My opinion: Things need to change

[UP13]

It's a shame that more isn't being made of the risk of death to obese people, down to the little discussed blood clotting aspects of CV-19. If ever there was an opportunity to persuade people to stop stuffing their faces, this is surely it.

Annual health MOTs and National Insurance discounts for healthy BMIs could be rolled out under a continuing "protect the NHS" message.

My sister in law is a doctor and she is saying that it is obese people who are dying of Covid 19 hospitals. She dismissed our family theory that smokers were most at risk and said smokers didn't seem any more likely to die but obese people definitely were.

 

[Starmill]

If ever there was an opportunity to persuade people to stop stuffing their faces, this is surely it.

While I'm sure this is well intended it's an unhelpful way to describe it. I'm convinced that the people whom you claim are "stuffing their faces" actually feel that if they got positive support to live an incrementally healthier lifestyle through changes over time in diet and, yes, more exercise, that would achieve results which lessen risk. Poverty and poor mental health are causes of obesity, not negligence and laziness. And the virus is making poverty and mental health far far worse.

As with nearly everything, the government had a responsibility to help which it isn't doing.

 

[Scrotnig]

While I'm sure this is well intended it's an unhelpful way to describe it. I'm convinced that the people whom you claim are "stuffing their faces" actually feel that if they got positive support to live an incrementally healthier lifestyle through changes over time in diet and, yes, more exercise, that would achieve results which lessen risk. Poverty and poor mental health are causes of obesity, not negligence and laziness. And the virus is making poverty and mental health far far worse.

As with nearly everything, the government had a responsibility to help which it isn't doing.

Quite.

We've gone from bullying and lecturing overweight people, to not caring if they die.

 

[43066]

My sister in law is a doctor and she is saying that it is obese people who are dying of Covid 19 hospitals. She dismissed our family theory that smokers were most at risk and said smokers didn't seem any more likely to die but obese people definitely were.

Unfortunately that is the harsh reality. Obesity is a known risk factor.

It’s also true that a lot of the Covid victims who the media has trumpeted as having no underlying conditions are, with all due respect, quite clearly overweight and most likely clinically obese.

Being overweight or obese has become so normalised in society that many people simply no longer recognise it when they see it.

 

[43066]

Quite.

We've gone from bullying and lecturing overweight people, to not caring if they die.

In cases of extreme obesity/binge eating etc. I would agree that obesity is caused/exacerbated by poor mental health. However these cases are the exception rather than the rule.

The harsh truth is that over half of UK adults are either overweight or obese. In most cases this is due to sedentary lifestyles, and people simply consuming more calories than they expend.

Circa 10% of the NHS’s entire budget is spent on treating type 2 diabetes and its complications. Obesity kills far, far more people prematurely than Covid 19 ever will.

Bullying and insulting people is clearly not the solution, but obesity is now a national crisis, and something we need to deal with urgently.

But it won’t be dealt with it. Why? Because, in 21st century Britain, we are so afraid of causing offence that we are no longer able to talk honestly about certain topics - obesity is one of them!

 

[talldave]

So I should be all politically correct rather than blunt in order to save someone's life? I know how they got fat - calories in > calories burnt. I think it's time we stopped being all sweet and used this "new normal" to alert obese people to the risks of death, and a painful one at that.

 

[Starmill]

So I should be all politically correct rather than blunt in order to save someone's life? I know how they got fat - calories in > calories burnt. I think it's time we stopped being all sweet and used this "new normal" to alert obese people to the risks of death, and a painful one at that.

Nope. Nobody asked you to be "politically correct" - that's a concept you've introduced. It's a cheap excuse used by people who are on the back foot of an argument, and I personally am not sure it even exists (that's a question for an appropriate thread, though). Equally it isn't a question of politeness vs frankness, as a case can always be made for getting the balance right on that. Instead it's a question of negative feedback (such as hurtful tropes like "stuffing [one's] face" against positive feedback, such as the health benefits of losing weight. I notice you didn't refer to this on balance, you've made an overwhelming effort in this thread to deploy the former, but funnily enough did not touch on latter.

