Has any healthy UK person 45-55 died yet ?

I heard a case I think from America of someone with no prior condition being placed in intensive care and being close to being intubated. Only 1 I've read about in the last 2-3 weeks.

Anyone can contract the virus and pass it on regardless of the age group.

Still no run of the mill flu deaths,which is a blessing.

well nearly 500 italians died today - does that help?

or do you want deaths in the thousands before you gaf?

I'd need deaths in the 10s of thousands to think that a stock market sell off and economic disruption that we have seen is half rational.

10s of thousands in a day? What a pos you are.

Not a lot on the MSM news about Germany, 12 dead from (depending on which website you read) 8,000 to 11,000 cases.

Possible explanations for the very low death rate compared to Italy:

Germany at an earlier stage

Not all cases are being captured

Most people under 45 recover
I keep saying it wash your hands  anywhere u go
At least 30 sec with cold water
Soap or washing up liguid the virus cels have phat base that sticks to your hand
Anti bacterial gel does  not work very well
One it’s not a bacteria and 2nd soap clears the cells better

99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says

The Rome-based institute has examined medical records of about 18% of the country’s coronavirus fatalities, finding that just three victims, or 0.8% of the total, had no previous pathology. Almost half of the victims suffered from at least three prior illnesses and about a fourth had either one or two previous conditions.

More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says

___________________

Doesn't say anything about whether the three without prior conditions were obese or smokers.

Indeed - screaming  ... or the AGE of those 3.... 65 ish or 90 ish?

Italy has the second highest population of Older people in the World.

  'Next on this list is Italy, with 23% of its population being 65 years of age or older.

On looker the doc am working for has two with virus in her work closed unit she nor even worried
She says 6 or 7 viruses killing more people each day but press just love a story
She did says it far more contagious that other flu viruses   , fresh air and washing hands a must
If u go back to the great flu epedemic of the 39 s wipex out millions here
They were puzzled as they hand thousands of make shift tents , and the survival rate was 60 % higher than in hospitals
They worked it out the spores don’t like fresh air
Couped uo in a room was far worse than a make shift tent crazy hey !

is there any subject you don't know absolutely fck all about you utter clown?

Lots of young with lung damage,long term 100s of thousands with scarring,i had pneumonia took two months of antibiotics and a year to fell truely better,these people of all ages will be 10x worse..Big implications fior these people,so even though older are dying
going to be huge investment for the ones that have recovered,non of this chucking to the DWP and fit to work manslaughter..

Not sure but the hospitals in France are seeing an increase in the number of younger victims .

Is the apparent and current low death rate from the virus in Germany down to how deaths are being recorded?

For example, take the case of the man with MND who died yesterday in his 40s. If there was an identical case in Germany, would they record the primary cause of death as the MND and therefore not class it as a death due to CV, but in Italy they would class the primary cause of death as being the CV?

So in a nutshell, does it comes down to what is being classed as the primary cause of death on the death certificate, are the Germans recording the main underlying medical condition as the primary cause of death, whereas the Italians are recording the CV are the primary cause of death.

M.D. in Private Eye yesterday suggested we might look at overall UK death statistics:

The week ending 10 Jan 2020 was the worst of the year so far, with 14,058 deaths. But it's fallen every week since to 10,816 in the week ended 28 February. Deaths are actually lower this year than the average for each week over the previous five years. I like to think it's the handwashing.

I guess this might be a possible way of approaching this problem of what did someone who died WITH this Chinese virus actually die OF. Look at overall death rates, because ultimately that's what matters.

Incidentally, he does also point out that early figures suggest the handwashing campaign has been a roaring success in delaying the surge of Chinese virus (as well as reducing the incidence of flu, hepatitis A, food poisoning, etc.) thus freeing up hospital space, which is what matters in the end.

Wash your hands.

Lots of 20-54 year olds on ventilators..younger people being underestimated.

Source? How many is 'lots'?

Mar 19, 2020 -- 8:39AM, GEORGE.B wrote:

Is the apparent and current low death rate from the virus in Germany down to how deaths are being recorded?For example, take the case of the man with MND who died yesterday in his 40s. If there was an identical case in Germany, would they record the primary cause of death as the MND and therefore not class it as a death due to CV, but in Italy they would class the primary cause of death as being the CV?So in a nutshell, does it comes down to what is being classed as the primary cause of death on the death certificate, are the Germans recording the main underlying medical condition as the primary cause of death, whereas the Italians are recording the CV are the primary cause of death.

I've wondered similar myself. My brother got annoyed at the cause of death on my dad's death certificate. It was correctly, in my opinion anyway, recorded as the initial condition, whereas my brother thought it should have been the ensuing condition.

