How Many Covid Deaths Would Be Acceptable?

[dave50]

If as it seems we are going to have to realistically accept that some people are going to die from covid, how many deaths do people think is acceptable, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000? What number is the tipping point at which some might say, that's it, no more, whatever happens to the economy?

[allenlondon]

Roy from pipes up “ I don't read your posts PP”.

You should, tubs, you might learn something...

[ParsleyDumpling]

dannyk @ 09.27, if you think that no deaths to Covid should be acceptable (I'm sure this isn't just dannyk, though), then why are excess deaths due to untreated cancers etc. also not acceptable? This is the reality of the current situation. It seems to me that any cause of death excepting Covid is acceptable, from what I read on here sometimes.

[naomi24]

Parsley, that's exactly what I was just about to say. Sod the rest, eh?

[youngmafbog]

Yes, no one wants to discuss that Parsley. Doesnt fit the Covid worship agenda.

[ChillDoubt]

Acceptable? TBH, I’m past caring, we totally get what we deserve.

The summer saw flocks, indeed swarms of people going to beeches and mountains with impunity, hundreds of parties nationwide with multiple attendances and BLM protests by unmasked hordes who were, ironically, in the highest risk groups, who paradoxically later complained that not enough was being done for them, yet only 11% of whom are willing to partake in research to help them.

Then we’ve got students who are supposedly our future organising mass gatherings and events that are totally counter-productive.

We weren’t draconian enough, never will be and thus we’ll reap the whirlwind.
I really don’t care any more, idiocy is not an excuse so it’s a case of Devil take the hindmost, time to thin the herd, get ready for natural selection.

[retrocop]

100% agree with you Chill.

[ChillDoubt]

*beaches......though there was the odd rave in a forest too, so beeches is relevant! LOL

[Ellipsis]

If we don't get a vaccine, covid will kill around 600,000 people in the UK in the end.

If we do get a vaccine, that number will be lower, depending how many have become infected before we get the vaccine. So, the lower the number of people infected early, the better ... many more people will survive, if we get a vaccine.

Even if we don't get a vaccine, the rate at which people become infected is also an issue. If it's a low rate, the NHS is not overwhelmed. More people will survive, both covid and other ailments that put them in hospital.

On the other hand, if it's high rate, and the NHS is overwhelmed, more people will die, both from covid and from other ailments that put them in hospital. These might be "ailments" that could affect anybody, young or old, like a car crash ... if the intensive care unit is full of covid patients then car crash victims may not survive when otherwise they would have.

So the thinking is that if you want as many people to survive as possible, you keep the infection rate low and make it take as long as possible to pass through the entire population. It gives us longer to get an effective vaccine, and stops overwhelming the NHS. To do this, we need to find a way of living that keeps the infection rate down while allowing the economy to continue.

[ChillDoubt]

That’s the perfect summary Ellipsis, sadly missing one key ingredient:

The Brit factor!

Only yesterday we have Police breaking up a party of more than 100 at a wedding in London.

Like I said, we’ll get what we deserve and reap the whirlwind.

[New Judge]

//If we don't get a vaccine, covid will kill around 600,000 people in the UK in the end.//

Could you provide the rationale for that, please.

[Old_Geezer]

The infected don't necessarily contact the NHS let alone get admitted. It isn't the rate to react to.

[royfromaus]

Not that it bothers me but it is telling that the former alcoholic's post hasn't been removed.

[Ellipsis]

> Could you provide the rationale for that, please.

It's a bit less than 1% of the UK population, working on the assumption that virtually everybody gets it in the end if there's no vaccine, and ignoring knock-on impacts like people dying from other ailments.

[New Judge]

//working on the assumption that virtually everybody gets it in the end//

Why make that assumption. There has been no pandemic in history where "everybody gets it in the end." Why should this be exceptional? To contract the virus you have to be victim to quite of bit of bad fortune: you firstly have to encounter somebody with it (which is fairy unlikely) and then you both have to be in a position so that it can be transferred. And even if it was a correct assumption, the official overall fatality rate is about 0.5%, so cutting your projection in half. In the UK vast numbers of people have almost certainly contracted it and got over it with little or no symptoms and without having been diagnosed with it.

//To do this, we need to find a way of living that keeps the infection rate down while allowing the economy to continue.//

The problem is the current strategy seems to be doing neither.

[Ellipsis]

Judge, just put your own number in there. It makes little difference to the logic. 200,000? Whatever.

[bobbinwales]

It could be your not right judge. Your goverment and my Wales goverment and allmost all scientists agree its keeping the rate of infections, hospitel cases and deaths lower than what it would of been. Off course me or youll never know what the deaths might of been without lockdown but it would certainly of been alot higher. Look at how the deaths were slown down in the summer after the lockdown. Every country has realised restrictions are needed and most are more serverer than are restrictions. A think its better for the economy in the long term to try to restrict things now, maybe do more, and keep the corona down until it go's away or theres a vaxxine/cure rather than have lot's more illness, absense and overcrowded hospitals for ages.

[Spungle]

How many car-related deaths before we say, no more? How many alcohol-related deaths before we say, no more? How many work-related deaths before we say, no more? How many cancer-related deaths before we say, no more? Lets keep this in perspective.

[youngmafbog]

Lockdowns just kick the can down the road, you cannot beat a virus by lockdowns. In addition the lockdowns prolong it so more people will die as a collateral damage as the covid worshipers seem to see them (cancer/heart attacks etc).
"covid will kill around 600,000 people in the UK in the end."

Highly unlikely. The average age of a covid death is above the national expected life expectancy so high. Current stats seem to be showing that even at age 90 6 out of 7 will survive.

This is a vulnerable old persons disease unfortunately and I think you will find there are not enough of them to get to 600K. Most infections (what they are trying to lockdown on) are young people who often dont seem to know they have it (although many wont due to the number of false positives thrown out.)

[youngmafbog]

Bungle, cancer deaths seem to be less important to the Covid worshipers. They never answer questions like you have put.