 |
By *usybee73 OP Man
over a year ago
in the sticks |
388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Great. Let's forget social distancing, throw the masks in the bin, forget working from home, don't bother sanitising everywhere you go and let's drive those numbers up. "
. Is that what you want to happen then ? Explain
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Great. Let's forget social distancing, throw the masks in the bin, forget working from home, don't bother sanitising everywhere you go and let's drive those numbers up. . Is that what you want to happen then ? Explain"
I read it as sarcasm/exasperation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments"
Those figures where from NHS Data |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments"
And? Is there a point you're making? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments"
What's your point? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments
What's your point?"
His point is he reads the daily fail. Enough said |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'll bite.
Underlying health conditions. What do you imagine that to be?
An estimated 22% of the world's population have underlying health conditions which may put them at risk should they contract covid. And that's just the known conditions.
Having an underlying health condition doesn't necessarily mean you're at death's door. So many people live full lives with their underlying health conditions. Some people are living with underlying health conditions and don't even know it.
So again, your point is?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You do realise what they class as an underlying health condition is right?
Over weight
Smokers
Mild asthmatics
Some dont even know they have underlying health conditions.
The list goes on.
Should these be exposed and have an increased risk of dyinh way before their time is up??
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Great. Let's forget social distancing, throw the masks in the bin, forget working from home, don't bother sanitising everywhere you go and let's drive those numbers up. "
 and cull the over 60's so people can shag strangers again.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Great. Let's forget social distancing, throw the masks in the bin, forget working from home, don't bother sanitising everywhere you go and let's drive those numbers up.
and cull the over 60's so people can shag strangers again. "
Over 65’s will save the government a fortune in pension payments then the private pensions won’t be paying out more profit for the shareholders of them .  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
On the other hand OP: If you take age out of the equation, 10% of all the deaths were people with "no underlying health conditions".
It is a well known FACT that age is a major factor in how badly the virus effect people. I suppose the real question is "At what age do YOU think people cease to be important? "
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Great. Let's forget social distancing, throw the masks in the bin, forget working from home, don't bother sanitising everywhere you go and let's drive those numbers up.
and cull the over 60's so people can shag strangers again. "
But... if you cull the over 60's I can guarantee that in the next set of figures 100% of deaths will be in the under 60's group |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'll bite.
Underlying health conditions. What do you imagine that to be?
An estimated 22% of the world's population have underlying health conditions which may put them at risk should they contract covid. And that's just the known conditions.
Having an underlying health condition doesn't necessarily mean you're at death's door. So many people live full lives with their underlying health conditions. Some people are living with underlying health conditions and don't even know it.
So again, your point is?
"
Exactly. Underlying health conditions does not mean life limiting. Some right brain dead covidiots posting on here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On the other hand OP: If you take age out of the equation, 10% of all the deaths were people with "no underlying health conditions".
It is a well known FACT that age is a major factor in how badly the virus effect people. I suppose the real question is "At what age do YOU think people cease to be important? "
Cal"
They cease to be important when they aren't earning or spending their private pension. That means that there are lot of younger people who aren't important but retired people who are. Well at least until they need hospital treatment that exceeds their contributions.
Obviously I am not being serious here BUT there are a lot of older people who are more valuable to the economy than some of the idiots who think it's only older people dying so no big deal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments"
Thanks for the numbers OP....very sad...just goes to show that no one is safe and we must all keep doing our bit to get this under control. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Great that we've kept some infections, deaths etc down. Now we just need to continue to reduce the stupid things that people are doing or thinking about.
It's everybody's problem, however they may experience it. Stay in this together for the greater good |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments"
Just shows what a shitty excuse for a newspaper the Mail is, that it runs misleading and dangerous behaviour promoting crap like this and pretends that it's news. It may technically sail just within the limits of truth, but the spin that it puts on nearly any topic is disgusting. The owners of the Mail would not just stab their own granny if it would make a headline and bring in money, but they do everything they can to seed discord in society, increase mistrust of science, and stunt any intellectual growth in their readership.
The editor of the Mail will be wanking himself sore at the thought of persuading yet another dumb schmuck to pass this virus on to their family. The Daily Mail is a filthy rag that would foul your arse if you used it as bog roll. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Great. Let's forget social distancing, throw the masks in the bin, forget working from home, don't bother sanitising everywhere you go and let's drive those numbers up.
and cull the over 60's so people can shag strangers again.
