Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

healthdata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 387 posts

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#131

Post by crazygringo »

grawprog wrote: post #41

>the discrepancy between reported deaths and analyses of death rates compared to expected death rates, sometimes referred to as “excess mortality,” suggests that the total COVID-19 death rate is many multiples larger than official reports. So...not as many people died as we thought were going to so we're now just going to arbitrarily say any excess death was a covid death just to make sure the numbers look like what…

That's not what they do at all.

Just a few sentences later, they break down changes in death rates into 6 categories -- 3 that are increases but also 3 that are decreases.

But in any case, it's a pretty reasonable first-order assumption that excess deaths are from COVID, that can then be analyzed in more detail per-population to see if it continues to be plausible, e.g. whether excess deaths were also correlated in time and place with COVID, etc.

And isn't this precisely the kind of double-checking of official numbers that is valuable? Official statistics don't always tell the truth -- witness Cuomo specifically undercounting nursing home deaths. The shenanigans we should be concerned with aren't this -- it's shenanigans in official reporting. Thank goodness we live in a democracy with free speech where these kinds of things can be questioned.

Challenging findings to produce stronger, more trustworthy final results ultimately increases faith in science, don't you think? It sounds like you're arguing findings should never be challenged, which isn't science at all.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#132

Post by hervature »

whimsicalism wrote: post #103
hervature wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the counterargument is to that what is worse, 1/15 of the population losing 15 years or the entire population losing 1 year keeping in mind that 1 year in your prime is probably worth more than 1 year in your old age. These numbers are not COVID specific, just going off your ~15. For COVID numbers, even with 1M deaths, that would be 1/330 (US population) losing on average ~15 years vs. everyone losing almos…

Numerous problems. 1. The current death toll is with the existing lockdowns. There are good reasons to think that without (especially the early) lockdowns the death toll could have been way higher. 2. Being dead for 1 year cannot be equivalently compared to being socially distant for 1 year (not 2). Is that not obvious? 3. This is before we get into life long disability, etc. due to covid. I know someone whose parent…

Correct, all valid points. But we can assign numbers to all these things and the error bars are sufficiently large that there is ample room for debate. As for 2. is it obvious? My niece doesn't know that there are other humans like her, I would gladly take a year at the end of my life to give that gift to her. Given the current vaccination rates, many people will not see normal until 2022. For 3. it cuts both ways, how many new alcoholic parents and child abuse that ruins an entire lifetime?

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#133

Post by nostromo »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #123
hervature wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the counterargument is to that what is worse, 1/15 of the population losing 15 years or the entire population losing 1 year keeping in mind that 1 year in your prime is probably worth more than 1 year in your old age. These numbers are not COVID specific, just going off your ~15. For COVID numbers, even with 1M deaths, that would be 1/330 (US population) losing on average ~15 years vs. everyone losing almos…

> or the entire population losing 1 year Except we didn't lose a year. A lot of us actually kind of liked the last year. Many got to work from home and discovered it was a lot less stressful than commuting into an office every day, for example. I have a feeling that some of us are going to recall the last year with a bit of nostalgia in the future.

All available data is showing that this past year has been detrimental to poor students.

Imagine trying to learn on an old phone, using a cellular internet connection in a bedroom you share with your sister.

So, while I'm glad you enjoyed your year at home -- the focus here was on the impact on students.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#134

Post by kube-system »

cronix wrote: post #95
mywittyname wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Something to consider if you see anyone trying to downplay this. Most of the downplaying I've seen has revolved around the idea that those who died would have, "died anyway" from some other ailment or that hospitals are finding any reason they can to attribute deaths to covid. So, while you have a great argument, I doubt you'll change any minds because those who disagree flat out reject your premise.

Is "pointing out" data considered downplaying? ~5% of deaths had "covid only" while the remaining 95% had other factors with the average having 4 other factors. From the CDC: > Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The number of deaths that mention one or more of the conditions indicated is shown for all…

Yes, because many of those comorbidities are conditions that people could otherwise live with for decades... and furthermore, at least a couple of those comorbidities listed in that table are caused by COVID-19: pneumonia and respiratory failure.

If an obese person is in a car accident and immediately dies, we say that they died due to the more immediate health event: the car accident. -- even though we know that obese people are more susceptible to death in car accidents.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#135

Post by shortstuffsushi »

sweezyjeezy wrote: post #50
mywittyname wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Something to consider if you see anyone trying to downplay this. Most of the downplaying I've seen has revolved around the idea that those who died would have, "died anyway" from some other ailment or that hospitals are finding any reason they can to attribute deaths to covid. So, while you have a great argument, I doubt you'll change any minds because those who disagree flat out reject your premise.