 

[43066]

So I should be all politically correct rather than blunt in order to save someone's life? I know how they got fat - calories in > calories burnt. I think it's time we stopped being all sweet and used this "new normal" to alert obese people to the risks of death, and a painful one at that.

Agreed. In *most* cases obesity isn’t down to mental health, poverty, the Tories etc. How can it be, when over half of adults in this country are now overweight or obese!?

If we were more honest about the obesity crisis, and actually addressed it, fewer people would die as a result, and the NHS would save a fortune. Instead we sweep it under the carpet and even have a lobby of “body positive” individuals who actively champion obesity as a lifestyle choice.

It’s not about shaming or mocking, but some honesty about what causes obesity wouldn’t go amiss, and that boils down to calories in > calories burned. Ironically, as I noted above, obesity is a far bigger health crisis than Covid 19.

 

[kermit]

Emerging evidence suggests that the disease has vascular effects rather than only respiratory ones. It does not seem like any of your proposals recognise this though?

Perhaps it would assist if more people took a moment to accept that they're not doctors and also that they probably haven't done enough literature review (the equivalent of at least a full time job) to actually give out informed opinions about the virus?

There's been a lot of arguing and anger, as opposed to civil disagreement on technical points, in this forum. Admittedly, this has been augmented by callousness and insensitive choices of words by contributors like the OP (and I see their contributions in this thread are no exception), but to my mind the root cause is a quick-fire posting of opinions based on a narrow and uninformed view. Some posters do this about almost every topic, putting no real thought into forming their opinion, but the ones doing it about this topic which is both very serious and also very complicated and nuanced, are bound to start arguments.

Having got all that out of the way I will add that I think that pretty much all of Huntergreed's opinions are completely wrong. There's very little evidence presented in support of them and some of the points go into detail based on an incomplete or inaccurate understanding, or outdated information. I could go further than this into the details but I've tried to do that before and it turns the thread into a bin fire.

I agree with everything Starmill has said. I have also been somewhat dismayed by the tone of many comments in the thread about Scotland, which I feel could be summarised as persistent whining by privileged and entitled posters, saying "But why can't I have my old life back?" and seeking to blame the incumbent First Minister (who happens to be a Scottish Nationalist, which I am not) for everything. Covid 19 is a horrible, multi-pronged new disease with substantial consequences for many of those who survive it. Unless or until we have effective treatments, vaccine or both, you would perhaps do better to reflect on how lucky most of us in this country have been, compared with most of the world's population, to date. Advocating an approach that does not minimise the chances of infection is, indeed, simply callous.

 

[Enthusiast]

This is the key. If we can keep the infection rates below the capacity of the NHS to cope then we minimise unnecessary deaths.

No we can't. Many of the victims died despite the best efforts of the sawbones to save them. Having the capacity to make those efforts does not guarantee survival. The problem is that attempting to maintain the infections at a "manageable" level means crippling the economy, healthcare, education and the social fabric of the country even further than has already occurred and it's completely unsustainable. It leads to things like this:

Sorry but you've missed that boat, there will now be people who won't receive the treatment they need because what they are suffering from is not covid. Do those potential deaths count?

Things must change. If people want to continue to behave in a bizarre manner that's their privilege - so long as they do not expect me to do likewise. The furlough scheme must be withdrawn from them so long as there is no further justification for them to remain off work. Then they can get on with it. The rest of us can move on and return to a normal life taking such precautions as are reasonably practical but ditching those which are not.

 

[LAX54]

One other point, that may be controversial now but it seems would have been common belief in 1968 when Hong Kong flu was around - I don't actually think it should be the job of government to try to prevent the spread of a virus, other than issuing basic public health information. It isn't a political issue (or at least ought not to be - it certainly appears that it wasn't in 1968)

of course in 68 there was no social media and 24/7 news to spread the news,to every corner of the World ! what would have happened if we had treated 2020 the same as 1968 ?

