SUGGESTION FCO SHOULD CHANGE ADVICE BACK TO BANNING OVER 70S

[Windsurfboy]

Someone suggested in another thread that one way to solve the numbers/overcrowding  issue in cruise ships was for the FCO to go back to advising against over 70s cruising

 

Given that it's not age itself that the cause of the high death rate for over 70s  but the high prevalence of pre-existing conditions in the over 70s that is the cause of high death rate. This would be illegal age discrimination. 

 

Perhaps FCO should advise against people with the known pre-existing conditions of any age against travelling  not pick on the over 70s. 

[Harry Peterson]

11 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

Given that it's not age itself that the cause of the high death rate for over 70s  but the high prevalence of pre-existing conditions in the over 70s that is the cause of high death rate.

I'm not at all sure you can draw that conclusion - unless you factor in also the inevitable decline with age of the effectiveness of the immune system, which in turn makes Covid much more of a risk.

[d9704011]

10 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

Perhaps FCO should advise against people with the known pre-existing conditions of any age against travelling  not pick on the over 70s. 

I’m thinking the FCO will stick to the current advice and simply try to protect all Britons from engaging in a risky adventure.  Certainly, it is not incumbent on the FCO to help cruise lines solve their passenger load issues.

[ann141]

14 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

Someone suggested in another thread that one way to solve the numbers/overcrowding  issue in cruise ships was for the FCO to go back to advising against over 70s cruising

 

Given that it's not age itself that the cause of the high death rate for over 70s  but the high prevalence of pre-existing conditions in the over 70s that is the cause of high death rate. This would be illegal age discrimination. 

 

Perhaps FCO should advise against people with the known pre-existing conditions of any age against travelling  not pick on the over 70s. 

Previously the FCO was advising against cruising for over 70's AND those with certain medical conditions not just for those over 70.They are'nt banning cruising just advising but most people will take their advice as travelling against FCO advice usually invalidates insurance.

[d9704011]

4 minutes ago, ann141 said:

They are'nt banning cruising just advising but most people will take their advice as travelling against FCO advice usually invalidates insurance.

We have pretty much the same advisory on cruising from the Canadian government.  A consequence of engaging in travel for which this type of travel advice has been issued is the very high possibility that travel/medical insurance coverage will be invalidated as well as the possibility that consular services and other government assistance may not be available.  The purpose of the advice is for citizens not to engage in what the government views as very risky activity.

[tring]

It will likely be as suggested on the EU Healthy Gateways Guidance that certain people would need some sort of medical clearance.  There was talk of allowing younger people less restrictions as the lockdown was ending, but an outcry re how that would be discriminatory seemed to put paid to the idea, so I am not convinced it would return as a cliff edge for a certain age group and nor do I think it should.  May well be able to ascertain who is immune to it due to previous infection by the time cruising resumes in any case.

 

In practice anyone who is vulnerable would be thinking hard before going on any sort of holiday, or even going out for a meal at present.  I certainly do not want to get on a plane any time soon.

[jeanlyon]

Yep, we are the same.  We are having a driving holiday up to Scotland and staying in a few hotels, but will be super careful.  That is, of course, unless there is another spike.

[Windsurfboy]

As someone said FCO advice is a ban as it invalidates insurance. If cruise ships aren't going to spread the virus more than say pubs, then don't think its the government's job to tell me what risks I should take.

 

I'm  not cruising not because I don't think it will be safe which is questionable (but I'm not going to pub even though I'm  a fit no pre existing condition 70 Year old) , but MORE because cruising certainly won't be nice with all the guidelines and distancing.. 

 

I am risking short haul 2hr flight we like the sun, planes are much safer than cruise ships or even your local  supermarket.  Everyone has masks, hepa filtered air, and take plenty of hand sanitiser. My holidays for next few years , Small/medium hotels with large grounds, rooms with large terraces, and restaurants with much more capacity than hotel guests so plenty of space.

 

Hopefully by 2023 cruises will be back to normal experience and normal prices.

[mercury7289]

Might be helpful for P&O, to offer those who are post 70, or have certified conditions, and who booked 2021 sailings, pre covid, a refund of there deposits if they so wish. even if 60-90 day delay.

 

I believe at this time those not wanting to sail, would lose their deposit.

 

This would clear the way for the Company to fully understand there forward order book

 

Also maybe a chance to enhance there profits.

