
50,000 deaths so far in the UK's coronavirus epidemic - open-source-ux
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52623141
======
graeme
A note for anyone comparing to any other country: the UK is rather fast to get
excess deaths up to date. So they show this metric earlier than others do.

50,000 deaths is awful. But be wary of comparisons to countries that haven’t
updated yet. I’m in Quebec, and I don’t believe we even have March numbers
yet. Govt here is pretty bad at data transparency overall.

Edit: yup, quebec is still stuck at February:
[https://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-
demograp...](https://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-
demographie/naissance-fecondite/i210.htm)

------
smackay
It will be interesting to see how this finally plays out. Initially the BBC
were downplaying the body count and there was little acknowledgement of the
fatalities in care homes. Only the Sunday Times (?) was reporting a total,
based on their own research, that was significantly higher than other media
outlets. Now all the newspapers seem onboard with the idea that the final
total will be much, much higher than officially reported. The BBC was somewhat
late in arriving at this position.

~~~
DiffEq
Since Sweden is acting as a control group we know that the lock downs have
very little meaningful effect; if they do, they are certainly not worth the
cost. So we need to protect the most vulnerable by isolating them (the old and
sick) and the rest of us need to get back to work. The total death toll will
be whatever the total death toll will be at this point. Focusing on it doesn't
help anything right now.

~~~
hyko
I can’t stress this enough: Sweden is not acting as a control group. Every
nation on Earth is restricting freedoms in some way, on a continuum, including
Sweden.

Even if Sweden is used in a future study, we wouldn’t know the cost benefit
outcome of a lockdown for years anyway.

A true control group would enact no policy changes and be a size and
composition that matches the country you’re interested in.

~~~
DiffEq
So...what you are saying is that we don't know if the lock down is
working...so then, if science is our guide, why are we doing it? Also - no
matter, who will die from this will die. Our hospitals are not overwhelmed so
those needing help will get it. We should take our wallops up front instead of
this way - it will be cheaper in the long run in every way (this includes
preventing the depression related suicides that will inevitable come from a
full on economic depression).

~~~
hyko
Why are we doing it? The same reason we don’t try to eat a year’s worth of
meals in one day: we simply couldn’t handle it. The modelling and current
experience indicate that hospitals would be overwhelmed relatively quickly.
The only real argument against that is if natural herd immunity has already
been achieved; seems unlikely at this stage, but we’ll know either way once
credible seroprevalence studies are completed.

A “lockdown” is a Fabian (or “rope-a-dope”) strategy: we avoid getting our
assess kicked until the balance of power shifts in our favor, at which point
we stage a massively devastating counterattack. In the context of COVID-19,
that means safe and effective treatments, and/or universal vaccination.

“Getting our wallops” upfront would likely involve a severe economic
contraction, as millions of people are removed from economic activity by
illness, death, and ultimately fear of the two. Even Sweden is projected to
suffer a severe economic contraction, partly due to the global trading
conditions and the openness of their economy, but also partly because fear of
COVID-19 is sapping domestic demand.

~~~
DiffEq
You act as if risk is the same for all groups and we know for a fact that it
is not. Covid-19 by in large kills the already sick and the old. They are the
ones at risk and their death, though unfortunate, would not as a whole impact
the economy in a negative way since most of them are currently not producing
anything anyway. And waiting for a vaccine is ridiculous - there has not been
a single Covid-19 vaccine ever developed; it is has been too hard to do. Maybe
with all the current efforts there might be some breakthrough but relying on
that nebulous hope in making our policy decisions seems foolish.

~~~
hyko
I’m afraid I have to disagree with all your points in the strongest possible
terms :)

The idea that “the sick and the old” would not as a whole impact the economy
if they went missing because “most of them are not currently producing
anything” is nonsense. The sick and the old are not some economically inert
material that we can just dispense with; they are workers, business owners,
investors, and consumers.

Many people in good health are also laid low by the virus (either through a
bad bout at home, a hospital stay, or death) for reasons we don’t yet
understand. It’s not like the “young and healthy” portion of the economy would
get through the pandemic free of impact.

Waiting for a vaccine is not ridiculous, but nor does the entire strategy
hinge upon it. Of course there’s no vaccine for COVID-19 yet because the
disease only emerged at the end of 2019; that’s nothing to do with difficulty.
The economic incentives for a safe and effective vaccine are now astronomical,
and many candidates are now in development. We are also doing clinical trials
for potential treatments that are already approved for medical use, so that
could change the dynamics in our favour relatively quickly.

The policy moves to keep r0 below 1 are a bridge to a better world; they are
an entirely rational strategy if you care about people and the economy they
create together.

As for the claim that recessions cause an upturn in deaths, this is not
supported by research of previous recessions. It sounds plausible, but it’s
not true:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0)
There are many reasons for us to want to avoid recessions, but mortality is
not one of them.

~~~
DiffEq
Let me clarify some things. I meant to say there are NO COVID class vaccines.
The common cold is caused by the Covid virus - no vaccines for it...no
vaccines for any of the Covid viruses because their nature makes it difficult
to create an effective one. If we manage to produce one it is a long shot and
at this point should not even be really considered as a short or medium term
solution.

The current stats surely indicate that the sick and old are the ones impacted.
see here: [https://tinyurl.com/ybtbqxsn](https://tinyurl.com/ybtbqxsn)
Basically the ones in nursing homes or the ones that are so unhealthy that
they are not producing much. This is also a fact that can not be contested.
Sure you see on the news, adnauseam, the middle aged man that got sick and
died and left a family - but they are the minority. Now just because I say
that does not mean that the old and sick have NO economic benefit for
somebody; sure nursing homes are a business and people make money from it -
what I mean to clarify is that in terms of wealth generation, they produce
very little in terms of net because usually people of this class are not
working because they are old and sick.

I do certainly care about people - I am just saying our hospitals are not
overwhelmed right now at all. The ones that will get sick we have capacity
for, and the ones that are going to die from this will die. So we should move
forward and suffer their loss now instead of cripple the economy and suffer
their loss over time. Because what does a crippled economy leave us? More
vulnerable in every way to every other threat - natural and man made.

Also, by your reasoning, we should quarantine everybody with AIDS,
Tuberculosis and a host of other diseases...so why don't we? Why are the
Covid-19 deaths the only ones that matter here?

------
coldcode
Taiwan has had 7 deaths in comparison (0.3 per million) vs UK (482 per
million). Of course they did things as soon as it appeared. UK and US waited
weeks and months.

------
StartupTree
Note that politics in the UK are VERY polarised at the moment, therefore the
quality of the discussion here will inevitably be one-sided and of low-value.

