# Interesting article on the general effectiveness of the lock-down (US)



## Mouldy (18 May 2020)

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation

_..."Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. *If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age.* And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19...."_

My own opinion... While we can all accept that at the beginning of this pandemic we were facing a new and untested situation with regard to precautionary measures, its unlikely that any country would repeat them if these numbers bear up. The financial, psychological and developmental (think kids out of school) costs do not not justify such an approach.


----------



## odyssey06 (18 May 2020)

The lockdown was effective as intended.

One of the reasons the quantity of numbers is lower, is because of the precautionary measures.
The precautionary measures were put in place to prevent health services from being overwhelmed and being unable to treat 'saveable' covid-19 patients and other patients in serious conditions.
The numbers would look very different in quantity and in terms of outcomes without those measures.

That's not to say the exact level of restrictions must be repeated e.g. it sounds like more emphasis is needed on the high risk groups and sites, and cocooning / rather than in the general population.


----------



## odyssey06 (18 May 2020)

It would be interesting to see figures for ICU recoveries i.e. how many people not in a high risk category (by age or condition) ended up in ICU and recovered.


----------



## EmmDee (18 May 2020)

Mouldy said:


> https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation
> 
> _..."Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. *If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age.* And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19...."_
> 
> My own opinion... While we can all accept that at the beginning of this pandemic we were facing a new and untested situation with regard to precautionary measures, its unlikely that any country would repeat them if these numbers bear up. The financial, psychological and developmental (think kids out of school) costs do not not justify such an approach.



I think there are two things not reflected in the above - (a) the lockdown is meant to protect the vulnerable as much as the less vulnerable. So younger people are included as much to avoid them passing it on to the older population and (b) while healthy younger people do survive, there also seems to be a longer term impact - still unknown. I've seen reports that the impact even for a healthy person is up to 10 years reduction in life expectancy.

But it's so new - they are still learning the consequences


----------



## Mouldy (18 May 2020)

EmmDee said:


> I think there are two things not reflected in the above - (a) the lockdown is meant to protect the vulnerable as much as the less vulnerable. So younger people are included as much to avoid them passing it on to the older population and (b) while healthy younger people do survive, there also seems to be a longer term impact - still unknown. I've seen reports that the impact even for a healthy person is up to 10 years reduction in life expectancy.
> 
> But it's so new - they are still learning the consequences


Can you reference one of the report about the reduction in life expectancy? I haven't seen anything like this. Thanks.


----------



## Purple (18 May 2020)

I've been saying that for the last few weeks Mouldy.
Those in the at risk groups need to be protected but the rest of the country (and world) need to get back to it.


----------



## Purple (18 May 2020)

EmmDee said:


> I've seen reports that the impact even for a healthy person is up to 10 years reduction in life expectancy.


Can you post a link please?


----------



## EmmDee (18 May 2020)

Mouldy said:


> Can you reference one of the report about the reduction in life expectancy? I haven't seen anything like this. Thanks.



One report here -








						COVID-19 Patients are Losing 13 Years of their Lives on Average: Study
					

Men are losing on average, 13 years of their lives while women lose 11 years before they naturally die because of the coronavirus pandemic.




					www.sciencetimes.com
				




Also reported here -
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/497097-those-who-died-from-covid-19-lost-more-than-a-decade-of

I think the source report they refer to is this one -




__





						COVID-19 – exploring the... | Wellcome Open Research
					

Read the original article in full on Wellcome Open Research: COVID-19 – exploring the implications of long-term condition type and extent of multimorbidity on years of life lost: a modelling study




					wellcomeopenresearch.org
				




I think you'll also find similar reports in The Telegraph, Guardian etc - but they seem to be sourcing the same University of Glasgow research


----------



## Mouldy (18 May 2020)

EmmDee said:


> One report here -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, I understand now, I thought you were saying that young people who had the virus and recovered would have 10 years taken off their expected life span. Thanks for the links.


----------



## EmmDee (18 May 2020)

Other background reports discussing the longer term effects even with non ICU / mild cases - the problem of course is that everything is still at early stages and so many of these are anecdotal reports.