 

[LAX54]

In a reply on another thread@ HUNTERGREED said, in response to figures obtained from a COVID site:

I agree entirely, the fear factor was pushed far too much and we’re now seeing the negative consequences of this.
The statistics you have provided suggest:

0.1% of the global population have had the virus.

0.00575% of the global population have died from it.

0.47% of the UK population have had the virus.

 

[Huntergreed]

In a reply on another thread@ HUNTERGREED said, in response to figures obtained from a COVID site:

I agree entirely, the fear factor was pushed far too much and we’re now seeing the negative consequences of this.
The statistics you have provided suggest:

0.1% of the global population have had the virus.

0.00575% of the global population have died from it.

0.47% of the UK population have had the virus.

Indeed, however some key things need to be kept in mind when analysing these statistics.

The UK number is the number of positive tests, likely nowhere near the actual number of cases once cases not tested and asymptomatic cases are included.

The death count is (I believe) those who have died with it in their system, not from it. This death count is likely to be far lower if we try to figure out who actually died from the disease rather than just with it (for instance, if you had tested positive, but you died in a car crash, you still had a positive test so I believe that this would be recorded as a Covid death).

 

[Scrotnig]

I agree with everything Starmill has said. I have also been somewhat dismayed by the tone of many comments in the thread about Scotland, which I feel could be summarised as persistent whining by privileged and entitled posters, saying "But why can't I have my old life back?" and seeking to blame the incumbent First Minister (who happens to be a Scottish Nationalist, which I am not) for everything. Covid 19 is a horrible, multi-pronged new disease with substantial consequences for many of those who survive it. Unless or until we have effective treatments, vaccine or both, you would perhaps do better to reflect on how lucky most of us in this country have been, compared with most of the world's population, to date. Advocating an approach that does not minimise the chances of infection is, indeed, simply callous.

Ok, so we all stay locked in our houses indefinitely to make sure we don't get the virus. Since that is what you seem to be advocating.

How do we fund society? Assuming everyone thinks living like that is actually worth living at all.

 

[Richard Scott]

I agree with everything Starmill has said. I have also been somewhat dismayed by the tone of many comments in the thread about Scotland, which I feel could be summarised as persistent whining by privileged and entitled posters, saying "But why can't I have my old life back?" and seeking to blame the incumbent First Minister (who happens to be a Scottish Nationalist, which I am not) for everything. Covid 19 is a horrible, multi-pronged new disease with substantial consequences for many of those who survive it. Unless or until we have effective treatments, vaccine or both, you would perhaps do better to reflect on how lucky most of us in this country have been, compared with most of the world's population, to date. Advocating an approach that does not minimise the chances of infection is, indeed, simply callous.

I think us only worrying about this, let's be honest no quite so devastating virus in grand scheme of things, and ignoring people with cancer who aren't getting their treatment callous. There are youngsters out there not getting treatment with likehood of many years of life ahead of them who's lives are ebbing away due to them not having treatment. There is no one side to this argument, we can't just sit inside until it goes away as by doing that harm is being caused to others. About time all those calling for continuation of lockdown realised what the consequences of doing that are.

 

[43066]

I agree with everything Starmill has said. I have also been somewhat dismayed by the tone of many comments in the thread about Scotland, which I feel could be summarised as persistent whining by privileged and entitled posters, saying "But why can't I have my old life back?" and seeking to blame the incumbent First Minister (who happens to be a Scottish Nationalist, which I am not) for everything. Covid 19 is a horrible, multi-pronged new disease with substantial consequences for many of those who survive it. Unless or until we have effective treatments, vaccine or both, you would perhaps do better to reflect on how lucky most of us in this country have been, compared with most of the world's population, to date. Advocating an approach that does not minimise the chances of infection is, indeed, simply callous.

