How Many Covid Deaths Would Be Acceptable?

[dave50]

If as it seems we are going to have to realistically accept that some people are going to die from covid, how many deaths do people think is acceptable, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000? What number is the tipping point at which some might say, that's it, no more, whatever happens to the economy?

[Sunk]

The UK is currently at 43,250 deaths. A lot of those were the result of very naive decisions earlier on, and no PPE.

Other European countries didn’t make the same mistake as us, and our death rate stands out as being high.

Deaths are increasing again, but I think very many of the vulnerable were got on the first wave. By 1 year I would hope it is less than 60,000, but we shall have to see what happens in the near future.

[jim360]

How can anyone say? Besides, the concern among some is presumably that measures we take to prevent Covid-19 deaths could end up indirectly causing deaths of their own. The trade-off is difficult, to say the least.

For myself, if the death toll from this "second wave" is comparable to the first wave, then the approach we took has clearly failed and should not have been acceptable. I am not sure if this is a likely outcome, yet, but that deaths are rising suggests at the very least that this will be a painful Winter for many.

[royfromaus]

What number is the tipping point at which some might say, that's it, no more
____________________________

Would saying 'that's it, no more' solve it?

[jim360]

Clearly not just saying it, but it would affect the approach, no? The fewer deaths you tolerate the more extreme the measures have to be early on.

At the moment, I'd say we can expect a lower bound of about 5,000 more Covid-19 deaths between now and Christmas. I think most people would regard this as "tragic but tolerable", which is macabre in the extreme, but it's hard to see what better outcome there is at this point. The disease is spreading again; if we can keep the death toll as low as 5,000 it would have to be seen as a relative success at this point.

[Peter Pedant]

In europe it seems to be - - fill up the hospitals and then call whoa! BUT of course there is a lag of two weeks ....

the big changes are 1) dont ventilate if at all poss 2) for those you would ventilate use steroids

steroids cut mortality by around 10%

[royfromaus]

There's no easy answer to this which is why I generally don't bother with the COVID threads (even though I have started one) IMO they are primarily posted to have a go at the government.

I would only get concerned if the average age of those dying started dropping rapidly.

[Peter Pedant]

// Clearly not just saying it, but it would affect the approach, no? //
what does this mean yes?

if it is
"You can discuss the idea but unless you institute it as a plan- there will be no physical effect"
I think is probaby always true ....

or - they can discuss it only and by doing so - the approach wont change

[Peter Pedant]

// I would only get concerned if the average age of those dying started dropping rapidly.//

well thank god you are not a health planner.

I am trying to think ( e seriously that is!) of any epidemic that started off killing the old and then in a second wave started on the twenties

From Porton Down: passage thro the human host increases virulence in man. This means in Plague you could miss out the flea and spread by sputum alone - later on in an epidemic
BUT - - it didnt suddenly start killing the young

spanish flu 1918 started in on the late teenagers from the get-go

[royfromaus]

I don't read your posts PP

[Zacs-Master]

Stupid, unanswerable question. I’m not sure what you expected to gain from the answers other than another baseless argument.

[THECORBYLOON]

If someone said "X" were an acceptable number, would X+1 be unacceptable and the measures taken, a failure?

[jim360]

Only if you were being unreasonable. Orders of magnitude differences, on the other hand, seem more sensible to fuss about. There's a clear difference between, say, 5,000 and 50,000, but not one to care about between 50,000 and 50,500.

[fender62]

not mention of the ages of the dead and any underlying conditions
let alone ethnicity, im curious...

[bobbinwales]

A hope its as low as the 5000 figure by Christmas that jim suggests as tolrable but its been around 150 a day recently and hospital figures are growing and the weather is worser so peopel wont get asmuch fresh air. Nothing much as changed with schools and unis and shops fully open so a think its going to be over 1000 a week soon and 2000 a week by Chrismas. Am not sure what that gives us but its over 10000 by Chrismas. OK maybe thats tolrable if are NHS can cope and flue doesnt strike bad. No goverment will give a figure tho on whats tolrable but they will have one in mind

[piggynose]

How long's a peice of string?

[Old_Geezer]

That's the thing with fate. One has to accept and get on with whatever it has in store. Unless one is holding back a miracle cure/preventative only to be unveiled on xxx deaths, then the question isn't relevant or useful.

And no, we never say, "Whatever happens to the economy". It's good others now seem to realise it isn't always first, or only, priority (a mistake many seem repeatedly to make) but one can't afford to ever give it zero priority unless the end of mankind is imminent.

[dannyk13]

How many deaths would be acceptable?. The answer to that is none.

[iluvmargie]

Agree with 22:53.

[youngmafbog]

"Stupid, unanswerable question"

Well ignore the post then.

[youngmafbog]

To say no deaths are acceptable is not really an answer. Someone somewhere does have to make that call.

One of the big problems we have is that the figures are not exactly truthful so it is very difficult to assess and make that call. Presumably someone in Government does have the correct, non scaremongering stats?