						The emerging long-term complications of Covid-19, explained
					

"It is a true roller coaster of symptoms and severities, with each new day offering many unknowns."




					www.vox.com
				












						Why your health may never be the same after Covid-19
					

Lung disease, heart conditions, kidney problems - doctors are now looking at the long-term health costs of Covid-19.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (18 May 2020)

Mouldy said:


> Ah, I understand now, I thought you were saying that young people who had the virus and recovered would have 10 years taken off their expected life span. Thanks for the links.


That's what I thought was being said


----------



## Sunny (18 May 2020)

Surely the issue isn't just fatal cases though. A lot of younger people (<65) have required hospitalisation and even intensive care treatment with the virus. The health service could be very quickly overrun and then you would have more fatalities because they wouldn't be able to cope. Protecting the elderly is important but we can't just let it run rampant in younger people either. Even though, I do agree that we seem be taking an extremely conservative approach to lifting restrictions compared to other countries. So will be interesting to see what approach works out.


----------



## Purple (18 May 2020)

Sunny said:


> Surely the issue isn't just fatal cases though. A lot of younger people (<65) have required hospitalisation and even intensive care treatment with the virus. The health service could be very quickly overrun and then you would have more fatalities because they wouldn't be able to cope. Protecting the elderly is important but we can't just let it run rampant in younger people either. Even though, I do agree that we seem be taking an extremely conservative approach to lifting restrictions compared to other countries. So will be interesting to see what approach works out.


The second point in the linked article addresses this. The vast majority of younger people who get the disease do not require hospitalisation. 

_ For those under 18 years of age, hospitalization from the virus is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 people; for those 18 to 44 years old, hospitalization is 0.1 percent. Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7 percent were hospitalized. Of 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded "age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization." _


----------



## Sunny (18 May 2020)

In Ireland, just over 45% of hospitalised cases are people under 65 so we can't just ignore the impact on younger people


----------



## Megafan (18 May 2020)

Sunny said:


> In Ireland, just over 45% of hospitalised cases are people under 65 so we can't just ignore the impact on younger people



I think people's opinion of which is the better course must be impacted by whether they have worked through the pandemic or not.

I can't understand the arguments against the lockdown, or the phased reopening of the economy, the drop in cases is because of the lockdown, for no other reason. I hate the Sweden argument, I think it is borderline barbaric to advocate it. I honestly cant get my head around a lot of the arguments and the venom shown against people doing their best for others in a situation unfamiliar for this country 

...but I/we have worked throughout from home, granted having 10% paycuts, the kids are happy, the wider family is safe so maybe we can afford to support the measures moreso. I am just being devils advocate to myself in this point though.


----------



## Purple (19 May 2020)

Sunny said:


> In Ireland, just over 45% of hospitalised cases are people under 65 so we can't just ignore the impact on younger people


Absolutely, but you can be sure that most of that group were over 45 and that the vast majority have at least one underlying condition.
This disease will probably be with us for years. The chances of a vaccine being readily available any time in the next 18-24 months is slim. 
We will borrow €30 billion this year. How much will we have to borrow next year? How much the year after? 
How many people will lose their livelihood? 
How many families will break up? 
How many suicides will there be? 
How many people will die of cancer and other illnesses who would otherwise have lived much longer? 
What will the quality of life of older (and younger) people be who don't have families around them when all of their means of social contact are closed? 
The social impact of this lockdown and the medium to long term economic impact is massive. 
It could be greatly reduced if we stopped protecting people who do not need to be protected but continued to protect those who do need to be protected. 
Of course we should not just open everything up tomorrow but I find the "will someone please think of the children!" type shrillness of the response worrying; we are only dealing with what is in front of us with little thought for the collateral damage to society.  
For the record I've worked through this and it has had little impact on me or my family but this isn't about me.


----------



## Ceist Beag (19 May 2020)

Purple said:


> I find the "will someone please think of the children!" type shrillness of the response worrying


Purple how on earth did you find such shrillness in the response you quoted? I didn't read anything other than a point being made that almost half of the hospitalized cases are under 65. The poster even said that they agree that our approach seems quite conservative.