This is exactly the kind of factually incorrect alarmism we need to move away from.

The overwhelming majority of those who contract Covid 19 will make a full recovery. To suggest otherwise is simply nonsense. The same cannot be said for the thousands of people PER WEEK who are missing out on cancer diagnoses. I certainly don’t consider those people “lucky”.

I think us only worrying about this, let's be honest no quite so devastating virus in grand scheme of things, and ignoring people with cancer who aren't getting their treatment callous. There are youngsters out there not getting treatment with likehood of many years of life ahead of them who's lives are ebbing away due to them not having treatment. There is no one side to this argument, we can't just sit inside until it goes away as by doing that harm is being caused to others. About time all those calling for continuation of lockdown realised what the consequences of doing that are.

Agreed.

Add to that the devastating impact on the nation’s mental health, and the fact we are now heading into the worst recession for 300 years.

 

[LAX54]

Indeed, however some key things need to be kept in mind when analysing these statistics.

The UK number is the number of positive tests, likely nowhere near the actual number of cases once cases not tested and asymptomatic cases are included.

The death count is (I believe) those who have died with it in their system, not from it. This death count is likely to be far lower if we try to figure out who actually died from the disease rather than just with it (for instance, if you had tested positive, but you died in a car crash, you still had a positive test so I believe that this would be recorded as a Covid death).

Indeed, you are right, if there is any evidence of Cov19 then that goes on the certificate, does the same happen in a bad flu, or any flu year ? Numbers can of course be made to say anything you want, but even of the figures are slightly in error, the numbers are overall very low population wise

 

[Starmill]

The death count is (I believe) those who have died with it in their system, not from it. This death count is likely to be far lower if we try to figure out who actually died from the disease rather than just with it (for instance, if you had tested positive, but you died in a car crash, you still had a positive test so I believe that this would be recorded as a Covid death).

I'm afraid that this isn't true. The ONS' excess deaths metric is the most accurate one available because it corrects for these cases you describe. Deaths in road accidents are covered by the historic baseline, thus they've been excluded from the figures.

 

[Starmill]

Since that is what you seem to be advocating.

It doesn't seem to be to me. Where did they say that? I think you've just made that up.

 

[MikeWM]

of course in 68 there was no social media and 24/7 news to spread the news,to every corner of the World ! what would have happened if we had treated 2020 the same as 1968 ?

We’d have been a lot better off, of that I have no doubt.

Nice sign I saw in a second-hand bookshop earlier today:

‘If commonsense is used there should not be a problem. Some of the books survived the Spanish flu 100 years ago. Many of the books survived the Asian flu 50 years ago. All of the books will survive the current virus. Payment is by cash only.’

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm afraid that this isn't true. The ONS' excess deaths metric is the most accurate one available because it corrects for these cases you describe. Deaths in road accidents are covered by the historic baseline, thus they've been excluded from the figures.

But in those excess deaths are people who have died as a result of withheld cancer treatment so these need removing (as do those who've died of other normally treatable issues) if you're going to quote this as a true figure.

 

[Starmill]

But in those excess deaths are people who have died as a result of withheld cancer treatment so these need removing (as do those who've died of other normally treatable issues) if you're going to quote this as a true figure.

Are there any specific cases of that happening? Urgent cancer treatments weren't stopped. The main concern is people who haven't been diagnosed, as I understand it.

 

[Richard Scott]

Are there any specific cases of that happening? Urgent cancer treatments weren't stopped. The main concern is people who haven't been diagnosed, as I understand it.

They were stopped in many hospitals, know someone who worked on a cancer ward and no-one was receiving treatment.

 

[6Gman]

No we can't. Many of the victims died despite the best efforts of the sawbones to save them. Having the capacity to make those efforts does not guarantee survival.

And many survived. Because they could get the intensive support they needed. And if that support had been unavailable they would, in most cases, have died.

You're quite right that having capacity "does not guarantee survival". But not having capacity virtually guarantees death.

