REPORT: 95% Of England’s Coronavirus Fatalities Had Underlying Conditions

Written by Wes Walker on April 30, 2020

There is one reason and one reason only that we are treating the CCP Coronavirus differently than, say, the common cold: the death toll.

That is the reason that every baby-step toward returning to normal life is met with a chorus of jeers and taunts about death and blood.

Somehow it’s perfectly safe for us to crowd in and buy groceries or tools at the hardware store, but it’s NOT safe to show up for a haircut or a Sunday Service.

The reason people are in panic mode is simple: people really are dying. In a world that literally idolizes comfort, health and eternal youth (among a great many other things) the thought of an invisible threat that doesn’t care if you’re one of the pretty people living behind the walls of a gated community, or in a Multi-Million dollar condo on 5th Avenue, one that has the medical experts scrambling to figure it out is terrifying.

It’s an uncomfortable and humbling brush with mortality.

All the disruption we have seen since comes from that key fear: People May Die.

But we’ve learned quite a lot since then, haven’t we? Not only have we refined our treatments and looked up medical responses. We’ve found that an awful lot of people actually get better.

And patterns are forming among those who DON’T get better.

Recent data from England’s National Health Services (NHS) reveals that 95% of the people diagnosed with COVID-19 who died had serious underlying health issues, findings that roughly align with the data out of New York City, the epicenter of the virus in the United States.

“Ninety-five percent of people who have died with COVID-19 in hospitals in England had underlying health issues,” Sky News reported Tuesday citing data obtained by the outlet.

“The data provided by NHS England shows that, as of 5pm on 26 April, 18,749 people had died in hospital with the virus,” Sky News reports. “In a small number of cases, it was not possible to confirm if a patient did or did not have an underlying health condition. But for those where it was, 95% were found to have serious pre-existing issues. In patients over 80-years-old this figure was 96%, 60-79-years-old 95%, 40-59-years-old 88% and 20-39-years-old 82%.”

Sky News notes that breakdowns for victims under the age of 20 are not possible because it “cannot be disclosed as the sample is so small it would breach patient confidentiality rules to distinguish between those with or without pre-existing conditions.” The data also excludes “hospital deaths in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, in the community or in care homes.” —DailyWire

This is to say that not only is the actual percentage chance of lethality dropping like a stone from the terrifying numbers bounced around in the early days to a still-ugly-but-far-more-manageable number we’re seeing today, but even the characteristics of those who ARE dying fall within a very narrow and predictable profile.

What does this tell us?

It tells us that maybe focussing all of our energy on keeping young and healthy peeps from living their lives in the real world was a misallocation of our energy and resources.

That way of thinking literally cost countless lives when officials in New York made the reckless decision (with Cuomo’s signature) to send infected patients into retirement homes. It rampaged through those places like wildfire, leaving mourning families in its wake.

Meanwhile, the Chris Cuomos and Tom Hankses of the world get sick, get better, and go on with their lives, just the same as we would with any more conventional illness.

We can’t roll back time, but about we use what we NOW know to flip the script?

Instead of tilting at windmills trying to prevent everyone from getting exposed to this virus, how about we focus our defenses on those who are truly the most vulnerable? Have the highest possible infection protocols on those caring for the aged and otherwise vulnerable, for example?