> Why would they suddenly start dying just because 'hospitals are overwhelmed'? They still won't need them...

Also, when hospitals are overwhelmed they stop all treatment. That young person who gets shot; has a road traffic accident; has a drug or alcohol overdose; has a problematic pregnancy and birth; has cancer -- all of these treatments become harder to provide.

Original comment is talking about deaths, there are many, many more hospitalizations.

> The point the parent was making is that young people don't seem to need hospital care.

Low risk doesn't mean no risk, and we see plenty of younger people in hospital, and in intensive care, because of covid-19.

ICNARC has a report that they update over time using data from UK intensive care units. https://www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports

https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/c5a...

Age at admission (years), number of people discharged alive (%), number of people died (%)

  16-39     240 (78.4)     66 (21.6)
  40-49     350 (73.2)    128 (26.8)
  50-59     568 (57.0)    429 (43.0)
  60-69     503 (41.8)    701 (58.2)
  70-79     293 (32.2)    617 (67.8)
     80+     57 (31.3)    125 (68.7)

Once admitted to ICU people aged 16-39 have a 21.6% chance of dying vs a 78.4% chance of being discharged alive.

bad use of statistics. if gp is to be believed, once in ICU you are already in the 0.x %. the question then is, are you in the 0.1 or 99.9.

The ggp made no mention at all of hospitalization rates, only fatality rates.

Not true, the point of the parent is that young people don't seem to die. For 0.1% dying, how many are going to the hospital? Let's say it's 10% (completely random number), if you increase the population then 10% completely overcrowds the hospitals, quality of care plummets and 0.1% becomes 5% (once again, completely random number).

Not taking any position nor bringing data in this debate, just pointing out the logic