Are most of these deaths pneumonia, coronavirus, or some other underlying health reason.

a lot of people who are very ill ultimately die due to the complications of immobility

deciding what was the actual cause of death can be debatable

I'd need deaths in the 10s of thousands to think that a stock market sell off and economic disruption that we have seen is half rational.


Well we haven't seen anything yet in the numbers to justify anywhere near the panic in the country being whipped up by the media.

If the figures get really bad we will be reaching the peak of the crisis anyway, and the end will be in sight.

The government are turning a bad situation into a disaster, because the virus will run its course regardless.

Ruining businesses, laying off workers and forcing people into debt will not stop the virus.

40% of patients hospitalized are between 20-54 in the US..

That's cos they are morbidly obese

Leaving aside the recorded cause of death question, the anomaly in the statistics being rolled out is while the number of deaths is likley to be accurate, the number of infections is way out. So its impossible to draw conclusions about the overall mortality rate. However, it's reported that 80% of infections lead to mild illness. Which means that 1 in 5 infections is severe and likely to need hospitalisation. That number is truly scary and the social distancing is all about preventing this group from overwhelming the NHS. Of those severly affected, the proportion that die are overwhelmingly old or are otherwise compromised. There are no statistics I've seen that give a proportion of the "severely affected" by age or other infirmity, so it's a fair assumption that the severe cases include a significant number of younger fit patients. If the ability to care for those with severe illness is lost, then expect to see far more deaths right accross the demographic than seen so far. And with no exit strategy from lockdown, we are just delaying the inevitable. Good news from Asia today on no new cases other than "imported" ones, but the real test will be when they take off the brakes.

A paper from imperial college made exactly the same point,steerforth.their estimate of the mortality rate from the pandemic was 0.9%.

Whichever way the figures are recorded the fact that front line Doctors in their 30s have died and Italys Morgues and Crematoriams can't cope with the amount of bodies should tell you all you need to know.
Does it matter what age group/illness people have, any premature death is a disaster for their nearest and dearest.

Good point Stewarts - I was merely looking at the original question, not attempting to comment on the value of life. But saying that, the way that deaths are reported in the media as being mainly old or infirm, does seem to carry a sinister unspoken implication of "that's ok then - don't worry too much"

It does matter because the older a victim is the more likely he is to have an underlying problem which compounds the situation.i guess what the op is asking is whether the virus is a killer for a healthy younger person.

And the answer seems to be less likely but possible, and more so if the ability to proved care is lost.
What is unclear is the proportion of those infected are youger people that go on to need specialised care.

provide

^^it's going to be a killer when they are among the 20% potentially needing hospitalization and there are no medics available to tend to them.

GEORGE.B19 Mar 20 07:39Joined: 14 Jul 04 | Topic/replies: 44,588 | Blogger: GEORGE.B's blog
Is the apparent and current low death rate from the virus in Germany down to how deaths are being recorded?

I would hazard a guess at that being a 1.01 George.

Propaganda is fuelled by the quick chalk up of yet another CV related death.

The younger generation are more likely to be in most danger of dying through drugs overdoses or stabbings.

Let's have some figures on how many people aged 50+ have got it WITH underlying conditions and recovered.

50% 60 and under hospitalized in France

iRISH contacts show
2/3 under 55

Must be the Guiness taking affect

45 yr old woman ,high blood pressure which zillions have,
40% of cases in usa under 45/50

There are no statistics I've seen that give a proportion of the "severely affected" by age or other infirmity,

UK has statistics for number of asthma sufferers, or number of people with diabetes, obesity, etc, etc, but nowhere do we have figures for those who have more than one of the vulnerable statistics. Shows you how reliable but how useless some statistics actually can be.

Steerforth ,if one does not know the number of infections how does one know the 80% .
Because it is reported ?

Thats a good question. The "80%" is presumably of confirmed cases. So it's possible that the unconfirmed cases could bring that "severe case" percentage down, because the hospitalised cases are all tested as confirmed so the "untested positives" will never become severe cases. Should we take some positives from that on the prognoses?

Fabulous that our loyal retired nurses and doctors are returning to the service.
One can only pray they have enough physical & mental resilience , coupled with sufficient £1 coins for the car park.

onlythenameshavechanged20 Mar 20 11:44Joined: 04 Jan 11 | Topic/replies: 30 | Blogger: onlythenameshavechanged's blog
Fabulous that our loyal retired nurses and doctors are returning to the service.
One can only pray they have enough physical & mental resilience , coupled with sufficient £1 coins for the car park.


Best post ive seen for ages .

Plenty of data about the percentage of those with a positive test that get light, severe or fatal outcomes but the key word is test. The vast majority of light cases are never tested. Those over 80 tested positive have an 80% chance of severe/fatal but how many of them were already ill?