and others are opposed to appropriate and reasonable easing of restrictions. This is a big concern as it threatens the livelihoods of millions of people.

If people are refusing to leave the house at all, etc etc, then that is a different ballgame. But very few people I have seen are talking about those situations.

Some people are doing that, while others are keen to just go out for walks and exercise for the foreseeable future, and won't accept that we need to learn to live with the virus.

Also just to add - for all of this talk about the people who died would have died anyway, well apart from that fact that is true for all of us - we won't know how deadly COVID-19 was for a fair few months yet.

As time goes on, it becomes clear that is less deadly as an increasing number of asymptomatic cases come to light.

Sure, maybe most of the people who have already lost their lives from it may have died in a few months time anyway. But if that is the case we should expect to see a drop in the number of excess deaths compared to previous years. If we don't, and we still see that excess deaths compared to previous years are higher (or only drop to match the same level), then we will obviously had a lot of extra deaths just due to COVID.

What about excess deaths due to increased deprivation, mental health issues etc caused by the lockdown?

I am not really sure how your post relates tot he excellent article; are you disagreeing with the article? If so, what aspects do you disagree with, and why?

 

[takno]

I think its far too early to jump to that conclusion as yet the death rate per capita of other Nordic countries which have had more of a lockdown is far lower than Sweden and strikes me as a more realistic comparison.

We appear to have performed very badly compared to some other countries which have also had a lockdown notably Germany and we need to look at why that is and there are clearly many factors to look at, but before you even get to that stage you need to look at the consistency of the figures on a country by country basis for instance Belgium appears to have performed very badly but Belgium are counting suspected cases as well as confirmed.

At the end of the day is there anything at all that would lead you to believe that Swedish deaths are suddenly going to rise twelve-fold? There is absolutely no reason to wait around in deciding that the rather confidently-stated predictions of catastrophe from many of our more hysterical scientists like Ferguson will not play out in Sweden. The reason that the UK (and Belgium) are interesting comparison points with Sweden, much more so that other Nordic countries, is that in all those cases nursing home infections were a huge driver of deaths. That wasn't the case in other Nordic countries, partly because they spend more on smaller homes, and partly because they didn't clear infected cases from hospitals out into homes to prepare for the surge that never really came.

In the context of this thread, that is to say that even in the Swedish case they have expended more effort than necessary on protecting the wider population who are at really minimal risk, and as a result have failed in shielding the specific subset of the population who actually do have something to fear. We healthy people under 70 right now are effectively stopping the government doing the right thing by demanding all the cotton wool

 

[37424]

At the end of the day is there anything at all that would lead you to believe that Swedish deaths are suddenly going to rise twelve-fold? There is absolutely no reason to wait around in deciding that the rather confidently-stated predictions of catastrophe from many of our more hysterical scientists like Ferguson will not play out in Sweden. The reason that the UK (and Belgium) are interesting comparison points with Sweden, much more so that other Nordic countries, is that in all those cases nursing home infections were a huge driver of deaths. That wasn't the case in other Nordic countries, partly because they spend more on smaller homes, and partly because they didn't clear infected cases from hospitals out into homes to prepare for the surge that never really came.

In the context of this thread, that is to say that even in the Swedish case they have expended more effort than necessary on protecting the wider population who are at really minimal risk, and as a result have failed in shielding the specific subset of the population who actually do have something to fear. We healthy people under 70 right now are effectively stopping the government doing the right thing by demanding all the cotton wool

I think we need to see what the consequences of easing lockdown are over the next month before we too carried away, Sweden and the UK have been competing for the highest per capita death rate over the past couple of weeks, while clearly some social distancing in the UK has gone out of the window in the last couple of weeks.

 

[greyman42]

But some people are opposed even to the small steps we have taken, and others are opposed to appropriate and reasonable easing of restrictions. This is a big concern as it threatens the livelihoods of millions of people.