But... if you cull the over 60's I can guarantee that in the next set of figures 100% of deaths will be in the under 60's group"
Oh crikey you're right. That won't go down well.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments
Just shows what a shitty excuse for a newspaper the Mail is, that it runs misleading and dangerous behaviour promoting crap like this and pretends that it's news. It may technically sail just within the limits of truth, but the spin that it puts on nearly any topic is disgusting. The owners of the Mail would not just stab their own granny if it would make a headline and bring in money, but they do everything they can to seed discord in society, increase mistrust of science, and stunt any intellectual growth in their readership.
The editor of the Mail will be wanking himself sore at the thought of persuading yet another dumb schmuck to pass this virus on to their family. The Daily Mail is a filthy rag that would foul your arse if you used it as bog roll."
Dont hold back will you Polly?
Tell it like it is  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *JCouple
over a year ago
Teesside |
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments
Just shows what a shitty excuse for a newspaper the Mail is, that it runs misleading and dangerous behaviour promoting crap like this and pretends that it's news. It may technically sail just within the limits of truth, but the spin that it puts on nearly any topic is disgusting. The owners of the Mail would not just stab their own granny if it would make a headline and bring in money, but they do everything they can to seed discord in society, increase mistrust of science, and stunt any intellectual growth in their readership.
The editor of the Mail will be wanking himself sore at the thought of persuading yet another dumb schmuck to pass this virus on to their family. The Daily Mail is a filthy rag that would foul your arse if you used it as bog roll."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Great. Let's forget social distancing, throw the masks in the bin, forget working from home, don't bother sanitising everywhere you go and let's drive those numbers up.
and cull the over 60's so people can shag strangers again.
But... if you cull the over 60's I can guarantee that in the next set of figures 100% of deaths will be in the under 60's group
Oh crikey you're right. That won't go down well...."
Yes But if you just cull 50% of the population you might slow the speed of transition by 50% |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments"
Completely debunkted :
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/coronavirus-disinformation_uk_5fe848f7c5b6e1ce833a20de
People pushing this are happy with genocide of people with disabilities, with cancer, with obesity, with breathing difficulties.
Selfish people who feel they are more important than others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments"
Statistics are basically lies.My maths teacher taught me that when in my teens.
Reason statistics show what you want them to show.
Best to look at facts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments"
Fabulous, can you complete the missing statistics from your rather biased presentation:
1) list the “underlying conditions” stats as this accounts for 1/5th of our nation, it would also be stupid to discount someone with minor asmtha, a slight heart murmur etc
2) list those who fall into the surplus deaths as I’m sure you are aware that younger and fitter people tend to hang in longer therefore rarely die within the reporting 28 days.
3) list the number of suspected long covid sufferers in the U.K, as this is well into the 100,000’s now and dare I say quite a significant consideration.
4) list the numbers for this age range who have been admitted into hospital as without this intervention they wouldn’t have survived, it will give you insight into just how fkn dangerous covid-19 is to all.
5) perhaps take time to consider why over 65% of those currently occupying my full to capacity ICU are under this age if as you seem to be suggesting they aren’t an issue? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ab jamesMan
over a year ago
ribble valley |
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments
Fabulous, can you complete the missing statistics from your rather biased presentation:
1) list the “underlying conditions” stats as this accounts for 1/5th of our nation, it would also be stupid to discount someone with minor asmtha, a slight heart murmur etc
2) list those who fall into the surplus deaths as I’m sure you are aware that younger and fitter people tend to hang in longer therefore rarely die within the reporting 28 days.
3) list the number of suspected long covid sufferers in the U.K, as this is well into the 100,000’s now and dare I say quite a significant consideration.
4) list the numbers for this age range who have been admitted into hospital as without this intervention they wouldn’t have survived, it will give you insight into just how fkn dangerous covid-19 is to all.
5) perhaps take time to consider why over 65% of those currently occupying my full to capacity ICU are under this age if as you seem to be suggesting they aren’t an issue? "
I wish the government was as clear speaking as you Charlie, keep it up  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"388 people have died under the age of 60 with no underlying conditions ...
The figures show that 1,979 previously healthy people died in hospitals in England after testing positive for Covid-19 between April 2 and December 23.
Just 338 of these people were aged 40 to 59, with another 44 aged between 20 and 39, and just six under the age of 19, according to the data.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html#comments"
And how many of those "388" have passed the virus onto other people who have died? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
