https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...
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.
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")
Depression,
Food security,
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).
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?
> 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...