This is very true and it seems a lot of people think it is a minor or irrelevant issue. It is not and will have a negative effect on peoples standard of living for years to come.

 

[takno]

I think we need to see what the consequences of easing lockdown are over the next month before we too carried away, Sweden and the UK have been competing for the highest per capita death rate over the past couple of weeks, while clearly some social distancing in the UK has gone out of the window in the last couple of weeks.

Sweden's per capita death rate at the moment is being fairly heavily driven by a fairly assiduous effort to recording deaths which happened some time ago, as indeed have the UK, but that makes deaths recorded in a given week an increasingly meaningless number. Unless Sweden's death rate starts going up again quite drastically rather than gradually falling as it is actually doing then they won't be catching us up. There isn't any more wait and see to be done - they chose right

 

[sheff1]

Well, yes, I'm sorry but the stats show people 60+ are at greater risk. It should be the young and healthy still working, keeping the economy going.

We cannot continue like this for much longer, if the economy crashes, the NHS goes with it...

And how does preventing healthy people from leaving their home to spend money on travel, food, leisure etc etc assist the economy ?

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I think we need to see what the consequences of easing lockdown are over the next month before we too carried away, Sweden and the UK have been competing for the highest per capita death rate over the past couple of weeks, while clearly some social distancing in the UK has gone out of the window in the last couple of weeks.

Have you noticed that the more the lockdown is eased, the steeper the fall in deaths and new infections? It's too early to say if there's a correlation and it may be that the coronavirus is burning itself out naturally but either way it does seem the easing of the lockdown doesn't seem to be having any negative effects.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you noticed that the more the lockdown is eased, the steeper the fall in deaths and new infections? It's too early to say if there's a correlation and it may be that the coronavirus is burning itself out naturally but either way it does seem the easing of the lockdown doesn't seem to be having any negative effects.

Strikes me that it's actually levelling off. But you don't see an effect on cases until 1-2 weeks and deaths until 4-5 weeks.

 

[northernchris]

The BBC are running a very interesting article today which puts some perspective on things especially for those under 45

Coronavirus deaths fall to six-week low

Early May bank holiday delays mean the true death figures are likely to have been even lower.

www.bbc.co.uk

The ONS's publication also looked at "excess deaths" in England and Wales - how many more were registered in the first 20 weeks of 2020 compared with the five-year average for the same time of year.

And an analysis of this data, by Prof Carl Heneghan, at the University of Oxford, found there was no additional risk of dying during that period for people under the age of 45.
Prof Heneghan said it wasn't until the 45-50 age band that excess deaths, over and above the five-year average, could be seen in the data.

And for some age groups, particularly the younger ones, death rates had been slightly below average as lockdown had reduced other risks, including road-traffic accidents, violence and other respiratory infections.

After the age of 45, however, the risk of dying had increased with age and had been significantly higher among the over-75s.

 

[Enthusiast]

I have a feeling some people on this thread are confusing the word "scared" with "sensible" or "cautious".

I know people who are scared. They are frightened. They are not vulnerable; they have no health issues; they are well under 70. Yet they scuttle out once a week for their essentials. They are petrified of bumping into somebody in the supermarket. They make enormous sweeps on the pavement to avoid even minimal encroachment into their two metre bubble and often jeopardise their safety by stepping into a busy road. My next door neighbours will only allow their children (aged 7 and 4) into their sizeable garden for twenty minutes a day. The children have left the house probably less than half a dozen times in ten weeks. These are not sensible or cautious actions. It is completely irrational behaviour that is massively disproportionate to the risk.

Sweden and the UK have been competing for the highest per capita death rate over the past couple of weeks,

The death rate is not really the measure of how effective the lockdown is. You could have a very high infection rate (meaning perhaps the lockdown isn't very effective) but a low number of deaths. Conversely you could have a very low infection rate (indicating the lockdown is perhaps working) but everybody infected dies.

