3 ms·

I meant "underlying conditions", not underlying symptoms... that's my fault. So, basically, if you are healthy, your chances are absolutely tiny that you will

I meant "underlying conditions", not underlying symptoms... that's my fault. So, basically, if you are healthy, your chances are absolutely tiny that you will die if you catch it. So, yeah, it matters a whole lot actually.

akuchling 6y ago
But most people are unhealthy, with one condition or another. It's misleading to throw out most of the population and then say "but look how small the numbers are for the sliver that's left!"
- _Understated_ 6y ago
  That's not an argument... Healthy is subjective but when you say it like that then, yes, everyone has something. However, there are a bunch of things that will greatly increase your chances of dying from COVID: diabetes, obesity, cancer, immune-related illnesses so this is what I am referring to. It's fair to say that people with one or more of those (not an exhaustive list) are "unhealthy". So, it's not misleading: it's people who are vulnerable either due to age or health reasons that are at risk of dying, no one else. It was even raised by an MP recently and he asked Boris Johnston why we're getting locked down when only 400 or so people with no underlying conditions have died... everyone else had underlying conditions related to poor health that made them susceptible so they should have been locked down and the rest of us left to get on with things.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - majormajor 6y ago
    > everyone else had underlying conditions related to poor health that made them susceptible so they should have been locked down and the rest of us left to get on with things. This seems wildly expensive and impractical. Who's going to take care of all those people? Where are you going to house them (many of them live with people without those conditions)? Do you know how many people have diabetes, just to grab the first item off your list?
    - Vinceo 6y ago
      Do you think it's more expensive than the way we do it now?
      - majormajor 6y ago
        I'd bet so. If it's even possible. 34.2 million people in the US are estimated have diabetes and you're proposing housing all of them (and a bunch of other people) in isolation for a year or two while everyone else goes about their business. That's a lot of housing to find somewhere, food to provide, etc. Now try to do it in, say, six months. At it's peak, unemployment from COVID shutdowns in the US looks like they were around 20-30M last summer. So in terms of making sure those people still have income, the number of people isn't too dissimilar, but that number has declined and we also didn't have to find new, isolated, housing, food, and other services for that group. It's also a lot of people suddenly pulled out of their existing jobs and out of the regular in-person retail market, which means you're still not going to avoid some of the shocks we're seeing anyway.
        jtxxwl2 6y ago
        You are assuming that the 34 million with diabetes are in the workforce. Based on the age distributions of people with diabetes, most are probably retired or disabled.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    A fairly large slice of under-70s have diabetes, obesity or cancer.
xxpor 6y ago
Given that high blood pressure, and being overweight are concidered underlying conditions, people with "no underlying conditions" might be < 20% of the total population.
- _Understated_ 6y ago
  We're talking about serious stuff: cancer, immune disorders, diabetes, obesity etc.
  - orwin 6y ago
    High blood pressure is a serious underlying condition (and counted as an underlying condition in Covid death). Obesity is counted as an underlying condition at stage 1 (between 30 and 35 BMI).
    - armadsen 6y ago
      Exactly. Obesity alone means ~40% of the population of the US, and ~30% of the UK have an underlying condition as far as COVID risk goes.
      - jtxxwl2 6y ago
        >Obesity alone means ~40% of the population of the US And that is in large part thanks to the government and its public health experts, who we are now, I guess, supposed to believe have our interests in mind, even though, by letting 40% of the population become obese, when there are plain and simple steps they could have taken to prevent it, they have irrefutably demonstrated they do not actually care about the health of the population.
        schrodinger 6y ago
        > letting 40% of the population become obese "letting" seems like a strong verb. I'm all for empathy for those who struggle with maintaining a healthy weight—imagine being addicted to something that you must consume about 3 times a day to stay alive—but it seems a stretch to lay the blame of obesity on the feet of public health experts. Are they also responsible for alcoholics? Other drug addicts?

akuchling 6y ago

But most people are unhealthy, with one condition or another. It's misleading to throw out most of the population and then say "but look how small the numbers are for the sliver that's left!"

_Understated_ 6y ago
That's not an argument... Healthy is subjective but when you say it like that then, yes, everyone has something. However, there are a bunch of things that will greatly increase your chances of dying from COVID: diabetes, obesity, cancer, immune-related illnesses so this is what I am referring to. It's fair to say that people with one or more of those (not an exhaustive list) are "unhealthy". So, it's not misleading: it's people who are vulnerable either due to age or health reasons that are at risk of dying, no one else. It was even raised by an MP recently and he asked Boris Johnston why we're getting locked down when only 400 or so people with no underlying conditions have died... everyone else had underlying conditions related to poor health that made them susceptible so they should have been locked down and the rest of us left to get on with things.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- majormajor 6y ago
  > everyone else had underlying conditions related to poor health that made them susceptible so they should have been locked down and the rest of us left to get on with things. This seems wildly expensive and impractical. Who's going to take care of all those people? Where are you going to house them (many of them live with people without those conditions)? Do you know how many people have diabetes, just to grab the first item off your list?
  - Vinceo 6y ago
    Do you think it's more expensive than the way we do it now?
    - majormajor 6y ago
      I'd bet so. If it's even possible. 34.2 million people in the US are estimated have diabetes and you're proposing housing all of them (and a bunch of other people) in isolation for a year or two while everyone else goes about their business. That's a lot of housing to find somewhere, food to provide, etc. Now try to do it in, say, six months. At it's peak, unemployment from COVID shutdowns in the US looks like they were around 20-30M last summer. So in terms of making sure those people still have income, the number of people isn't too dissimilar, but that number has declined and we also didn't have to find new, isolated, housing, food, and other services for that group. It's also a lot of people suddenly pulled out of their existing jobs and out of the regular in-person retail market, which means you're still not going to avoid some of the shocks we're seeing anyway.
      - jtxxwl2 6y ago
        You are assuming that the 34 million with diabetes are in the workforce. Based on the age distributions of people with diabetes, most are probably retired or disabled.
- triceratops 6y ago
  A fairly large slice of under-70s have diabetes, obesity or cancer.

xxpor 6y ago

Given that high blood pressure, and being overweight are concidered underlying conditions, people with "no underlying conditions" might be < 20% of the total population.

_Understated_ 6y ago
We're talking about serious stuff: cancer, immune disorders, diabetes, obesity etc.
- orwin 6y ago
  High blood pressure is a serious underlying condition (and counted as an underlying condition in Covid death). Obesity is counted as an underlying condition at stage 1 (between 30 and 35 BMI).
  - armadsen 6y ago
    Exactly. Obesity alone means ~40% of the population of the US, and ~30% of the UK have an underlying condition as far as COVID risk goes.
    - jtxxwl2 6y ago
      >Obesity alone means ~40% of the population of the US And that is in large part thanks to the government and its public health experts, who we are now, I guess, supposed to believe have our interests in mind, even though, by letting 40% of the population become obese, when there are plain and simple steps they could have taken to prevent it, they have irrefutably demonstrated they do not actually care about the health of the population.
      - schrodinger 6y ago
        > letting 40% of the population become obese "letting" seems like a strong verb. I'm all for empathy for those who struggle with maintaining a healthy weight—imagine being addicted to something that you must consume about 3 times a day to stay alive—but it seems a stretch to lay the blame of obesity on the feet of public health experts. Are they also responsible for alcoholics? Other drug addicts?