STAY ALERT

[JP_]

As long as the old are shielded the risk, is incredibly low

Yes, but how do you shield the old people and send kids to school? Many people rely on grandparents to do the school run and look after kids after school while they work. Are all those children going to be excluded? Many kids live with grandparents, what about them? Many kids have parents and siblings with serious health conditions. And, may teachers are at risk too - my son's teacher has been having cancer treatment and caught coronavirus. Why should they be expected to put themselves at risk, before it is even save to go to a shoe shop or eat in a restaurant?

Everybody knows sending kids back to school will result in more deaths. What's the big rush?

 

[motorbiking]

This is all just anecdotal. Do you know what percentage these vulnerable groups make up?

The government advice for vulnerable people is isolate. That hasn't changed.

We need to get the country working again. Once our neighbours get their economies going we must also follow. As that is when real, long term economic damage is done. All the time we are globally locked down, the money spent isn't real, if everyone is doing it.

over 50% of the population has <1% chance of dying from Covid. When you allow for risk factors it is even lower.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Children ... they are less likely to pass it on.

How do we know this?

"But it’s also very risky, as it’s unclear whether or not young children, who generally seem to get mild cases of Covid-19, transmit the disease to others at similar rates as adults."
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/2/21241636/coronavirus-children-kids-spread-transmit-switzerland​

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

over 50% of the population has <1% chance of dying from Covid.

Do the 1 - 44 years old make up over 50% of the population?
Bearing in mind your pie chart does not indicate whether it refers to cases, deaths, broken legs, going to work or having had an accident.

I do believe your argument is that a number of deaths are worth sacrificing for the economy.

BUT, the number of deaths is an unidentifiable quantity, and it's fine as long as it's not you or yours.

 

[Brigadier]

How do we know this?

"But it’s also very risky, as it’s unclear whether or not young children, who generally seem to get mild cases of Covid-19, transmit the disease to others at similar rates as adults."
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/2/21241636/coronavirus-children-kids-spread-transmit-switzerland​

When Sir G used vox as a source, he was rebuked for it being unreliable.
I have no opinion either way on that.
But you may be interested in checking it.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

When Sir G used vox as a source, he was rebuked for it being unreliable.
I have no opinion either way on that.
But you may be interested in checking it.

It seems to be a reasonably balanced article, giving arguments from both sides of the debate.

"But at the moment, the only thing that’s clear is that there’s no real clarity on this issue.
...
Covid-19 is a new disease, and as such, scientists have a lot more replicable research to do before the world can begin to even come close to understanding how children may spread it."​

To assume, and proclaim the one-sided argument as justification for your political position is not a balanced argument.

 

[motorbiking]

There are studies which show this.

Do the 1 - 44 years old make up over 50% of the population?
Bearing in mind your pie chart does not indicate whether it refers to cases, deaths, broken legs, going to work or having had an accident.

I do believe your argument is that a number of deaths are worth sacrificing for the economy.

BUT, the number of deaths is an unidentifiable quantity, and it's fine as long as it's not you or yours.

pie chart is death by age where COVID-19 was present.
source .xls

Under 44 year olds make up more than 50% of the UK population
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281174/uk-population-by-age/

I'm not making an argument that its worth sacrificing old people for the economy. I'm making an argument that young people are the lowest risk to be exposed to the increased risk. The economy is necessary in order to fund healthcare and services etc.

 

[Notch7]

We need to get the country working again.

its a shame the government didnt think about that when they tried herd immunity instead of listening to the proper advice: IE close borders, quarantine, testing, contact tracing.

If the government had acted hard to begin with, we would be able to end lock down faster -South Korea never even stopped working -their economy continued.

over 50% of the population has <1% chance of dying from Covid.

1% are pretty high odds for risk of death.

Easy to be saying its low risk, not so easy for those people in jobs that are high risk of exposure, neither is it easy for people that are in the same household as somebody in a high risk category.

 

[motorbiking]

You survived worse odds being born.

 

[fillyboy]

1% are pretty high odds for risk of death.

I'd stay out of Casinos if I were you.

 

[motorbiking]

Should give up driving, cycling or walking anywhere. far too risky.
Also avoid going for a pee or a poo as that causes cancer.
as does breathing.

 

[EFLImpudence]

over 50% of the population has <1% chance of dying from Covid. When you allow for risk factors it is even lower.

That's <1% if you catch it?

"Only" 0.05% of the total UK population have died so far.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

There are studies which show this.


pie chart is death by age where COVID-19 was present.
source .xls

Under 44 year olds make up more than 50% of the UK population
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281174/uk-population-by-age/

I'm not making an argument that its worth sacrificing old people for the economy. I'm making an argument that young people are the lowest risk to be exposed to the increased risk. The economy is necessary in order to fund healthcare and services etc.

Sorry your link to your source is your spreadsheet, not to any verifiable source.
I say again, your pie chart does not indicate what it represents, deaths due to Covid, deaths where Covid is present, deaths where Covid tested positive, etc.
It just says "involving Covid"
Also, your spreadsheet mentions "includes non-residents". What does this mean?


My comment was not about sacrificing old people, it was about deaths (of all ages) being less important than the economy.
If children are allowed to mingle, and their transmission rate is equal to adults, (and the jury is still out on that one) increased number of deaths is more or less inevitable. The R rate will probably go back over 1.

More discussion that children may be super spreaders.

"Young children are superspreaders of other diseases, such as flu. Children are considered a high risk group when it comes to flu, but so far appear to be at low risk of becoming very ill from coronavirus.​

One of the missing pieces of the puzzle is how much children carry coronavirus and spread the disease to others, even if they don't often become ill themselves.​

It is too soon to know how infectious people of any age with no symptoms, or only very mild ones, are to others.​

Coronavirus is transmitted in a similar way to the flu virus - through coughing or touching contaminated objects, such as pens and door handles."
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52003804​

 

[ajohn]

The UK split is roughly 25% children, 25% old and the rest in the middle.

They have been discussing the children aspect in the brief today. Part of the reasoning is probability based on the sample they used to determine the % of currently infected people in the whole population. That is nothing to do with hospital figures.

So. Assume all but children at school maintain distancing which is what has got the % down. There is only a low probability of a child in school being infected.

They are using a bubble idea in schools, from Denmark (I think). Groups of 15 children and a teacher. Always the same teacher and bubbles don't mix. If they maintain distancing one infected is less likely to infect another. If they don't - not so simple.

If it gets in and the same bubble mixes for weeks it probably all falls over so the main aspect is low probability of that happening but this shouldn't happen providing there are no distancing issues.

Some / a school has said 15 given space is too big but given school sizes it may be easy to feed them.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I'm not really querying motorbiking's figures, just his rationale that children do not transmit the disease, so we can safely allow them back to school, (which is debatable) and then extrapolating that to allowing the loosening of restrictions.
Incidentally his figures only include those recognised by the government, not the additional deaths in comparison to previous years.