 

[Bikeman78]

I was on two inter-city trains at the start of the month and they were very quiet. However, during this past holiday period (the actual holiday day was on Thursday) I believe some trains were fully booked - on inter-city services at present all the gangway seats are not for sale, so the trains can only be half-full. Also the general service level has been cut by about 50%.

As for local Stockholm train services, which are running as normal, these seem to be quieter than usual, with many people working from home, but by no means empty.

Regarding whether leisure travel is still allowed. No domestic travel is prohibited, but it was recommended not to travel (outside your home town) "unless you must" and particularly not to travel to meet friends and relatives. Obviously "must" was open to considerable personal interpretation. It also didn't say on SJ's website that you shouldn't be travelling. From a railway interest point of view, another interesting measure is that flexible fares have been reduced in price - presumably to encourage people to buy flexible tickets and postpone journeys if they feel ill.

The recommendation has recently been relaxed to it being okay to travel the 1-2 hours' journey by car for any reason, which again is open to some interpretation. Judging by the fact that some inter-city trains were fully booked in the past days, people must be travelling longer distances for leisure.

Thanks for this. It will be interesting to see how long it is before the UK lets people back on public transport.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Thanks for this. It will be interesting to see how long it is before the UK lets people back on public transport.

I imagine it will be when leisure and hospitality reopens. If pubs are allowed to open then you have to allow non-essential journeys on public transport - or drink driving surges.

 

[takno]

The BBC are running a very interesting article today which puts some perspective on things especially for those under 45

Coronavirus deaths fall to six-week low

Early May bank holiday delays mean the true death figures are likely to have been even lower.

www.bbc.co.uk

Hopefully once this is all over somebody will take this willfully perverse 30 year age segment the ONS keeps using and splits it into sensible sized chunks. Given how small the rise is over that group, it's probably not discernable in the 45-65 group either, just in the very top 10 years

 

[Domh245]

Hopefully once this is all over somebody will take this willfully perverse 30 year age segment the ONS keeps using and splits it into sensible sized chunks. Given how small the rise is over that group, it's probably not discernable in the 45-65 group either, just in the very top 10 years

The actual data as released is broken down into smaller (5 year) age groups, however the 5 year averages are only calculable based on what they've put out previously, which has the 30 year group. As for the numbers, the total registered COVID deaths over the last 3 weeks of data (w/e 1st May - w/e 15th) by age group have been:

15-19: 2
20-24: 6
25-29: 12
30-34: 18
35-39: 32
40-44: 55
45-49: 107
50-54: 192
55-59: 341
60-64: 455

The 15-44 bracket is only just larger than the next bracket (45-49)

 

[takno]

The actual data as released is broken down into smaller (5 year) age groups, however the 5 year averages are only calculable based on what they've put out previously, which has the 30 year group. As for the numbers, the total registered COVID deaths over the last 3 weeks of data (w/e 1st May - w/e 15th) by age group have been:

15-19: 2
20-24: 6
25-29: 12
30-34: 18
35-39: 32
40-44: 55
45-49: 107
50-54: 192
55-59: 341
60-64: 455

The 15-44 bracket is only just larger than the next bracket (45-49)

True, but you've missed off the last two age brackets where, as predicted it ramps up a lot. Take it in 10 year chunks and the 60-69 age group has a higher death rate than the 0-59 group. Basically if you're under 60 you'd certainly be better off worrying about your rising level of risk from heart attacks and cancer than some pretty nominal risks from Covid19. Actually the same is probably true in your 70s as well, but at that point all causes of death start to quite reasonably factor into your thinking

 

[yorkie]

Thanks for this. It will be interesting to see how long it is before the UK lets people back on public transport.

There is no restriction on public transport; the restrictions on movement are defined in the legislation and have been quoted here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...llowed-by-the-legislation.204411/post-4595814

I imagine it will be when leisure and hospitality reopens. If pubs are allowed to open then you have to allow non-essential journeys on public transport - or drink driving surges.

