How to protect the clinically-vulnerable without lockdowns

[mattyman]

Even if people of working age (<65) who don't have chronic risk conditions are aware that their risk of severe illness or death from covid 19 is low (0.007% as a conservative estimate), one prevalent justification for restricting freedom is that it can spread easily to others who're elderly or with health conditions that make them at risk. That is quite right. There are better ways of protecting the vulnerable from catching this vile disease than shutting-down society.

We know that excess deaths from covid 19 are represented from the following groups

• care home residents

• People in multi-generation households, and households with clinically-vulnerable people

• Working people who're older or in clinically-vulnerable groups

The good news is there's ways to protect the vulnerable without destroying the freedom of the majority whilst allowing those people to lives that are not a prison sentence. See the link for further details;
https://neverinsilence.wordpress.com/20 ... er-people/

[Yohan]

Even if people of working age (<65) who don't have chronic risk conditions are aware that their risk of severe illness or death from covid 19 is low (0.007% as a conservative estimate),

This is clearly a wrong information.
It is nowhere 0.007 %

In general death rate is between 1 % and 2 %,
in Japan it is 1.47 % in South Korea 1.50 %

Death rate in Japan/South Korea (offering advanced medical care) is about as follows for patients without serious medical issues

80+ 11.6 %
70+ 6.3 %
60+ 1.5 %
50+ 0.4 %
30+ 0.1 %

------------------------------------------

In USA the number of infections is huge, but the number of deaths is still lower than 2 %.

total infections 20.617.346
deaths 356.445

This is 1.72 %

--------------------------------------------

Even if you take the entire population of USA of 331 million people (healthy and infected), it is still far away from a fantasy number of 0.007 %.
Simple mathematics will point to approx. 0.11 percent.

[Cornfed]

How about we just do what we were doing from 2029 back to the beginning of time. That seemed to work OK.

[mattyman]

@ yohan, I'm assuming these are figures out of all covid-related deaths.

What I would need is the total figure for deaths in Japan, and the numbers for all covid-related deaths under 70. You've already given me the figures for people in non-vulnerable groups which is one of the things I need.

We can then using those numbers calculate the infection fatality rate of those cohorts you've provided.

When you say the death rate, are you quoting the infection fatality rate or the case fatality rate?

The figure of 0,007% I gave was based on a total infection fatality rate of 0.5% (the worst estimate). I came up with that figure with all the under 65's (the data I was using was organised in 45, 55, 65 etc. increments) using all figures under that age who're not in clinically-vulnerable categories, not with underlying conditions.

As a percentage of total covid-related deaths

If we get a percentage for ALL UNDER 60's who're not in clinically-vunerable groups, that comes to 0.2% of deaths (there's no figures for 20's, teens and kids). The figure I got for New York was 0.6%.

What's the Infection Fatality Rate in Japan?

Infection fatality rate by age group
To get the chance of dying from covid into perspective, it's basically the percentage of deaths from this group as a percentage of the infection fatality rate. Knowing the infection fatality rate for covid all cohorts is between 0.2 and 0.5%. Given the figures above of healthy under 60's being 0.2% of the covide-related deaths. The infection fatality rate would be 0.2% of 0.5% upper estimate) or 0.2%. It'll be much lower than the figure of 0.007 I've given.

[mattyman]

If you're in the 60's cohort and not with risk factors. 1.5% of the covid-related deaths are represented in this cohort. What's your risk of dying from catching covid 19 if you're in your 60's and don't have underlying health conditions?

Who are the 'risk groups? https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavir ... ronavirus/

Now we know that only 1.5% of the covid-related deaths in Japan are people in their 60's and not with those conditions.

Assuming an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.5%. Lets do the math. We need 1.5% of 0.5%. 1.5x0.5divided by 100. The answer I got was 0,0075%.

That's the chance of dying if you're in your 60's & healthy/not in the high risk groups in Japan, if the IFR is 0.5%.

If the IFR is 0,2%., using the same calculation, the answer is 0.003%.

The IFR is between 0.2 and 0,5%. Thus the chances of a healthy 60something dying from catching covid is between 0.003% and 0.0075%.

It is important to protect the vulnerable. That doesn't mean people should catch it. It's not a nice disease. I'm saying this to put in perspective the media leaves out.

[Yohan]

@ yohan, I'm assuming these are figures out of all covid-related deaths.

...

What's the Infection Fatality Rate in Japan?

I have honestly no idea, what you want to calculate and want you want to prove with that.

However about data, as far as I use them:

https://www.stopcovid19.jp
If you scroll down up to a bar-code, you can switch from Japanese to English

further, about calculation, maybe this is a guideline:

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentar ... m-covid-19
Estimating mortality from COVID-19
Calculating CFR during an ongoing epidemic

[mattyman]

OK, you gave me the figures for the percentage of total covid-related deaths in Japan a) by age group and b) of people who are not in clinically-vulnerable categories.

Japan is doing loads better than the UK as a non-lockdown country. Hoe can you explained that? Also, even then the data being presented is not talking about the percentages of those people occupying hospital beds have the listed conditions?

Also, the advice of 'self-isolate for 5-14 days if sick, get treatment if symptoms don't improve' could be the WORST advice to give to clinically-vulnerable people. Look at the difference between Boris Johnson and Donald Trump and their experience of covid. Boris got it really badly, Donald got it mildly, despite being older. Why? Boris decided to self-isolate and 'wait for symptoms to get better' whilst Donald got treatment IMMEDIATELY he was diagnosed.

Anyway, on this topic, we know who the clinically-vulnerable are, we know what segments of the population are likely to be living with (multi-generation households, people living with clinically-vulnerable). It's entirely possible to a) prevent transmission via targetted measures https://gbdeclaration.org/frequently-asked-questions/ (scroll down to 'protecting the old and high-risk groups) and b) prevent those people getting severely sick by advising them to get medical attention IMMEDIATELY.

Japan hasn't destroyed people's freedoms, it's doing far better than most of Europe in terms of outcomes. Why the media in Europe doesn't report beggars belief.