[John]

People are pretty bad at judging risks, we worry about unlikely risks and ignore more serious risks. For example: we worry about flying (very safe) but not about the journey to the airport (not so safe).

With COVID-19 most people have no idea of their real risk if they do catch it. Some worry more than they need and others think they'll be fine when their risk is high. Since it looks like infections are on the rise again you may want to check how at risk you and your loved ones are should the worst happen and you catch the plague.

We know a lot more about the real risks now than when this started back in March - it may ease your fears or scare you more to look them up. This site which I heard about on the radio this morning is hard information for professionals. You look up your age in the table, then factor in your sex, ethnicity and health factors to calculate a 'COVID age' and from that you can get an idea of your personal chances.

I was surprised to find my personal risk is higher than I thought but Val's is lower

NB - it's quite slow to load, probably very busy. Be patient.

https://alama.org.uk/covid-19-medical-risk-assessment/

As they used to say on a US cop series.. Let's be careful out there!

[mumofstig]

Being female and a healthy weight seems to make a lot of difference, even at my age, according to those risk calculations.
I'm even more pleased I lost weight, now  Not that any of my behaviour is risky anyway 

[New shoot]

Being a healthy weight protects you against type 2 diabetes, hypertension and a lot of the other factors that push your covid age up alarmingly.

Well done you 

[Russell Atterbury]

I calculated that worldwide, the actual percentage of people that have died from the virus, is something like only 0.0001. Here in Kaliningrad, the general feeling is; what's all the fuss about.

[Plot 1 Problems]

I calculated that worldwide, the actual percentage of people that have died from the virus, is something like only 0.0001. Here in Kaliningrad, the general feeling is; what's all the fuss about.

The number of coronavirus deaths so far this year is eclipsed significantly by the death rates caused by lack of clean drinking water and lack of food...

[mumofstig]

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Scroll down a bit for Lists of Cases and Mortality by Country, including deaths/100K population..
Obviously some countries are worse than others..

[al78]

I calculated that worldwide, the actual percentage of people that have died from the virus, is something like only 0.0001. Here in Kaliningrad, the general feeling is; what's all the fuss about.

Exponential growth, which the human brain has difficulty comprehending.

It is not so much about the death toll, it is about the number or people who need medical treatment at any one time, combined with the fact that viruses propagate exponentially and many people live in densely populated areas (ideal for virus spreading), so the demand for medical treatment can quickly skyrocket to the point where medical facilities cannot cope if left unchecked.

If you want an aid to comprehending exponential growth, get a chess board, put a grain of rice on the lowest left square, then on every square along and up, put double the number of grains of rice. Work out how much rice would be on the 64th square.

Unfortunately the measures taken to knock down the the virus are effectively replacing one set of nasty circumstances with another, namely the collapse of the economy which young people will be paying for for decades, increasing mental health disorders, millions more out of work, and an increased death toll because COVID-centric attitudes prevent people with other potentially serious illnesses seeking or getting treatment.

[New shoot]

There is no doubt the measures taken to get the virus under some sort of control have downsides.  This is and always has been a balancing act, but we know much more now, have more testing capacity and some treatments that can make a real difference to those who get very ill.

It is worth saying that the actual risk is a bit more than death, although that is obviously the most serious end result.  This virus attacks other organs and kidney damage or failure is quite common.  I have a friend who is a renal nurse and she has been in the thick of it in ICU through the worst of the peak.  She has some tales to tell, but is remarkably upbeat despite everything and ready for the next wave with steely determination.  The hospital she works at is now back doing ops and getting through the backlog as fast as they can.  They are not allowing visitors and there are other elements of their normal work that is disrupted, but in the main, they are doing amazingly well.  Our local hospital is the same and I know a couple of people who have been in recently.  If we want our NHS to keep on top of the demands on them, we have to do everything we can to help them, make plans to have our own resilient strategies to get through the winter and be prepared to make a few sacrifices.  That is only fair.

There is actually quite a boom on in some industries, but it is going completely unreported.  OH is booked for weeks and everyone he knows in business or who rent business premises around him are the same.  The economy has and will continue to change as we adapt, but it is not all doom and gloom.

I am sure we will be paying for this for a long time, but that is only right.  Older people have paid their dues over their lives, not least the massive debts following WW2.  If they got through that, we can get through this. 