----------



## Allpartied (19 May 2020)

The situation in mid/late March was quite worrying.  ICU beds were filling up quickly and capacity was in danger of being reached within a few days. 
One of the problems with this virus is that the treatment is supportive only, it tries to get oxygen into the patient's lungs and that support has to stay with the patient until such time as their own body overcomes the virus.  Average ICU stay is measured in weeks for this virus.  If the rate of ICU admission had continued into April and May, while the admissions who came in March still required treatment it would have been truly horrendous. Relatively fit people in their 50's or 60's would have been denied access to mechanical ventilation or invasive oxygen therapy. The numbers would have been in the hundreds, at least, maybe thousands.  
I don't know if the lockdown was solely responsible for the change which has happend, as ICU admissions decrease, or if the virus has a natural cycle of infection, dormancy, re-infection, or if it is simply going to fade away.  Fact is, no-one knows, but the evidence from those weeks in March was clearly indicating that this virus was highly infectious, spreading quickly in the community and had a devastating effect on a substantial number of people who caught it. 
We should tread very carefully, because this virus is very different from anything seen before and it does have the potential to overwhelm any health service.


----------



## Purple (19 May 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> Purple how on earth did you find such shrillness in the response you quoted? I didn't read anything other than a point being made that almost half of the hospitalized cases are under 65. The poster even said that they agree that our approach seems quite conservative.


My comment wasn't directed as Sunny, whose opinion I place great value on, but at much of the coverage in the media.


----------



## Purple (19 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> The situation in mid/late March was quite worrying.  ICU beds were filling up quickly and capacity was in danger of being reached within a few days.
> One of the problems with this virus is that the treatment is supportive only, it tries to get oxygen into the patient's lungs and that support has to stay with the patient until such time as their own body overcomes the virus.  Average ICU stay is measured in weeks for this virus.  If the rate of ICU admission had continued into April and May, while the admissions who came in March still required treatment it would have been truly horrendous. Relatively fit people in their 50's or 60's would have been denied access to mechanical ventilation or invasive oxygen therapy. The numbers would have been in the hundreds, at least, maybe thousands.
> I don't know if the lockdown was solely responsible for the change which has happend, as ICU admissions decrease, or if the virus has a natural cycle of infection, dormancy, re-infection, or if it is simply going to fade away.  Fact is, no-one knows, but the evidence from those weeks in March was clearly indicating that this virus was highly infectious, spreading quickly in the community and had a devastating effect on a substantial number of people who caught it.
> We should tread very carefully, because this virus is very different from anything seen before and it does have the potential to overwhelm any health service.


I don't think anyone would disagree with that but we have any amount of respirators and as many ICU ventilators as we want. An oxygen delivery respirator costs less than a thousand euro and will suffice in most cases. That's the one with the mask (they now use a full-face mask) which increases the oxygenation of the air, as opposed to the intubated ICU Ventilator which works instead of your usual lung function.

We did the right thing.
We are doing the right thing.
Is continuing to do what we are doing still the right thing?


----------



## Allpartied (19 May 2020)

Purple said:


> I don't think anyone would disagree with that but we have any amount of respirators and as many ICU ventilators as we want. An oxygen delivery respirator costs less than a thousand euro and will suffice in most cases. That's the one with the mask (they now use a full-face mask) which increases the oxygenation of the air, as opposed to the intubated ICU Ventilator which works instead of your usual lung function.
> 
> We did the right thing.
> We are doing the right thing.
> Iss continuing to do what we are doing still the right thing?


If the virus becomes endemic, then we will have to manage that.  Including all the social distancing measures and dedicated hospital/primary care services to deal with those who need intervention.  
But, as you say, complete lockdown for years is not viable and would create huge additional health issues which might be even worse than the virus.


----------



## Purple (19 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> If the virus becomes endemic, then we will have to manage that.  Including all the social distancing measures and dedicated hospital/primary care services to deal with those who need intervention.
> But, as you say, complete lockdown for years is not viable and would create huge additional health issues which might be even worse than the virus.


It will cause huge economic problems and the economy is people, not some abstract concept. It is their livelihoods, their security, their mental health, their social cohesion, their dignity, their happiness. It is also what pays for the health service.

My contention is that we should not spend billions, with all the associated damage, protecting people who do not need to be protected. Instead we should secure our ability to protect those who need protection into the future by protecting our economy now.


----------

