Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:43 am
If you old fogies want to risk your life by not isolating then thats up to you.
Now you're just being a knob for the sake of it. I don't dispute that the older you are the more susceptible to Covid you are. But that is a necessary generalisation because it's impossible to look at any individuals health. Some extremely fit above 50's will be less susceptible than unhealthy people in their 30's for example.
So, where do you draw a line. Teens are probably more susceptible than younger kids, 20 somethings are more susceptible than teens, etc etc.
Above 50's, generally speaking, will be more susceptible than younger people. But if you try and isolate everyone over 50 you're going to fail as too many will have multiple interactions with younger people who can be carrying the virus. It will just cause chaos and resentment and for very little reward.
kokomO wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:59 am
The millions of others alive and healthy would also suggest otherwise. That generalised sweep doesn't back up your argument that people in their 60's are more fragile than people in their 50's. There will be hundreds of thousands of people in their 60's who are healthier and stronger than people in their 50's. Underlying health conditions, medical history, fitness levels, healthier eating, smoking and alcohol would all be contributors to that. That would also include stronger immune systems.
Then you must also accept that there are people in their 60's with worse health than people in their 70s.
Bottom line is that the older you are then more likely you are to die from covid-19.
Rubbish!
Who is more at risk? 63 year old Me, who runs 100 miles a month, cycles 300 miles a month, has never smoked and hardly drinks or a 30 year old who is overweight, smokes, drinks and never exercises.
Not even the current government would draw up a plan as daft as that....... But then again, nothing that happens this year would surprise me. They are also brilliant when it comes to washing their hands (pardon the pun) of any responsibility.
Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:43 am
If you old fogies want to risk your life by not isolating then thats up to you.
Now you're just being a knob for the sake of it. I don't dispute that the older you are the more susceptible to Covid you are. But that is a necessary generalisation because it's impossible to look at any individuals health. Some extremely fit above 50's will be less susceptible than unhealthy people in their 30's for example.
So, where do you draw a line. Teens are probably more susceptible than younger kids, 20 somethings are more susceptible than teens, etc etc.
Above 50's, generally speaking, will be more susceptible than younger people. But if you try and isolate everyone over 50 you're going to fail as too many will have multiple interactions with younger people who can be carrying the virus. It will just cause chaos and resentment and for very little reward.
So what do you want to do? Tell the over 50s they don't have to isolate if they can knock out a sub 20min 5k?
There's no way we can beat the virus in this country after letting it run wild before locking down, then having an inadequate system in place to track and trace it down. So with no vaccine in sight, we're going to have to go with the governments original plan of herd immunity. Let the young and healthy catch it and get over it and hope this means they can't catch and spread it again.
I'm not saying that 50 should be the cut off age, I don't have all the stats or the numbers that would impact, but there is definitely some logic in telling those over a certain age or who are vulnerable that they need to isolate/shield. And it has to be done by age.
tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:50 pm
This shows a much broader age group range with deaths of healthy no underlying
Illness related deaths & covid death stats
0-17
18-44
45-64
65-74
75+
tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:01 pm
The U.S only determines cause of death on people who have been tested .
108 tested where it was not known whether they had underlying conditions .
U.S figures for untested people who died is unknown.
So exactly what I said, from that set of data (from another country) there were 20 deaths of under 44's who had no underlying health conditions, from a total of 15000 people.
tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:01 pm
The U.S only determines cause of death on people who have been tested .
108 tested where it was not known whether they had underlying conditions .
U.S figures for untested people who died is unknown.
So exactly what I said, from that set of data (from another country) there were 20 deaths of under 44's who had no underlying health conditions, from a total of 15000 people.
Nope 17 confirmed plus 108 not known whether they had or had not had underlying conditions .
So we can not ASSUME they were not with underlying health conditions or
If they were.
People who died at home after displaying symptoms
People who died at home after Hospitals sent them home
due to a lack of beds after displaying symptoms
People dying in ambulances before reaching hospitals
after displaying symptoms
People dying in hospital treatment rooms before being admitted
after showing symptoms .
At times New York had 6 hour queues for admittance to Hospitals .
Not everyone made it in alive to be tested after displaying corona virus symptoms
Lack of taste & smell difficulty breathing etc.
It has to do wifh the fact that you or I or anybody else is susceptible to death from this virus.
Statistics lean to some being more likely to suffer
It does not mean you or I or anyone else is Immune .
The Friend of mine & some other O's fans who lost her brother
Well his daughter had her 9th birthday without him yesterday
I know of a 32 year old white English girl also who passed away due to corona
Also with no underlying health issues etc & didnt work in the health industry who now has
3 motherless children & a 31 year old widower left behind.
Last edited by tuffers#1 on Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:43 am
If you old fogies want to risk your life by not isolating then thats up to you.
Now you're just being a knob for the sake of it. I don't dispute that the older you are the more susceptible to Covid you are. But that is a necessary generalisation because it's impossible to look at any individuals health. Some extremely fit above 50's will be less susceptible than unhealthy people in their 30's for example.
So, where do you draw a line. Teens are probably more susceptible than younger kids, 20 somethings are more susceptible than teens, etc etc.
Above 50's, generally speaking, will be more susceptible than younger people. But if you try and isolate everyone over 50 you're going to fail as too many will have multiple interactions with younger people who can be carrying the virus. It will just cause chaos and resentment and for very little reward.
So what do you want to do? Tell the over 50s they don't have to isolate if they can knock out a sub 20min 5k?
There's no way we can beat the virus in this country after letting it run wild before locking down, then having an inadequate system in place to track and trace it down. So with no vaccine in sight, we're going to have to go with the governments original plan of herd immunity. Let the young and healthy catch it and get over it and hope this means they can't catch and spread it again.
I'm not saying that 50 should be the cut off age, I don't have all the stats or the numbers that would impact, but there is definitely some logic in telling those over a certain age or who are vulnerable that they need to isolate/shield. And it has to be done by age.
If we need another lockdown, then we need another lockdown. For all ages. So, no, it doesn't have to be done by age.
