Coronavirus

[Muddy Retriever]

Is the age profile of cases lower than in the initial wave?

If so deaths should be lower because the young tend to survive.

We are also wiser about protecting people in care homes.

The NHS has got better at treating Covid so the deaths per cases should be lower anyway.

That is generally what the powers that be are saying and is probably true. I think it would be difficult to tell exactly how different the age profile is from the first wave since back then you were only tested if you were ill enough to go to hospital. You were more likely to be in that position if you were older so that would skew the positive test figures for that period towards older people. Younger people may have had the virus but generally weren't ill enough to be tested.

I hope you're right about the care homes.

[Witton Park]

Is the age profile of cases lower than in the initial wave?

We don't know Graham, because they didn't test the general public in the February to April period unless they ended up in hospital, or they happened to be a key worker in some environments.

[Mossdog]

Over the summer, I've had friends and acquaintances report how on flying into the UK from Europe they were surprised at the dearth of checking of CV issues (or advice) at our airports compared to what they experienced at European airports. What's that about?

[Muddy Retriever]

That's just based on the current national trend of positive cases.

We had "spikes" in 4 of the constituencies covered by East Lancashire Healthcare Trust Blackburn, Hyndburn, Burnley and Pendle.
Those date back to July with Blackburn announcing measures on 14th July, after 2 weeks of rising positive tests.

So whether it's 3 weeks, 28 days, or up to 8 weeks, East Lancashire Healthcare Trust should have seen a rise in admissions in August and a rise in deaths by now.

They haven't. So why?

The authorities aren't coming up with an explanation. In fact they aren't even attempting to.

Why do you think that is? Could it be age profile?

It could be as Dave Mole said that social distancing and face covering are reducing the viral load. So while these measures aren't always preventing infection they are enough in some cases for people to become less ill. I guess you might counter that a lot of the people getting infected in East Lancashire are neither observing social distancing not wearing face coverings.

[Witton Park]

Why do you think that is? Could it be age profile?

It could be as Dave Mole said that social distancing and face covering are reducing the viral load. So while these measures aren't always preventing infection they are enough in some cases for people to become less ill. I guess you might counter that a lot of the people getting infected in East Lancashire are neither observing social distancing not wearing face coverings.

But rather than us speculating on here, or referencing others speculating elsewhere, you'd think that the authorities would be finding the answers.

[Dave_Mole]

I think I read that the average time lag between covid infection and death is about three weeks. According to PHE 88% of Covid deaths occur within 28 days of the first positive specimen date.

WHO say 3-8 weeks from symptoms. Same ballpark, though. I guess it depends on level of intervention.

As GB has also said, the most vulnerable have mostly, sadly, been picked off by the virus (aided by government incompetence) so the age profile is different and the young also seem to present differently. But, add in a normal winter for the NHS and you're looking at potential for a lot of issues.....

[Dave_Mole]

ONS says

"The number of younger people in England who have tested positive for the coronavirus (COVID-19) has increased in recent weeks.This has been among people aged 17 to 24 and 25 to 34 years, while positive tests for COVID-19 among those aged 50 years and over appear to be stable or declining".

So, whilst more younger people may have been tested, the stabilisation of older positive tests suggests that new infections are among the younger population.

[Graham Breeze]

ONS says

"The number of younger people in England who have tested positive for the coronavirus (COVID-19) has increased in recent weeks.This has been among people aged 17 to 24 and 25 to 34 years, while positive tests for COVID-19 among those aged 50 years and over appear to be stable or declining".

So, whilst more younger people may have been tested, the stabilisation of older positive tests suggests that new infections are among the younger population.

I suggest,whatever the differing views on "the science", what has been lacking in this crisis is any sophistication regarding different human behaviours - the message for a 17 year old who believes they will live for ever is different to that for a 70 year old who knows that they will not.

I appreciate with 60,000,000 people the message needed to be somewhat simple and crude but "one size fits all" was never equally applicable to a sheep farmer in Cumbria and the youth of an inner city area.

When people cannot personally identify with the message, they ignore it.

[Dave_Mole]

The handling of the whole thing has been shambolic.
The latest"rule of six" legislation was published 15 minutes before it came into force!

[Mossdog]

I suggest,whatever the differing views on "the science", what has been lacking in this crisis is any sophistication regarding different human behaviours - the message for a 17 year old who believes they will live for ever is different to that for a 70 year old who knows that they will not.

I appreciate with 60,000,000 people the message needed to be somewhat simple and crude but "one size fits all" was never equally applicable to a sheep farmer in Cumbria and the youth of an inner city area.

When people cannot personally identify with the message, they ignore it.

I'm not sure any other UK Government or political party would have done better, but there has been so much confusion and contradiction. A few weeks ago the Government were pleading with people ( especially the young) to return to pubs, shops and restaurants (Eat out to help out, etc.) in order to 'save' businesses. There have also been pleas to return to using public transport and working in the office. However, more recently the Government seem to be attributing blame to the young for the upsurge in infections!

Some honesty is needed. More socialising, even with social distancing, masks, etc., is clearly going to increase the infection rate. Why don't they, the Government, come clean with people and explain that we're all going to get infected and they are trying to manage the number of people becoming seriously ill, so that it's not everyone (or unmanageable numbers for the NHS) get infected all at once.