Could the Coronavirus 'burn out' in the UK?

[Bletchleyite]

I think that whatever actually happens, it's not going to be as simple and clear cut a decision as it was last time. We still have just under two weeks to go, so deaths/new infections will be lower. We'll also have more data on deaths caused by the NHS essentially being closed to anything not Coronavirus based(which is certainly the situation where I am).

It's not here. I went in for a completely unrelated test the other day. They're not doing elective surgery, but if you're ill you will get treatment.

 

[AM9]

If things continue as they are for too long it will be a case of sacrificing the younger generation; this cannot continue and there is going to have to be a compromise sooner rather than later.

There are various sources about the death rates but the rates of hospitalisation and death are massively reduced in younger age groups compared to older age groups.

Covid-19: death rate is 0.66% and increases with age, study estimates

The overall death rate from covid-19 has been estimated at 0.66%, rising sharply to 7.8% in people aged over 80 and declining to 0.0016% in children aged 9 and under.1 The estimates, calculated by researchers in the UK, used aggregate data on cases and deaths in mainland China. Unlike other...

www.bmj.com

What do you mean by "the younger generation"? In this context, there is a sliding scale of generations from children through their parents to what used to be called middle-aged folks, vs the soon to be retired and retired groups.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do you mean by "the younger generation"? In this context, there is a sliding scale of generations from children through their parents to what used to be called middle-aged folks, vs the soon to be retired and retired groups.

Generation X, Millennials and the post-Millennials (i.e. current kids and teenagers). Much less the former, though. The latter already have a rather bad deal in comparison to the Baby Boomers who are the ones requiring of protection.

 

[yorkie]

What do you mean by "the younger generation"? In this context, there is a sliding scale of generations from children through their parents to what used to be called middle-aged folks, vs the soon to be retired and retired groups.

It will affect everyone!

See also: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-public-transport.203436/page-10#post-4551701

 

[HH]

No of course Cactuswirly doesn’t - that his or her opinion - and I don’t think it’s fair for you to vaguely sarcastically denounce him or her. These are difficult times with conflicting informetion flying in from here there and everywhere. At least if we disagree with someone else, we could start with ‘ I can see what you’re saying but...’. There is no need to be aggressive and impolite.

I wasn't being any of those things you are accusing me of. Others at least attempt to justify their opinion. Just making an announcement without any support doesn't advance the discussion at all.

Nor do I agree that there is conflicting information. Rather, there is a lack of good information, because we don't have access to the information that government ministers do. It seems that where there is a lack of information, opinion springs up to take its place.

 

[AM9]

It will affect everyone!

See also: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-public-transport.203436/page-10#post-4551701

So your statement: "You can't sacrifice an entire generation like that." in post #19, wasn't really about any 'younger generation', rather about all generations, of which we all are part of. Please note, I am not expressing a view that any one or more generation(s) should have more or less protection, - I just wanted to understand what was meant by post #19.

 

[Mag_seven]

Generation X, Millennials and the post-Millennials (i.e. current kids and teenagers). Much less the former, though. The latter already have a rather bad deal in comparison to the Baby Boomers who are the ones requiring of protection.

Don't forget those in the generation preceding the "Baby Boomers" - "The Silent Generation" those aged 75 plus.

 

[Mogster]

I think its inaccurate to say we would be 'sacrificing' an entire cohort of NHS staff - currently there have been approximately 100 confirmed NHS staff deaths (approx 0.01 % of NHS staff, higher percentage if you only count front line staff, but I don't know how many of those there are). Granted that number and percentage will rise, but they will not all be sacrificed/wiped out etc. Don't get me wrong - I think the NHS is doing a tremendous job and every death is a tragedy!

Yes. From this analysis it seems healthcare worker deaths are inline with the general population. Healthcare deaths also don’t correlate with those that you’d expect to have highest exposure it seems.

1% of the UK population work in patient facing roles within the NHS.

Exclusive: deaths of NHS staff from covid-19 analysed

The deaths of 119 NHS staff have been analysed by three leading clinicians. We present their findings here.

www.hsj.co.uk

There is also a remarkable correlation between the cumulative UK deaths from covid-19 in the UK population and among health and social care workers. Accepting a lag of one to two days, the ratio is very close to 1:200 so the deaths among health and social care workers are approximately 0.5 per cent of all deaths, suggesting they are not overrepresented.

 

[underbank]

It's not here. I went in for a completely unrelated test the other day. They're not doing elective surgery, but if you're ill you will get treatment.