 

[Starmill]

And many survived. Because they could get the intensive support they needed. And if that support had been unavailable they would, in most cases, have died.

You're quite right that having capacity "does not guarantee survival". But not having capacity virtually guarantees death.

There are an enormous number of patients who present in hospitals with something that's not Covid-19 who would have good or excellent chances of survival if correctly triaged and seen accordingly, but who would certainly die if they received no treatment at all. That was really what "lockdown" was about, stopping those people from dying. Economic arguments are essentially irrelevant to this calculation. If the healthcare system cannot see people, the economy would collapse just as good as it would under lockdown. I've explained that time and again, but it's difficult for people to see, I think.

 

[43066]

The above comment is laughable. The healthcare system quite evidently *cannot* see people at the moment! I can’t make an appointment with my GP for love nor money, I know of a cancer patient whose chemotherapy was cut short, operations have been cancelled etc.

Yet the nightingale hospitals were unused and have now been mothballed, all because the government’s predictions of case numbers were based on a discredited model.

Anyone who thinks economic arguments can be divorced from healthcare arguments is simply delusional and the reason why should be self evident; the economy pays for the healthcare system.

 

[haggishunter]

I think us only worrying about this, let's be honest no quite so devastating virus in grand scheme of things, and ignoring people with cancer who aren't getting their treatment callous. There are youngsters out there not getting treatment with likehood of many years of life ahead of them who's lives are ebbing away due to them not having treatment.

It's worth keeping in mind that suspension of certain cancer treatments isn't about capacity of NHS or it's ability to provide the treatment, it's down to the fact that the treatments have such a fundamentally debilitating impact on the immune system that many patients who have good odds of successful cancer treatment would be at grave danger of not surviving exposure to covid-19 while on their cancer treatment.

Keeping such a highly infectious virus suppressed to low levels is arguably one of the necessities for fully restarting cancer care. There must be some people who are in a terrible situation where their hope has pretty much been extinguished by the presence of this virus, others where treatment delay would inevitably be fatal and they've had to proceed knowing catching covid-19 would also mean certain death. Can't even begin to imagine what people who've been faced with that situation must have gone through and continue to go through.

 

[LAX54]

It's worth keeping in mind that suspension of certain cancer treatments isn't about capacity of NHS or it's ability to provide the treatment, it's down to the fact that the treatments have such a fundamentally debilitating impact on the immune system that many patients who have good odds of successful cancer treatment would be at grave danger of not surviving exposure to covid-19 while on their cancer treatment.

Keeping such a highly infectious virus suppressed to low levels is arguably one of the necessities for fully restarting cancer care. There must be some people who are in a terrible situation where their hope has pretty much been extinguished by the presence of this virus, others where treatment delay would inevitably be fatal and they've had to proceed knowing catching covid-19 would also mean certain death. Can't even begin to imagine what people who've been faced with that situation must have gone through and continue to go through.

And the Hospitals that Nurses and Doctors reported were like 'Ghost Towns' due to blanket cancellation of all forms of treatment to channel staff to Virus work ?

 

[Starmill]

It's worth keeping in mind that suspension of certain cancer treatments isn't about capacity of NHS or it's ability to provide the treatment, it's down to the fact that the treatments have such a fundamentally debilitating impact on the immune system that many patients who have good odds of successful cancer treatment would be at grave danger of not surviving exposure to covid-19 while on their cancer treatment.

Exactly. A clinical decision has been taken on a patient by patient basis. If the risk of death is increased by not having the treatment, the patient can access the treatment. There are cases as you pointed out where the risk is actually increased.

 

[LAX54]

We’d have been a lot better off, of that I have no doubt.

Nice sign I saw in a second-hand bookshop earlier today:

‘If commonsense is used there should not be a problem. Some of the books survived the Spanish flu 100 years ago. Many of the books survived the Asian flu 50 years ago. All of the books will survive the current virus. Payment is by cash only.’

sort of sums it all up