I think you are confused; see above for a link to the relevant legislation. It is likely that the legislation will be updated when leisure and hospitality industries reopen. As described in the relevant thread, terms such as "essential" (or non-essential) are a misnomer, but see the other thread for a discussion on that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, but you've missed off the last two age brackets where, as predicted it ramps up a lot. Take it in 10 year chunks and the 60-69 age group has a higher death rate than the 0-59 group. Basically if you're under 60 you'd certainly be better off worrying about your rising level of risk from heart attacks and cancer than some pretty nominal risks from Covid19. Actually the same is probably true in your 70s as well, but at that point all causes of death start to quite reasonably factor into your thinking

Are those figures of people in good health or do they include pre-existing conditions?

Other than type 1 diabetes and asthma (those being the very common ones, there are other less common ones of course) most "underlying conditions" develop in later life. If diabetes is a big risk factor, as it seems it is, type 2, which does very commonly come up in 40+s, is going to skew this massively.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hopefully the TOCs will drop the "essential travel only" message on Monday 15 June when non-essential shops and tourist attractions will be allowed to reopen. It would be ridiculous to open all the shops and then tell people they aren't allowed to travel to them!

I think it will have to stay until distancing is reduced. If we can get to the point where you can have one person in every pair of seats, perhaps with masks compulsory (which is how most off-peak services the country over are anyway, TPE aside) then it becomes realistic to throw the doors open. Compulsory reservations would stop odd trains getting crowded out, but at least then it'd be viable to move the numbers that will want to travel.

 

[Bikeman78]

I think it will have to stay until distancing is reduced. If we can get to the point where you can have one person in every pair of seats, perhaps with masks compulsory (which is how most off-peak services the country over are anyway, TPE aside) then it becomes realistic to throw the doors open. Compulsory reservations would stop odd trains getting crowded out, but at least then it'd be viable to move the numbers that will want to travel.

Once shops open and Easyjet/Ryanair start flying, all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. It would be ludicrous to suggest that I can wander around John Lewis or Debenhams all day but I cannot sit in an empty nine car IET.

 

[yorkie]

Hopefully the TOCs will drop the "essential travel only" message on Monday 15 June when non-essential shops and tourist attractions will be allowed to reopen. It would be ridiculous to open all the shops and then tell people they aren't allowed to travel to them!

The term "essential travel only" is a misnomer and should be changed, but they aren't likely to stop encouraging people to use cars, rather than public transport, until at least July if not August.

Once shops open and Easyjet/Ryanair start flying, all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. It would be ludicrous to suggest that I can wander around John Lewis or Debenhams all day but I cannot sit in an empty nine car IET.

You can currently sit in an empty nine car IET (see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...by-the-legislation.204411/page-2#post-4595814 ) but they won't be empty by the time everything has reopened; I expect the train companies will still be encouraging people to use a car if they have one for at least a few weeks longer.

 

[LAX54]

This is true if you believe that 50,000 people have died of Covid rather than died with Covid which is a completly different concept and I do not believe for one moment that this is the case.
I hope you realise that if you were in a fatal car accident and you had a very mild dose of Covid as many people have had, and then tested positive for Covid in your PM you would be counted as one of the 50K you mention?

I am not a tough guy but I live in London and have travelled on the tube and whilst i am in the slightly higher risk than average I am convinced that I have had a very mild dose and so I am not scared at all
I just want to get on with my life and not be like Howard Hughes
I respect your not wanting to catch it and this is why I am obeying lockdown.
I went to see business contact who invited me in
They are Indian, overweight,Diabetes and High Blood pressure and I said absolutely no way !
I have another friend who is fit and strong and theoretically as I have not seen him since lockdown if he invited me in I would be far less concerned

Indeed, COVID goes on the certficate if you had it at the time you passed away, not just if it actually caused the passing, and also remember on a bad flu year, global deaths can be upo to 650,000, check what the current figure is ! World Health Org says on average 300,000 to 650,000