Different hospitals/trusts are doing things differently. My OH had their cancer treatment cancelled mid way through the course of treatment - the oncology dept receptionist said all treatments were cancelled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Different hospitals/trusts are doing things differently. My OH had their cancer treatment cancelled mid way through the course of treatment - the oncology dept receptionist said all treatments were cancelled.

Cancer treatments are an interesting one because many were paused because they are often immunesuppressant, so would increase the risk of COVID being contracted. Surprised it was a blanket thing, though.

 

[yorkie]

So your statement: "You can't sacrifice an entire generation like that." in post #19, wasn't really about any 'younger generation', rather about all generations, of which we all are part of. Please note, I am not expressing a view that any one or more generation(s) should have more or less protection, - I just wanted to understand what was meant by post #19.

The younger generations are going to be far more disproportionately impacted in this, but we all suffer. The point is that the younger someone is, the less they have to 'gain' by harsh lockdowns, and the more they have to 'lose'. We have to start opening up soon for the sake of all of us, but particularly the younger generations.

 

[AM9]

The younger generations are going to be far more disproportionately impacted in this, but we all suffer. The point is that the younger someone is, the less they have to 'gain' by harsh lockdowns, and the more they have to 'lose'. We have to start opening up soon for the sake of all of us, but particularly the younger generations.

Of course some of those younger ones might have grandparents and realise that their personal freedom being restored is at the expense of somebody's elder relatives. - or maybe not.

 

[HH]

Cancer treatments are an interesting one because many were paused because they are often immunesuppressant, so would increase the risk of COVID being contracted. Surprised it was a blanket thing, though.

They have cancelled surgeries, even those don't directly suppress the immune system. As I understand it (having just had cancer surgery a few days ahead of the lockdown), any surgery affects your ability to fight disease, so they have been erring on the side of caution.

I do have some indication that they are beginning to adapt though, I got an appointment on Friday for Tuesday morning to see a consultant for one of my cancers at a private hospital, which has been partly re-purposed to take non-covid cases. I have a phone consultation the following Tuesday for my other cancer, but I will need to get a blood test done first - these weren't being done a fortnight ago, so another change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They have cancelled surgeries, even those don't directly suppress the immune system. As I understand it (having just had cancer surgery a few days ahead of the lockdown), any surgery affects your ability to fight disease, so they have been erring on the side of caution.

I do have some indication that they are beginning to adapt though, I got an appointment on Friday for Tuesday morning to see a consultant for one of my cancers at a private hospital, which has been partly re-purposed to take non-covid cases. I have a phone consultation the following Tuesday for my other cancer, but I will need to get a blood test done first - these weren't being done a fortnight ago, so another change.

I hope you are able to resolve this and the best of luck with your treatment and recovery.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The younger generations are going to be far more disproportionately impacted in this, but we all suffer. The point is that the younger someone is, the less they have to 'gain' by harsh lockdowns, and the more they have to 'lose'. We have to start opening up soon for the sake of all of us, but particularly the younger generations.

Why do younger people have more 'lose' than older people from the lockdown? In what way do younger people lose that older people don't?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Of course some of those younger ones might have grandparents and realise that their personal freedom being restored is at the expense of somebody's elder relatives. - or maybe not.

That is very true. I can think of a couple of people in their 20s who are extremely worried about older relatives. I even know one person in her 20s who actually choose to go into stay-at-home isolation in mid March, some time before the Government implemented the lockdown, specifically in order to protect a relative she was living with.

 

[JonathanH]

Why do younger people have more 'lose' than older people from the lockdown? In what way do younger people lose that older people don't?

First of all, they are just establishing themselves in whatever role they are looking to follow in the future. If you take away study as a means of that establishment, they will not be able to prove themselves for that role. Some may find they don't have the opportunities, jobs, further study etc that they thought they would have.

Second, they have a greater proportion of their lives ahead of them than older people and are in the accumulation phase of life (knowledge, life changes, money) - simply stopping their lives for a year or so prevents that accumulation.

Finally, because of that, they are the ones who are going to have to spend their whole lives paying for the costs which we have racked up in the last month.

 

[MattA7]

Why do younger people have more 'lose' than older people from the lockdown? In what way do younger people lose that older people don't?

I assume what he means is that in the younger population the negative effects (such as mental illness, loss of job etc) of the lockdown outweigh the risk of being made seriously ill by the virus as the risk is very low in younger individuals with no underlying health issues. It was suggested to the government to release lockdown restrictions by age however it was stuck down as discriminatory against older people.