I think it's kind of unlucky in some ways that Covid affected the old/unhealthy so disproportionately. I feel like we would have responded in a much more assertive and effective way had that not been the case. More people who were not in the risk groups would (ironically) have been saved, and we'd be a lot further on the road to recovery. Not a lot of young people know a huge amount of people in the risk groups, it's…

This seems obvious though; a lot of people assert that Covid isn't "that serious" - if it affected a larger swath of the population with more consistently negative outcomes, of course they would have taken it more seriously and responded more in line with that. I feel like that was their entire point?

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#136

Post by zeteo »

timr wrote: post #20

This isn't a "study", it's a statistical model. It reflects the assumptions put into it. To wit: > Our analysis follows four key steps. First, for all locations where weekly or monthly all-cause mortality has been reported since the start of the pandemic, we estimate how much mortality increased compared to the expected death rate....Second, based on a range of studies and consideration of other evidence, we estimate…

At the very least this has no way to distinguish directly between direct and indirect effects of the epidemic. The average person has put on weight, gets less exercise and is less likely to go visit a doctor. I think the distinction is important if this type of statistics are used to consider e.g. the easing of outdoor restrictions.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#137

Post by fastball »

TameAntelope wrote: post #110
cronix wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "pointing out" data considered downplaying? ~5% of deaths had "covid only" while the remaining 95% had other factors with the average having 4 other factors. From the CDC: > Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The number of deaths that mention one or more of the conditions indicated is shown for all…

Yes, it's considered downplaying to try and attribute these people's deaths to something that didn't kill them. If the answer to the question of, "Would this person be alive were it not for COVID?" is "Yes", then COVID killed that person. You should be able to be fragile and still survive, that isn't an excuse to let someone die.

That's... exactly the point?

Dying with COVID does not mean you would be alive today if you hadn't contracted COVID.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#138

Post by standardUser »

tomp wrote: post #54
AnotherGoodName wrote: post #2

In absolute number terms it's more deaths in total in the USA than the Spanish Flu (675k deaths total since it began), HIV (700k deaths total since it began) or any other pandemic. Population has increased so the US did lose a smaller percentage of population but on the other hand Spanish Flu didn't have a vaccine to stop it one year in. Hopefully enough of the population takes the vaccine now to stop this. Note this…

> Something to consider if you see anyone trying to downplay this. It's invalid reasoning to use this study to "upplay" the pandemic. It includes deaths due to depressions and delayed medical interventions, which you could argue isn't the result of COVID directly, but the result of lockdowns. So when people use this study to claim "see, this many lives were lost, we were right to institute lockdowns" - that's circula…

If there had been no mitigation efforts the death toll would have skyrocketed as our healthcare systems collapsed.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#139

Post by hervature »

amcoastal wrote: post #115
hervature wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the counterargument is to that what is worse, 1/15 of the population losing 15 years or the entire population losing 1 year keeping in mind that 1 year in your prime is probably worth more than 1 year in your old age. These numbers are not COVID specific, just going off your ~15. For COVID numbers, even with 1M deaths, that would be 1/330 (US population) losing on average ~15 years vs. everyone losing almos…

While I agree with the methodology in general, assuming all of us have "lost" a year in a way that is equivalent to being dead is ridiculous.

Right, but given all the debate about COVID, we still don't have a number and agree a 1-to-1 is ridiculous. Policy makers need a number to convert lost time to death time. What are they using? It seems one side is using infinite and the other side is using 1-to-1. As with everything, the answer probably is probably somewhere in between the extremes.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#140

Post by auser1443231 »

This headline is wildly click-baity and does not reflect the linked "study", however flawed, at all. The headline should be changed.

The "study" (really it's just a model) primarily investigated excess mortalities related to our response to COVID-19, NOT COVID-19 itself. The second paragraph states six drivers of all-cause mortality that were taken into consideration:

a) the total COVID-19 death rate, that is, all deaths directly related to COVID-19 infection

b) the increase in mortality due to needed health care being delayed or deferred during the pandemic

c) the increase in mortality due to increases in mental health disorders including depression, increased alcohol use, and increased opioid use

d) the reduction in mortality due to decreases in injuries because of general reductions in mobility associated with social distancing mandates

e) the reductions in mortality due to reduced transmission of other viruses, most notably influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and measles

f) the reductions in mortality due to some chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease and chronic respiratory disease, that occur when frail individuals who would have died from these conditions died earlier from COVID-19 instead.

Only 2 of these 6 factors are related to the virus itself; the rest are related to our response.

If anything, this model highlights how destructive our response was.

Post reply on HN