Has the pandemic been overblown?

[xmfd]

Looking at the current state of affairs worldwide and what we've seen in person - is this virus less of a danger (to the majority of us) than we initially thought?

Some figures/food for thought:

• "Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.26% ... Most studies were done in pandemic epicenters and the few studies done in locations with more modest death burden also suggested lower infection fatality rates."
• (Global Study: The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data)

• T-Cells may neutralise the virus without developing antibodies, meaning the actual rate of infection could be far higher than antibody tests suggest.
• Sunetra Gupta, Oxford epidemiologist, defends her view that the "virus has passed through the UK's population". Claims infection fatality rate could be "as low as 0.01%".

• Death rate by age group in Massachusetts

Logon or register to see this image

(https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-dashboard-may-6-2020/download)

• Rate of hospitalisation is now estimated to be 102.5 per 100,000 infections, or 1% of cases require hospitalisation.
• (CDC, updated weekly)

 

[Wise Man Says]

My biggest concern about the virus for me is not death (although you never know), it’s potential long term side effects (which are not really known). But I’ve hated lockdown and support a return nearer to normality.

 

[Lo Ursem]

Yes

 

[Billy2Sheds]

Yes

 

[burro nunn]

No

 

[Ashley In!!]

It's easy to claim that the infection rate being low means there's been an overreaction, but that totally ignores the fact it's low because no one has been anywhere for three months.

 

[Sam Handwich]

Gupta's theory makes perfect sense to me, however governments around the world have had to work on the "worst case scenario" basis. To not do so would have been damaging. That said, I think we should follow this kind of lead now. The data is there to support it

 

[maghater]

Difficult to say especially as the pandemic is far from over. You can certainly make a case for say people under 40 with no underlying health conditions being allowed to carry on with their lives, of course they would need to be isolated from vulnerable groups, which is easier said than done. Perhaps informing people of the risks and let them make their own decisions is also an option. In our village there is an old widower must be well over 80, bump into him quite often, as his life now is just walking round the streets hoping to bump into someone to talk to. Told me several times that lives just not worth living, wife dead, family living away, and friends all socially isolating. Reckon he will be first in the pub when it opens. Can see his point of view, cannot have many years left so why should he be denied a bit of quality time at the end of his life?

 

[Grammar Police]

It's easy to claim that the infection rate being low means there's been an overreaction, but that totally ignores the fact it's low because no one has been anywhere for three months.

This.

It's not been totally overblown at all.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Only time will tell.

We do however need to get back to normality as soon as possible

 

[Northern_chappy]

Yes. So many of these deaths of people "with coronavirus" have been people that would have died soon anyway. Its like saying x number of people died whilst wearing socks. Doesnt mean socks are deadly.

 

[Ashley In!!]

Yes. So many of these deaths of people "with coronavirus" have been people that would have died soon anyway. Its like saying x number of people died whilst wearing socks. Doesnt mean socks are deadly.

This is why it's important to look at the excess deaths statistics. They blow this theory out of the water I'm afraid.

 

[themanagersnot2blame]

This is why it's important to look at the excess deaths statistics. They blow this theory out of the water I'm afraid.

It does but if it's killing very old, frail people a little earlier then there will no doubt be a negative figure in the future if it's brought under control in some way.

 

[PhilSAFC]

Yes if you don’t care about elderly relatives at all.

 

[joemcdokes]

My biggest concern about the virus for me is not death (although you never know), it’s potential long term side effects (which are not really known). But I’ve hated lockdown and support a return nearer to normality.

Side effects of what, your body fighting it?

 

[Rustie Trombone]

It does but if it's killing very old, frail people a little earlier then there will no doubt be a negative figure in the future if it's brought under control in some way.

UK mortality rate is now below the yearly average so you could be right.

 

[vote quimby]

Yes and no. Guess it happened to quickly but in hindsight, vulnerable people should of been protected while fitter people should of been left to keep the economy going.

 

[Northern_chappy]

This is why it's important to look at the excess deaths statistics. They blow this theory out of the water I'm afraid.

Im not saying its not killing people before they would have died otherwise. But the human life these days is in many cases being prolonged, far beyond the point where they have any quality of life. My aunt is in a care home and her routine for the last few years has been pissing herself in the bed by night and pissing herself in her chair by day. It is a moral issue but I dont think we can keep screwing peoples futures to save people who are near the end anyway. Those younger who are deemed at risk should shield, but stop locking the rest of us down. Part of the reason for my view is I dont think a vaccine is coming to save us, if I believed it was I might think about lockdown differently.

 

[Buzzer]

Difficult to say especially as the pandemic is far from over. You can certainly make a case for say people under 40 with no underlying health conditions being allowed to carry on with their lives, of course they would need to be isolated from vulnerable groups, which is easier said than done. Perhaps informing people of the risks and let them make their own decisions is also an option. In our village there is an old widower must be well over 80, bump into him quite often, as his life now is just walking round the streets hoping to bump into someone to talk to. Told me several times that lives just not worth living, wife dead, family living away, and friends all socially isolating. Reckon he will be first in the pub when it opens. Can see his point of view, cannot have many years left so why should he be denied a bit of quality time at the end of his life?

My Grandma is the same. 89 years old, she says she could die tomorrow of any number of things, so she doesn't want to spend her final years stuck in the house (which she has for the last 3 months). Hard to argue against to be honest.

If the virus affected my age group 20 -40, like the Spanish Flu did, at least we'd be able to isolate from it knowing that we still have the rest of our lives to enjoy when its over

 

[ChrisAshley]

If we didn't do anything about it the hospitals would have been overrun and a lot more people would have died from covid19 and other issues.