 

[HH]

Some younger people may suffer, but are they suffering more than the person whose small business will go bankrupt, whose has several small children and a huge mortgage? Or the person in their 50s who is having to care for two elderly parents while still working from home on a reduced salary? And so on, and so forth.

Why is a young person losing their job worse than someone who is older, with many more commitments? Why is a younger person more suspectible to mental illness?

Where is the evidence to support these claims?

 

[Adsy125]

The, rather controversial, idea of letting life return to ‘normal’ ish for, while locking up the elderly and vulnerable does seem to be a fairer way to come out of this than any other, making it far less disruptive due to lower rates of hospitalisation in younger people.

 

[MattA7]

Some younger people may suffer, but are they suffering more than the person whose small business will go bankrupt, whose has several small children and a huge mortgage? Or the person in their 50s who is having to care for two elderly parents while still working from home on a reduced salary? And so on, and so forth.

Why is a young person losing their job worse than someone who is older, with many more commitments? Why is a younger person more suspectible to mental illness?

Where is the evidence to support these claims?

you do get some young people who are parents and have children to support and a mortgage to pay for it is perfectly possible for a 18 year old for instance to be married and have children. I dont think it’s fair to assume all parents, homeowners and business owners are older people.

 

[yorkie]

Of course some of those younger ones might have grandparents and realise that their personal freedom being restored is at the expense of somebody's elder relatives. - or maybe not.

If restrictions are too harsh and/or too lengthy we will see far more suffering for non-Covid 19 reasons. By far the biggest dangers to young people now are mentally, and not only that but many experts are warning that there is evidence that parents are not taking children to be seen when they need medical attention or diagnosis, due to fears of getting the virus, which is totally irrational.

Some younger people may suffer....

Understatement of the century!

but are they suffering more than the person whose small business will go bankrupt, whose has several small children and a huge mortgage? ....

All of those are reasons why we cannot allow the economy to be completely trashed.

First of all, they are just establishing themselves in whatever role they are looking to follow in the future. If you take away study as a means of that establishment, they will not be able to prove themselves for that role. Some may find they don't have the opportunities, jobs, further study etc that they thought they would have.

Second, they have a greater proportion of their lives ahead of them than older people and are in the accumulation phase of life (knowledge, life changes, money) - simply stopping their lives for a year or so prevents that accumulation.

Finally, because of that, they are the ones who are going to have to spend their whole lives paying for the costs which we have racked up in the last month.

Yes all those things and mental health is a huge issue among young people. The number of young people I've become aware of that self-harm is frightening. The dangers to the younger generation of the lockdown are absolutely immense.

I don't want to sound too critical of others but it is clear to me that many people have absolutely no idea of the scale of the dangers these conditions pose to young people.

As time goes on, I grow more and more fearful that the right balance is not going to be struck.

 

[bramling]

The, rather controversial, idea of letting life return to ‘normal’ ish for, while locking up the elderly and vulnerable does seem to be a fairer way to come out of this than any other, making it far less disruptive due to lower rates of hospitalisation in younger people.

I don’t think fairness is really that much of a consideration. Ultimately the lockdown will have to end as the cost is simply too much for the population to bear, the key questions are when is the right time, and what measures do we have in place going forward to reduce risk to as low as reasonably practicable.

The key word there is reasonable, we’re never going to reduce risk to zero as things stand at the moment.

I just hope people are starting to come to terms with elements of the social distancing which are going to apply until further notice. The more people can comply with things like the 2 metres and avoiding gatherings hopefully the more painlessly we can get through it.

The only other method would have been a China-style lockdown followed by iron-tight borders essentially for an open-ended period. Personally I do wonder if that might not have been more effective in getting case numbers back down to very low figures, at this moment it’s clear the case numbers are still higher than ideal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I certainly think we should impose compulsory (non-home) quarantine and testing on those entering the UK, whether citizens or not. That can later, if a vaccine emerges, be switched to a choice of that or showing a vaccine certificate, a bit like Yellow Fever in some countries.

 

[HH]

you do get some young people who are parents and have children to support and a mortgage to pay for it is perfectly possible for a 18 year old for instance to be married and have children. I dont think it’s fair to assume all parents, homeowners and business owners are older people.

I'm not. I'm rather saying that it's not just young people who will suffer.

 

[HH]

All of those are reasons why we cannot allow the economy to be completely trashed.

I never said it should be trashed. The government (and their advisors) think that relaxing restrictions too soon will be bad for the economy. They have information we don't. Why do you think that they are wrong?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I certainly think we should impose compulsory (non-home) quarantine and testing on those entering the UK, whether citizens or not. That can later, if a vaccine emerges, be switched to a choice of that or showing a vaccine certificate, a bit like Yellow Fever in some countries.

