Death rate for under-45 is under 0.024%
Look at the "Deaths incidence" tab of the graphs at the bottom to see actual deaths with the curve-fit model.
EDIT: Meant to include in my initial "highlights" comment:
Estimated "peak" daily infections was 23 March, with 500k infections. Estimate for daily infections as of 10 May closer to 10k; estimated country-wide Rt at 0.75, still well below 1.
Bonus highlights: Method seems to be from this 2009 paper, "Bayesian modeling to unmask and predict influenza A/H1N1pdm dynamics in London":
Not equipped to evaluate their method, really; but if it's reasonably accurate, then the UK is not currently really headed towards "natural herd immunity".
I also have friends who've gotten sick and suffered impaired health. Figure the 80/20 rule. 80 people suffer impaired health for every 20 that die. We're talking about 1 in 50 having damaged health.
For what it's worth there are less drastic options. Kingston, Ontario for instance was able to avoid having even a single infection within a nursing home. 
They have families, children, partners. You think they'll give up 12 weeks of their lives locked in with their wards?
You really sound like a dangerous idiot, glad you're not in power.
Seriously? Cost is now the factor? I think we can find it in our 3 trillion dollar stimulus budget.
> They have families, children, partners. You think they'll give up 12 weeks of their lives locked in with their wards?
Is this a pandemic or is this stay and home tea party time?
> You really sound like a dangerous idiot, glad you're not in power.
Thanks man, regardless of whether you agree with me or not, I'd point you at the HN post guidelines.
Think of Ebola and herd immunity for more that a second, and you'll understand what it means: herd immunity is not the only way. Korea proves it too. SARS 2003 died without herd immunity either. What about HIV? Fancy trying herd immunity?
Herd immunity shouldn't be a goal.
And that is the crux of it. Can you avoid it? If you can avoid it, by all means do it. If you can't you might as well make sure you reach herd immunity by infecting the least susceptible age groups.
The ability of the population to stay indoors is limited, _especially_ if they don't see the effects of the disease (because they are indoors, right?) so you can't be able to keep up the pace for 2 years.
This is basically a bet on whether the resolution will be reached through herd immunity or some other means, some drug or quick vaccine.
If you do get the resolution by herd immunity anyway, you want to infect the least susceptible population and sustain the highest economic activity and standard of life for the population. If this bet pays off, you're least affected. If it doesn't and some magic solution shows up, you will have already bore the brunt of your approach and more people will have died than they should have.
If you get some sort of technical, quicker solution to the problem, the you will have the least overall number of deaths and will have paid a comparatively small cost by doing a lock down for a couple of months only. If this doesn't pan out and you get my herd immunity anyway, your overall number of victims will be higher than the herd immunity folks because statistically the spread will be uniform through age groups and your economy will be in worse shape because more people had to stay at home for a longer time.
It's all in what you think is the most likely resolution to the crisis and how well you follow through with your plan. I am though of the opinion that if you're to commit to a strategy, commit to it fully.
Herd immunity is how vaccines work. It's the reason not everyone needs to get the measles vaccine so long as most people do.
> Think of Ebola and herd immunity for more that a second, and you'll understand what it means: herd immunity is not the only way. Korea proves it too. SARS 2003 died without herd immunity either. What about HIV? Fancy trying herd immunity?
If you can obtain a slice of the population that is not particularly strongly affected by a disease large enough to achieve the same result as you would with a vaccine, it's an avenue. That's true of folks under 45, broadly speaking. You may not like it -- I may not like it -- but it is an effective avenue.
It is the goal. This conversation is about different ways to achieve that goal.
That heterogeneity also goes the good way though, since people in jobs most prone to spreading the virus (doctors, nurses, store clerks, etc.) tend to get infected first and therefore become immune first. There are models suggesting we might reach overall herd immunity with only ~30% infected (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23149725), though this is obviously speculative.
It's literally how vaccines work. The proposal (again, without opining on its validity) is the same as vaccination, but comes with much greater risk.
EDIT: I misunderstood GP's point. I'll still leave my reply as-is since i still think the general idea I was trying to convey is sound.
Here are some epidemiologists arguing that: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/opinion/sunday/coronaviru...
538 made a model to play with: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/without-a-vaccine-herd-...
So, the plan may be wrong. Proponents may have sincere but incorrect beliefs.
(As I understand it, the UK government's original plans couldn't have lead to herd immunity in the first wave without this, since they were planning on substantial measures to reduce spread even under those plans.)
There is also the problem that as a virus takes years to burn through clusters of susceptible people. Currently it would take over a 100 years to achieve herd immunity in California.
Figure 8 you can highlight the age group (0-45) and get a summary figure: 37,980,275 people aged 45 or less * 0.00024 = ~9,100
I'm not sure I call something like 10,000 dead a highlight.
