The tragedy related to this discussion is people with obesity aren’t getting prioritised for vaccination (unless they have diabetes etc). Vaccination is pretty much based on age only.
People with obesity who could otherwise have been kept alive are going to die as a result of this PC nonsense. Slim older people are low risk.
Neither are they receiving any assistance to stop being ill/obese. TPTB are still handing out the same useless bullshit advice about obesity and diabetes.
That’s another important issue, but in the very short term fat people should be vaccine prioritised.
I can’t disagree with that, although I would caution that being fat is not a reliable risk marker. About 30% of people with metabolic syndrome that’s serious enough to put them in the ICU are not remarkably overweight.
So Chile was quite proud of being the Latin American country with the highest vaccination rate. However, even at 8 million people, it meant only 15% of the population have received 2 doses and 30% one.
So now they are up to 6000 cases a day and back in confinement. Second wave rolling hard.
It’s the most reliable risk marker to date.
It’s the most obvious. But you can take a cluster of other symptoms - eg., high blood pressure, lipid derangement, loss of blood sugar control - for a more reliable one. Doctors will have all this sort of stuff on file for many of their patients, and could in theory flag up those who should be prioritized.
In theory doctors could do that. In practice governments are prioritising by age or at risk occupation.
If the NHS hadn’t outsourced all their computer systems to the politicians’ bestest friends back in the 90s and 00s, they’d have a functioning patient-records system that’d be able to do it automatically and send out emails to people with a higher-than-usual risk.
I’d be totally OK with those people getting the vaccine first instead of me. I know my risk is close to zero. And besides, I can watch to see if they turn purple and explode before I get my shot 
No it’s not.
Age is lol. By about 100x to 1000xs.
For every 1,000 people infected with the coronavirus who are under the age of 50, almost none will die. For people in their fifties and early sixties, about five will die — more men than women. The risk then climbs steeply as the years accrue. For every 1,000 people in their mid-seventies or older who are infected, around 116 will die. These are the stark statistics obtained by some of the first detailed studies into the mortality risk for COVID-1
The coronavirus is most deadly if you are older and male — new data reveal the risks.
Where’s your data?
Here.
You guys are just waffling about your pet subject is all.
The massive hole in your argument is that metabolic syndrome is common in the under 50s. The same under 50s of which basically nobody dies of covid
Let’s hope you’re right. It would be pretty awful if something other than age is proven to be the main risk factor, or some risk factor combined with age.
That paper just defines metabolic syndrome. It spells out what it is.
Where’s your data on m.s. vs. COVID-19?
You’re assuming that m.s. and age are independent, or combine arithmetically.
I’m showing the statistics that metaboliic syndrome is common in under 50s around the world. Starting from 22 per cent and up.
But basically nobody is dying from covid in under 50s.
So metabolic syndrome is obviously not a critical factor.
Yes when your immune syndrome has already gone to crap because you are old it plays a part. But that’s all.
Boosting the immune system is the real answer.
Hey…Vaccines !
And yet you don’t have any actual data to support this. Or more specifically, you don’t have any data that refutes the paper I quoted earlier. The risk of death on hospitalisation (which is not the same as risk of death on infection) is about 3.4x lower for healthy people. That’s not something to be dismissed lightly. Practically speaking, that seems to imply that someone in the 65-74 group drops down to the same risk as a 50-year-old if they are metabolically healthy … and the average 50-year-old has a 1-2% chance of dying. The picture may be considerably better than that, since I would guess being metabolically healthy dramatically reduces your chances of hospitalization in the first place.
Lots of things are ‘obvious’ until you look at the facts.
Since COVID-19 doesn’t appear to kill old people any faster than they naturally die anyway, this seems highly unlikely. Unless you’ve invented an immortality vaccine, I guess.
[quote=“finley, post:900, topic:200867”]
And yet you don’t have any actual data to support this.
[/quote]Yku a
Eh.
The data is crystal clear, covid19 is only really dangerous to old people . Metabolic syndrome is very much a secondary risk factor.
Old people’s poor immune systems are the problem and there’s a lot of research on that out there.
Let’s listen to the professionals .
Have fun.
As I predicted being 60 with diabetes gives you about the same risk of dying from covid as a non diabetic who is 70.
More utter bloodyminded BS from our trusted media.
No, it wasn’t, guys, as you admit at the end. Crude death rate ~18 per thousand in 1918, 10.2 per thousand in 2020. Which is, uh, the same as the historical death rate. The abnormally-low death rate for the last few years makes it look worse than it really is.
For those who downplay the danger from covid.
100k infections a day !
Many reinfected from a newer variant.
And as I mentioned, in the absence of effective quarantine ,social distancing or vaccination , coronavirus ALWAYS ends up with lockdown eventually.