Emily Maitless saying it like it is

Fancy being described as a blip. If it was the RF or BJ or landed gentry that was dying would it be a blip?

Urmstongran and Baggs You are missing the point. Poorer people don't have weaker immune systems, although it's known that they tend to have unhealthier lifestyles. Research needs doing on this, but the point is that poorer people do jobs which mean that social distancing is more difficult or even impossible, and they have felt financial pressure to go out to work, when it was not sensible.

I’m sure you know Lucca. You’re an intelligent woman.
Google is your friend here.

Loads of blips throughout history Greymar! The Irish were blips when their potatoes were rotten. The soldiers who were sent over the top were mainly blips. The children who lost fingers, limbs or their lives in factories were just blips. Nah! Just blips! Who cares? Let 'em take it on the chin!

No growstuff Emily Maitliss’ opinion doesn’t stack up. In my opinion. It sounds good. More poor people are dying.

Moreover, many people in low income/insecure jobs carried on working for longer than was wise because they were more worried about loss of income

As I said upthread, doctors & nurses, teachers are not poorly paid.

Maybe it’s nothing to do with income.

Maybe it’s to do with just being on the front line.

Or then again, maybe it’s down to age. 92% of all the people who have died in the U.K. were over 60y. Regardless of income.

How would Emily square THAT circle?

Ooh, just seen the news.
Boris is out of intensive care.
Yay‼️

But ug why can’t you tell me?

Ah here is the definition of luvvie

“facetious
a person who is involved in the acting profession or the theatre, esp one with a tendency to affectation
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers”

I like a bit of alliteration.

How does anyone know?

Has any information been extrapolated by Maitlis on the demographic of those who have died?
Has she passed this information on the ONS?

Do we have any statistics yet?

I would say it is far too early to tell.

on to the ONS

There is a significant difference between the number of male and female deaths. However, I believe those figures are based on statistics from China (and maybe Italy).

I think the figures have been extrapolated from data gathered worldwide but about a week ago.

Medical experts have long known men can be more susceptible to viruses than women. Women generally tend to have stronger immune responses to viruses, though the reason for that is still up for debate. Genetic and hormonal differences may play a role, while environmental factors could also contribute to a stronger immune system. Still, while women tend to have stronger immune systems, over 80 percent of all autoimmune diseases are attributed to women. These occur when an immune response is so strong, it targets and deteriorates organs in the body.

Urmstongran Nowhere have I claimed that doctors, nurses and teachers are poorly paid. I didn't even mention them. You are ignoring the facts. There is a definite trend that the people who have died are poorer - you don't appear to understand the facts. It is also true that most so-called key workers tend to be poorly paid - they're not all doctors, nurses and teachers.

Lucca You might find it more satisfying going to find a brick wall, against which you could bash your head.

Interesting information about the gender difference in immune systems.

Nevertheless, it's not in the slightest relevant to the socio-economic status of Covid-19 deaths - and yes, researchers have begun to collate the information, although it's still in its early stages. It's not Maitlis' opinion.

Oh growstuff you have cut me to the quick. It’s not a gender difference, it’s a SEX difference. Purleeze

Grow stuff. I fear you may be right!

You crack me up Urm with your clichéd alliteration.

The terms ' fought/ fighter ', ' battled/battling ' when related to illness / death is common place.

It is to one person who has lost a loved unacceptable terminology but to others it is a way of dealing with their loss.

Actually there will be those who say the word ' loss ' is unacceptable and so debate goes on.

I will use an example of a much respected politician to make my point re it's use and as an example.

* ' battled with her condition'
-

'three women who have battled cancer ask whether it is ever right to keep the disease a secret'
-

"She fought back, she never gave in."

I think if anybody had dared to question the words used to denote genuine affection for that politician they would have deserved short shrift and got it in buckets.

Clinicians don’t like the term, because they understand disease has no problem with a persons attitude. It does however have a problem with the person lucky enough to have access to good health care, good diet and good living conditions. Disease loves poverty.

A poor person would in those terms “fight” just as hard as a rich person. But the “fight” is unequal.

Wait until the disease gets control in India or the continent if Africa.

I hope the rich world remembers its “fight” with covid and has the generosity of spirit to give these countries as much help as they can.

Urmstongran and Baggs You are missing the point. Poorer people don't have weaker immune systems, although it's known that they tend to have unhealthier lifestyles. Research needs doing on this, but the point is that poorer people do jobs which mean that social distancing is more difficult or even impossible, and they have felt financial pressure to go out to work, when it was not sensible.

You are making an assumption for which you have no evidence, gs. I haven't missed that point at all.

Those type of words might be commonplace but that doesn’t make them acceptable. Like most of us on GN, I’ve got friends/family who’ve had serious illnesses including cancer. Some have died, some recovered. I would never have been so insensitive as to talk about them fighting/battling etc nor would I have stated that they’d be fine because they were a ‘fighter’. But then, I’m brighter than the average Raab.

Some people in poorly paid jobs have also gone back to work because it was necessary. Necessary, that is, to help others. I can say this with 100% confidence because I'm one of them.

I should clarify the bit about "going back" to work. I was going back after an eight week absence caused by a broken shoulder. Nothing to do with covid19 directly. My eight weeks' sick leave just happened to end shortly after lockdown began. I and the rest of the team I work with are being redeployed to adapted work in the same field we were working in before.

It doesn't matter why a person on a zero hours contract felt obliged to continue working. It can be necessary for the task or necessary for the worker to survive. The end result is the same.

To what, presumably general, end result do you refer, gm? More possible exposure to C-19? Or something else?