Not on an individual level of course, but on a population scale, it can be. That level would be comparable with driving, with the flu and so on for that demographic.
The world will never be risk-free, and "exceeds expectations" can be a highlight even if the expectations were low.
We are already getting "additional death" scores here which is a sort of measure by proxy of the effect of SARS-CoV-2. There is a standard way of counting this, at least across Europe (and pre-Brexit UK!) There is of course a fair amount of variation but having COVID-19 is something to avoid if you can.
It is going to take some really funky stats to work out the real effect because there is less 'flu already in say Aus due to less travel and N hemisphere residents bringing it down south as they head into autumn/winter. Air quality is up nearly everywhere so COPD might be mitigated somewhat. Less road travel means less accidents. However suicides might be up and at least here in the UK there is a fairly well documented lack of people going to A&E (ER) when they should out, of fear or being stoic. Many other treatments have been put on hold.
SARS-CoV-2 has turned the world upside down. I do look for bright sides eg the huge social WFH experiment seems to be a huge success and opportunity. However, additional people are dying in rather unpleasant ways that they would not have done less than six months ago.
How many people have died because they couldn't get life saving elective procedures?
How many deaths will be attributed to the economic slow down?
As a counterpoint though I must also ask:
How many people have NOT died because of reduce automobile travel? Or from COVID19?
No general health checkups, no doctor visits are allowed
No screening for cancer, no screening for TB
No "elective" surgeries may be performed (note how everything other what would kill you tomorrow is called "elective")
Reduced exercise, reduced stimuli
Tens of millions of kids not vaccinated, shall I continue?
Here, the NHS repeatedly asks people with problems that would normally require a visit to A&E (ER) to do so. They really do have capacity to deal with cancer, heart attacks, stroke, etc in a safe way. There are entire wards and buildings that are segregated and "clean" of COVID-19 for this purpose.
Elective is a funny old word and is a bit more nuanced than you imply. Some elective surgeries here are still going ahead.
The list you provide is a starter for 10 of things that are and will go wrong for a long, long time but it is what seems to happen when a massive world wide pandemic strikes. This is a world war where everyone is near enough on the same side.
These are side effects of the "safety" measures such as "shelter in place" and lockdowns.
I feel that you are side tracking the discussion. The original topic here is that a disease that causes 0.024% IFR should not be addressed with measures that cause higher deaths in a different way.
You misread the report because it puts the ifr at 0.63% (and that's going to be higher because they omit some deaths).
> I'm not sure I call something like 10,000 dead a highlight.
Given that people before were saying the death rate was 2-5%, yes, it is a good thing.
I find it really strange that people in this thread are trying to be mad about a low death rate...
The rate of death for people under 45 is very low. It's going to be more than 0.024% because:
> Deaths which have COVID-19 on the death certificate are included in ONS figures but not here; we are looking into their inclusion.
If you remove comorbidities in the under 45 pool the rate drops even further for the most part if you are under 45 and healthy your chances of dying from covid-19 are exceedingly small.
Yes, I did say that.
> as the ONS figures only a additionally include out of hospital deaths primarily form care homes and hospices in which the average age will be well above 45
The ONS figures include all people where coronavirus was mentioned on the death certificate no matter where they died.
Care homes isn't just elderly people, although that's a common misconception. Care homes here are using the Care Quality Commission service specification definition. This includes residential services for people with learning disability and or autism, but also other settings for children and working age adults.
Care home services with nursing (CHN)
Care home services without nursing (CHS)
Specialist college services (SPC)
In fact even deaths under 65 only make up 11% of all COVID-19 deaths.
So again the likelihood of the death rate changing in any significant manner for that specific age group due to the inclusion of the ONS data is currently about zero, for other age groups especially those above the age of 65 there would likely be some changes.
You've neglected to account for the data lag. From your link:
> he information used to produce these statistics is based on details collected when certified deaths are registered with the local registration office. In England and Wales, deaths should be registered within five days of the death occurring, but there are some situations that result in the registration of the death being delayed. For example, when a death needs to be investigated by a coroner. Therefore, there may be some deaths involving COVID-19 that occurred in March and April but are yet to be registered, meaning they will not be included in this analysis.
I'm talking about deaths of young people living in care and nursing homes. All of these deaths need to be investigated by the coroner.
Your assumption is that young people die in care homes is not substantiated by any data we have.
It doesn’t mean that young people don’t die they do even if it’s in extremely rare cases they simply die in hospitals since the current triage grants them priority and that they are less likely to turn to the worse before they can be hospitalized or rehospitalized.
Also unlike (much) older patients they are also not released back to the care homes once they are admitted because they can still be effectively saved.
Overall nothing in the data we have suggests that the death rate will increase for the younger population if anything it will likely decrease slightly as the ONS data skews even higher for the older populations than the PHE data.
So sorry but this is yet again you making assumptions that go directly against the data we have.