[rowlandwells]

i have to say we haven't been going out much just lately only the odd visit to the garden centre and we locally shop and use a village garage for petrol not been to any of the big supermarket since March but its so maddening  when we go to the Garden centre and see people who don't use  the properly marked  walkways taking of there masks not bothering with social distancing i have visited 2 garden centres who should have made more effort to tell those not conforming to the rules to leave the premises asap 

if people couldn't  give a ------ then this virus is never going to go away £100 fine is not good enough for those who break the civid law and we must uphold the law for the sake of our stretched NHS  and the risk of those who work in our hospitals and those not perhaps so healthy to fight covid as for those who are exempt from waring a mask they should wear a badge or something that will identify the exemption

we all need to continue to adhere to the covid rules because apart from what i said about the NHS its all about saving lives is it not

[JayG]

Best friend's daughter is 24, and quite responsible on the whole, and she's probably only one of many in her age group who have requested regular CV testing without having any symptoms to make her feel ok about continuing her pubbing and clubbing activities.

Not of course what the government intended given the limited testing resources, but
I think she's behaving more sensibly than many others in her age group.

Interesting times ahead (unfortunately.)

[al78]

I am sure we will be paying for this for a long time, but that is only right.

Is it?

At some point we are going to have to accept that this virus is here to stay, we are going to have to accept an increase in the annual death toll, and we are going to have to pump more money into the NHS to meet that increased demand (although it is highly debatable the NHS was ever in danger of being overwhelmed even during the peak of the virus). We cannot, and should not be imposing huge restrictions on people forever. The wealth of the country comes from the productivity of its citizens. Kill that productivity, goodbye prosperous Western lifestyle. Really what we should be doing is shielding the most vulnerable people, and those for whom COVID is very likely only a minor illness can go back to work and get on with their lives. I fail to see how it is fair or right that EVERYONE should be in lockdown when it is only a subset of the population who are in real danger from this virus. We ought to be able to manage with sensible precautions rather than the headless chicken we-must-avoid-all-death-at-any-cost approach which is arguably going to cause more hardship in the long term than living with the virus.

The unfortunate side effect in living in the ultra safe modern world is that we have become oversensitised to death, we have forgotten that death is something that happens to us all, and deaths from natural causes are something we have always lived with and always will have to live with. 

[John]

... (although it is highly debatable the NHS was ever in danger of being overwhelmed even during the peak of the virus). ...

I think there was a real risk of the NHS being overwhelmed - remember the scenes from Italy & Spain? We did a miraculous job of avoiding it by emptying wards, re-purposing facilities and building the Nightingale hospitals in days.

The unfortunate side effect in living in the ultra safe modern world is that we have become oversensitised to death, we have forgotten that death is something that happens to us all, and deaths from natural causes are something we have always lived with and always will have to live with.

Bring back the good old days of 20% infant mortality, childbed fever, typhoid and cholera.
Death is something usually best avoided for as long as possible.

The purpose of my original post was that people could go see what the real risk was to them as an individual and act accordingly. I know of mothers with young children who are terrified and older people with health issues who aren't worried at all. Both are reacting to an erroneous view of reality.

[Russell Atterbury]

Isn't it debatable if putting the economy in it's coffin, has actually stopped even one persons death. There is no definitive proof, couldn't possibly be. As soon as this awful virus escaped it's cage, I think there is more than a chance that the vulnerable were going to suffer, lock down or not.

[John]

Isn't it debatable if putting the economy in it's coffin, has actually stopped even one persons death. There is no definitive proof, couldn't possibly be. As soon as this awful virus escaped it's cage, I think there is more than a chance that the vulnerable were going to suffer, lock down or not.

I think it's obviously saved many lives - if you look at the figures for the USA which is on an upwards curve still, that is obvious. Of course people will die, but the thing is to keep the numbers as low as possible. My son in law is a key worker so has kept going throughout. Only recently have we started having him and family in the house in case it broke out in his workplace.
Happily the number of cases in our area is very low but if they go up again then we stop. It's all about estimating the risks and deciding what the best course of action is for you.
Don't forget, many of the intensive care beds were occupied by younger, fit people at the peak. Old people are often not going to benefit from the intensive care. They'll die anyway and it may be better for them to die at home. That is the sort of decision doctors have to make.
COVID just kills a higher proportion of older people - nothing is clearcut and simple. Except.. if you don't catch it you won't die from it.

[Mr Dog]

Best friend's daughter is 24, and quite responsible on the whole, and she's probably only one of many in her age group who have requested regular CV testing without having any symptoms to make her feel ok about continuing her pubbing and clubbing activities.

Not of course what the government intended given the limited testing resources, but
I think she's behaving more sensibly than many others in her age group.

Interesting times ahead (unfortunately.)

I'd say she's behaving extremely selfishly and irresponsibility myself. Aside from wasting valuable resources (a test costs around £100 a go) for frivolous reasons she would only know that she wasn't 'positive' at the time of the test not the 24+hrs later when the results come back and she goes out clubbing.