 |
| Oslo waterfront, December 2014 |
LETTER to SCMP:
"There used to be a thinking that youngsters who got infected would be fine. But this time, the perception has to be changed too. The situation is very worrying,” [C-E Carrie] Lam said.
What does our C-E mean? It remains the case that this virus kills mainly the elderly. Until the latest cluster the average age was 81 80.3 and is now 79 79.8 Is this what she means by "youngsters"? Or is she thinking of the 38 year-old male who died recently (HK's youngest)? If so, did he have pre-existing conditions?
A study by the New England Journal of Medicine of 319,814 youngsters under 21 recorded 121 deaths. "Underlying medical conditions were present in 75% and included chronic lung disease, obesity, and neurologic, developmental, and cardiovascular conditions." Thus, 30 healthy youngsters died of Covid-19, a survival rate of 99.99%. Ms Lam needs to explain why we have to "change our perceptions".
In a recent letter I quoted similar statistics. I was accused (in the comments) of not caring about deaths ("a single death is too many"). I most certainly do. And I understand the risk the older people when younger relatives bring the virus home. But that is happening anyway, with home-based lockdowns. It would have been better if students had been left to their campus partying and not forced home.
I am over 70 with heart conditions. I'm in the high risk category. Yet I do not want our youngsters to be denied their livelihoods for the sake of us. That's the view of many older folk: no lockdowns. The WHO says the same.
The line of "we are all at risk" is in pursuit of lockdown compliance. But it is not in compliance with science and statistical facts. In short, it's wrong.
Better to publicise the virus' age-specificity, to protect the vulnerable, to allow the rest to go about their business. Elderly should be protected by their own families. If my own children and grandchildren visit I will keep my distance unless they've had a clear test. This approach has to be better than on-again off-again lockdowns which are ruinous to our economy and to the lives of our youngsters.
Some fear "our hospitals will be overwhelmed". The same was said in March, but we coped, as we did with the August wave. We have over 40,000 hospital beds and just over 1,000 hospitalised for Covid-19. Does 2.5% overwhelm our system?
Pf, etc