[jeanlyon]

You know it's very interesting, although I understand the risks, I am a fit 73 year old with no pre-existing conditions.  Today at the office, a young colleage has just lost his best friend to Covid.  He was 20, no pre-existing conditions.  Try figuring that one out.

[kalos]

2 minutes ago, jeanlyon said:

You know it's very interesting, although I understand the risks, I am a fit 73 year old with no pre-existing conditions.  Today at the office, a young colleage has just lost his best friend to Covid.  He was 20, no pre-existing conditions.  Try figuring that one out.

 

Very sad news Jean ,such a young age as well.

 

 

[mercury7289]

6 minutes ago, jeanlyon said:

You know it's very interesting, although I understand the risks, I am a fit 73 year old with no pre-existing conditions.  Today at the office, a young colleage has just lost his best friend to Covid.  He was 20, no pre-existing conditions.  Try figuring that one out.

A widow friend of ours, Grand daughter age 8, is very ill with it at this time.

[Eddie99]

This thing is not beaten.

 

Look at the comparisons between last Saturday and this.  Sure, give some leeway for reporting issues,  but I don’t like the way the numbers are going.  I rather wish I lived in Scotland

https://coronavstats.co.uk/media

 

The website uses stats issued by HM Govt but which are difficult to discern at present.  No press conferences, no easily read press releases.

 

Please continue to take care.  It’s not just ill oldies who get Covid and it’s certainly not a bad cold or a bit of flu.  Early cases who survived are reporting long-lasting problems with lungs, kidneys, brain, joints

[jeanlyon]

It is really strange how it affects some.  A doctor friend says they are looking at whether there is a tie up with blood groups.  Prince Charles is the same age as me.  Had it mildly.  Weird.

[Adawn47]

2 hours ago, jeanlyon said:

You know it's very interesting, although I understand the risks, I am a fit 73 year old with no pre-existing conditions.  Today at the office, a young colleage has just lost his best friend to Covid.  He was 20, no pre-existing conditions.  Try figuring that one out.

That's  so sad Jean. His poor parents. It proves just how little any of us know about this terrible virus.

Avril 

 

[Manx buoy]

2 hours ago, jeanlyon said:

You know it's very interesting, although I understand the risks, I am a fit 73 year old with no pre-existing conditions.  Today at the office, a young colleage has just lost his best friend to Covid.  He was 20, no pre-existing conditions.  Try figuring that one out.

But there’s nothing to worry about everything will be back to normal in  a few weeks! People need to wake up and face the facts this isn’t going away any time soon so sorry for your colleague Jean

[Denarius]

3 hours ago, jeanlyon said:

You know it's very interesting, although I understand the risks, I am a fit 73 year old with no pre-existing conditions.  Today at the office, a young colleage has just lost his best friend to Covid.  He was 20, no pre-existing conditions.  Try figuring that one out.

As a former statistician (actuary) I am well aware that one the greatest pitfalls in statistics is to assume that correlation indicates a cause and effect relationship. Often it does not; there is a third factor involved. That may be the case with age and death risk from coronavirus. Statistics I have seen suggest that older people who contract coronavirus have a greater probability of dying than younger people. I have also seen statistics which suggest that the vast majority of fatalities of all ages have had at least one serious pre existing condition; on average 3 or 4. Older people are much more likely to have such underlying conditions, and are therefore more likely to succomb. But is age or underlying conditions the primary risk factor? Everything I have seen would suggest the latter. That older people are only statistically more vulnerable because they are more likely to have existing health issues. In which case, it is not older people (if anyone) who should be dissuaded from cruising, but people of any age with existing health issues .

Edited July 11, 2020 by Denarius

[Harry Peterson]

29 minutes ago, Denarius said:

As a former statistician (actuary) I am well aware that one the greatest pitfalls in statistics is to assume that correlation indicates a cause and effect relationship. Often it does not; there is a third factor involved. That may be the case with age and death risk from coronavirus. Statistics I have seen suggest that older people who contract coronavirus have a greater probability of dying than younger people. I have also seen statistics which suggest that the vast majority of fatalities of all ages have had at least one serious pre existing condition; on average 3 or 4. Older people are much more likely to have such underlying conditions, and are therefore more likely to succomb. But is age or underlying conditions the primary risk factor? Everything I have seen would suggest the latter. That older people are only statistically more vulnerable because they are more likely to have existing health issues. In which case, it is not older people (if anyone) who should be dissuaded from cruising, but people of any age with existing health issues .

Nobody really knows of course yet, because the bare statistics merely reflect a number of underlying substrata. 