I do wonder whether we could end up with something like that. So the sequence may be:

1. Social distancing continues for another month or two, while the Government ramps up the ability to test and do contact tracing.
2. Social distancing is slowly relaxed over a period of a year or so, being gradually replaced by a very strong system of contact tracing.
3. As contact tracing ramps up, quarantine is imposed on all arrivals from other countries.
4. As individual other countries effectively eliminate the virus within their borders using similar measures, the quarantine requirement gets removed for people entering from those particular countries.

This could lead to a system in place for some years where there is a large-ish group of (mainly, Western industrialised) countries in which the virus has reduced to a few isolated cases that are quickly dealt with by contact tracing, and entry to any of this bloc of countries requires quarantine, but travel within the bloc is quarantine-free. That would be extremely unfortunate for those (mainly, poorer) countries that do not have the systems in place to contact-trace all virus cases - and there'd be a strong moral argument for devoting considerable resources to helping those countries. But offhand I can't think of any other plausible way that life will be able to return to normal, in the absence of a reliable and permanent vaccine or other effective treatment.

 

[bramling]

I never said it should be trashed. The government (and their advisors) think that relaxing restrictions too soon will be bad for the economy. They have information we don't. Why do you think that they are wrong?

I think a second lockdown would be even worse, especially if it were another urgent response to a sudden acceleration in cases.

Meanwhile, it looks like we’re in for a slight downturn in the weather next week, for a few days at least. That may well help a bit.

 

[js1000]

If things continue as they are for too long it will be a case of sacrificing the younger generation; this cannot continue and there is going to have to be a compromise sooner rather than later.

I have believed for a good month now that once the unemployment and GDP are released in June/July it will be a wake-up call. Suddenly ~100,000 deaths will seem like a minor 'sacrifice' rather than a tragedy as the media have portrayed it to date. The alternative is save a few - predominantly pensioners lives who may have died anyway even if there was not a Coronavirus outbreak - versus mass unemployment among the youth and working age population which will in turn lead to poverty and deaths. As morbid as it sounds it will re-focus minds. 'Money talks' after all.

'Flattening the curve' to protect the health service makes sense. But we have gone above and beyond that now. There are thousands of cancer patients are not having treatment at the moment. Equally thousands of potential cancer cases are not being diagnosed due to people staying away from GPs and A&E which is going to undoubtedly lead to many deaths as diagnosing incidences of cancer early is absolutely vital. I cannot wait for July to arrive - I feel we'll have some context as to what a (a lot of which is self-inflicted) 'tragedy' really is.

Let's get the under 40s back to work. Maintain physical distancing and the other measures such as hand-washing - but don't let this virus dictate our daily lives to the point it makes us housebound as it is not sustainable.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

First of all, they are just establishing themselves in whatever role they are looking to follow in the future. If you take away study as a means of that establishment, they will not be able to prove themselves for that role. Some may find they don't have the opportunities, jobs, further study etc that they thought they would have.

But those opportunities will still be there once the crisis is over and the economy recovers. The next year - possibly the next couple of years - is going to be very tough for most of us. But if you want to present this as a young vs old argument, then you could equally argue that younger people are likely to be at a point where their careers are more flexible and they have more working years ahead of them. Hence they may well, on average, be in a better position than many older people to take advantage of whatever new opportunities present themselves in a few years' time.

Second, they have a greater proportion of their lives ahead of them than older people and are in the accumulation phase of life (knowledge, life changes, money) - simply stopping their lives for a year or so prevents that accumulation.

Surely it delays, rather than stops, that accumulation. Those opportunities to study and accumulate knowledge/experience/money/etc. aren't going away for ever. They are postponed, not destroyed.

Finally, because of that, they are the ones who are going to have to spend their whole lives paying for the costs which we have racked up in the last month.

I think your logic is incorrect. Say it takes X years for the country to pay off all the costs we have racked up. Then you can argue that anyone who dies within those X years is going to 'spend their whole life paying for the costs....' If - most plausibly - X is a decade or two, then that group will consist almost entirely of older people, not younger people.

To be clear, I don't doubt that many young people are badly affected by the current situation, just as many old people are badly affected. Everyone's circumstances are different, and there will be some people whose circumstances mean that the lockdown causes them more harm than others. But I don't think a simplistic trying to put groups of people against each other - such as young vs. old - is helpful.