~~~
mywittyname
That's the nature of "I told you so" discussions. There's really not much more
that can be said here besides, "they/we should have listened to the experts
who said this would happen unless a lockdown was imposed."

~~~
StartupTree
The situation is far more nuanced than that. The UK government were not
ignoring experts, they took advice from their own scientists. For instance
Sweden too remained fully open.

------
henryaj
The phrase "sick man of Europe" never seemed so apt. Our government has
totally failed - hilariously late in imposing lockdown, never closed the
borders, failed to reach their own testing targets, and mass deaths in care
homes (which weren't even included in the official statistics until last
week). Really is shameful.

~~~
brink
Is there a realistic objective to lock-downs other than avoiding overrun
hospitals?

~~~
philipswood
This is a disease of governments and health systems.

As an individual the odds aren't too worrying in isolation.

Everything functioning well, few people get sick and those are treatable and
death rates are low.

But it's exponential growth.

So cases can swamp any realistic health system left unchecked. At this stage
the low fatalities (0.5%) goes out of the window and start looking at just
under 10%.

So a good strategy seems to be to slow the spread to managable rates at which
level actual disease impacts are quite low.

Imagine, in the limit, theoretically, you could keep everyone seperate and
expose a batch size you could treat, lead them through and then take the next
batch. You could have death rates under 0.5%.

The only other realistic objectives I see are tactical: ramping up treatment
ability and postponing cases until a cure/preventative measure is available
and when disease progression and treatment are better understood.

~~~
SuoDuanDao
If I understand your reasoning, the difference between hospice care and
staying at home with bedrest & fluids is a 9.5% death rate. Is that actually
the model you work with? My understanding is that most COVID patients sick
enough to get a ventilator die anyway.

~~~
orwin
I don't know this is not more widespread, but you have 3 type of care. Non-
intrusive ventilators or oxygen masks (or the nasal oxygen stuff), instrusive
ventilator and the last one is artificial blood oxygenation, i will count this
as intrusive ventilation as it is often used with intrusive ventilation.

Around 10% of known cases needs hospitalisation. Among them, 70% to 80% of
cases only needs oxygen and not respiratory help. So you can't give them
oxygen, they'll either die or have permanent right heart or brain damage.
Those will likely be fine after a dozen day at the hospital.

If your oxygen levels are really, really low, you will need an intrusive
ventilator. And yes, the death rate in those cases is absurdly high (between
60 and 90%).

Note: 10% of known cases is NOT 10% of cases.

Note 2: IMO this 10% number should be way higher as hypoxemia is far more
widespread than previously thought, even for people with mild symptoms, even
for kids (i only have anecdotal data on this so don't use it as an argument
until papers are written and consensus is made). Still, if you have covid with
only mild symptoms, please go to the hospital to take your oxygen saturation
level.

------
TimPC
50,000 may even be an underestimate as the reduced commuting from lots of work
from home and reduced employment leads to fewer traffic fatalities and this
hasn't been accounted for. These things are really hard to measure well.

~~~
MagnumOpus
The UK has a about 150 road deaths a month which is a rounding error compared
to the 25,000 excess deaths/month. (Also I assure you that traffic deaths have
not fallen to zero as enough idiots take empty streets as an invitation to do
90 in a 30 zone.)

------
matthewfelgate
It's inaccurate to count "all deaths above what would be expected" as
Coronavirus deaths.

Plus it's very early to be making international comparisons of different data.

~~~
ianlevesque
It's not that inaccurate and in the face of inadequate actual testing is all
we've got.

------
hyko
Bit of a misleading headline, as the 50,000 excess deaths are almost certainly
not all caused by SARS-CoV-2. Nowhere in the headline or the article is that
claim made.

~~~
lostlogin
The article makes it pretty clear that the majority are due to covid.

> About three-quarters of this excess can be accounted for by deaths that
> mention Covid-19 on the death certificate - that total was just over 36,000.

The remaining 14,000 are up for debate, and even if they didn’t have covid it
isn’t simple. If someone dies because they can’t get treated due to healthcare
systems breaking due to covid, is covid the cause of death?

~~~
hyko
That’s not quite accurate - the ONS data does not attempt to attribute
COVID-19 causality in that way; death certificates that mention COVID-19 are
not quite the same thing as deaths we know were caused by COVID-19. To balance
that somewhat there are probably missed cases hiding in the other 14,000
excess deaths as well, as you say.

The NHS is open to treat all emergency patients, so in theory there should be
no excess deaths due to the healthcare system breaking; however, it may be the
case that people have avoided treatment due to not wanting to burden the
system, or out of the fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2.

------
mothsonasloth
The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.