 

Underlying conditions such as type 2 diabetes and obesity tend to increase with age,  but they can equally well apply to younger people. 

 

And immune systems normally decline with age - though not necessarily obviously so.

 

I'm inclined to agree your conclusion, though existing health issues aren't always known by those who have them, and they're far more likely the older you get.

[grapau27]

4 hours ago, jeanlyon said:

You know it's very interesting, although I understand the risks, I am a fit 73 year old with no pre-existing conditions.  Today at the office, a young colleage has just lost his best friend to Covid.  He was 20, no pre-existing conditions.  Try figuring that one out.

Sorry to hear about his friend.

I hope young people take notice that they are not immune to this virus.

[wowzz]

Without in any way trying to negate the awful facts about the 20 year old that Jean mentioned,  but the fact remains that people die on a regular basis,  too soon, from lots of diseases/cancers etc. 

We are in danger of demonising CV19, because at the same time there are many dying prematurely from conditions that do not have the same publicity. 

A sense of perspective is needed.  Those requiring treatment for cancer, organ replacements etc are being denied treatment, due to the emphasis on treating CV19 patients,   but their deaths are not being recorded.

Sorry  - rant over.

[Chrisdriving]

Agree totally.

[Harry Peterson]

7 hours ago, wowzz said:

Without in any way trying to negate the awful facts about the 20 year old that Jean mentioned,  but the fact remains that people die on a regular basis,  too soon, from lots of diseases/cancers etc. 

We are in danger of demonising CV19, because at the same time there are many dying prematurely from conditions that do not have the same publicity. 

A sense of perspective is needed.  Those requiring treatment for cancer, organ replacements etc are being denied treatment, due to the emphasis on treating CV19 patients,   but their deaths are not being recorded.

Sorry  - rant over.

Absolutely.  It's very sad when anyone dies, particularly someone younger who might have been expected not to, but the impact of Covid is very clear indeed - young people are at extremely low risk, and the risk increases the older you get.  That may have more to do with the fact that young people have fewer other health conditions, but healthy young people have very little to fear, they know that, and they act accordingly.

 

There will always be the odd exception - that's just life - but you can't plan everything around odd statistical exceptions.  If we did that nobody would use a car, a bus or cross the road, because there are always risk, whatever you do.

 

People at high risk from Covid should (and almost certainly do) take it very seriously.  People at low risk have no real need to, except so far as spreading it to others.

[AndyMichelle]

1 hour ago, Harry Peterson said:

Absolutely.  It's very sad when anyone dies, particularly someone younger who might have been expected not to, but the impact of Covid is very clear indeed - young people are at extremely low risk, and the risk increases the older you get.  That may have more to do with the fact that young people have fewer other health conditions, but healthy young people have very little to fear, they know that, and they act accordingly.

 

There will always be the odd exception - that's just life - but you can't plan everything around odd statistical exceptions.  If we did that nobody would use a car, a bus or cross the road, because there are always risk, whatever you do.

 

People at high risk from Covid should (and almost certainly do) take it very seriously.  People at low risk have no real need to, except so far as spreading it to others.

The surprising thing I read was that towards the end of lockdown, when covid deaths were still quite high, the overall death rate was lower than would normally be expected for that time of year... 

Take out the driving and drink related deaths but add in corona related and it seems we were about on par.. 

Andy 

 

[d9704011]

3 hours ago, AndyMichelle said:

The surprising thing I read was that towards the end of lockdown, when covid deaths were still quite high, the overall death rate was lower than would normally be expected for that time of year... 

Take out the driving and drink related deaths but add in corona related and it seems we were about on par.. 

Andy 

 

The attention afforded to death as the sole ‘measurement’ of the impact on people’s health and lives is a bit short-sighted.  As @Hlitner suggested on another thread:

 

There is also a huge issue related to morbidity.  While COVID-19 may not be as deadly as originally thought, there are several serious health after effects that are still the subject of much research.  While folks may recover, they may have continuing issues such as permanent lung damage, loss of taste/smell, clotting disorders, serious damage to multiple organs (such as the kidneys), etc.  Some of these recent developments are troubling and not fully understood.

 

Younger, ‘healthier’ individuals are not likely immune from the possibility of having to deal with extended or even life-long difficulties that may be linked to CV-19.

[zap99]

22 hours ago, d9704011 said:

I’m thinking the FCO will stick to the current advice and simply try to protect all Britons from engaging in a risky adventure.  

That is not their job. They work for us, not the other way round.