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

161–170 of 387 posts

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#161

Post by dadjoker »

kaczordon wrote: post #21

Third, we build a statistical model that predicts the weekly ratio of total COVID-19 deaths to reported COVID-19 deaths based on covariates and spatial effects. Given how disastrously wrong most modeling/forecasting(1) has been during this pandemic color me a little bit skeptical that their model is somehow better. Models give wide latitude to fiddle with parameters. (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7…

Color me completely distrusting. Between the IHME and Neil Ferguson (aka The Master of Disaster because of how horrifically wrong his models have been) models in the UK, they haven't even been close to reality. The IHME was even called out last year by other data modelers at one point for how poorly done their models were.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#162

Post by listenallyall »

vkou wrote: post #86
yalogin wrote: post #49

For me its shocking that we as a population have become so numb to so much death around us. Wonder what it says about society in general. Would be fascinating to read any research reports on that aspect.

That's because our media has a gentleman's agreement to not show it to us. If the news were running 24/7 with reels of disaster porn - images of people dying in ICUs, or struggling to breathe and unable to get treatment, we'd have been taking this problem seriously last year. Instead, it's this abstract, sanitized problem that only happens to other people. What you don't see on the TV isn't real.

Sure. And the evening news should show every fatal car crash, in multiple angles, slo-mo, so the population would learn about these deathtraps called "automobiles" and we could take that problem seriously too.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#163

Post by whimsicalism »

Sebb767 wrote: post #114
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…

> for now we assume that total COVID-19 deaths equal excess mortality. This part is especially doubtful for me, as there are factors moving it in either direction. For one, the pandemic measures also helped a lot for things like the flu, which had less cases and therefore caused less deaths. On the other hand, problems caused by lack of exercise and social interaction have definitely increased. Lastly, I'm quite sure…

I would generally expect non-covid deaths to be down as is indicated by correlations between mortality and economic decline, the fact that suicides haven't trended substantially upwards, and the fact that cars are off the road.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#164

Post by galangalalgol »

teachingassist wrote: post #127
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…

> for now we assume that total COVID-19 deaths equal excess mortality. This seems reasonable, although I'd suggest it's an underestimate of COVID-19 deaths. Excess deaths counts have been consistently showing negative in countries during periods of time where they have coronavirus under control. Other significant causes of death (including suicide, influenza, road traffic accidents) appear to be down. As such, I'd as…

I just don't understand where they got such high excess death numbers in the first place. Fitting a sinusoid with a 52 week perios and adding a slope for population growth you can get a very good (R=99.xx) fit up until the pandemic. Using that ramped sinusoid the excess death number comes out about 50k over the reported covid totals.

Edit: data source is cdc total mortality page. Going back to 2014

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#165

Post by ars »

dragonwriter wrote: post #90
ars wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe lockdown is not as effective as people think - not for deaths anyway (I'm sure it keeps case numbers down). For deaths it seems by far the most important is not lockdown, but rather protecting elderly. So maybe Florida prioritized that, and didn't spend effort on lockdown, while California prioritized lockdown thinking it would also help elderly.

Or, maybe California was hit earlier, having a greater share of its total cases relatively early in the pandemic and geographically concentrated, meaning more overwhelmed hospitals and more use of early-pandemic treatment protocols that both overused ventilation based on generic protocols not tuned to COVID’ behavior and lacked more effective treatments developed during the pandemic. (I mean, that definitely happened…

From what I remember, Florida and California were hit at the same time, but California went on and on and on, while Florida somehow ended.

Maybe I can find graphs.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#166

Post by crad »

Anecdotes obviously don't validate data models, but I do wonder if my personal experience was common.

My mother-in-law passed last summer, alone in her apartment. She was sick beforehand, quarantined, and living in a senior living community. When she was discovered the coroner did not come and investigate because it appears of natural causes, based on the observations of the local police officer. Her body was transported directly to the funeral home.

I insisted they do a COVID-19 test, which the coroner did at the funeral home. The results came back as positive. Had I not pushed them to actually test, it would have been misreported and her death mis-attributed.

It left me wondering if this was common and how many people may have passed in similar circumstances, without family pushing for testing.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#167

Post by grumpyautist »

akamaka wrote: post #143
grumpyautist wrote: post #17

The organization that published these numbers apparently a. Doesn't know how to use certbot and b. Is primarily funded by organizations who are anything but impartial on the subject

Can you explain in more detail? Who are the biased organizations who funded this publication?

From Wikipedia: IHME receives core grant funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation[60] and the state of Washington. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Inter-American Development Bank; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Health; Medtronic Philanthropy; and the National Institute on Aging have also contributed funding through project grants and contracts.

Billions of dollars from organizations that have billions invested in selling vaccines

Look into the criticism of organizations such as Gavi.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#168

Post by username90 »

exporectomy wrote: post #129
maerF0x0 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something to consider if you see anyone trying to downplay this. I admit I'm the morbid one in the group, memento mori and all. But I think the real stat we should track is years of lost life expectancy. That's the only statistic that makes sense when doing cross disease examinations. Not speaking specifically about covid, but more generally, something which primarily kills young people is much bigger deal than som…

I wonder if that measure should be used for criminal justice as well. As well as showing that killing an old person is less harmful, it also excludes babies. Both these groups seem to have lives that are worth less even to themselves and so it's (however distasteful) not as bad if they die. We already do that with abortion by valuing an unborn baby's life less.

Many places already has laws around infanticide which is much lower than manslaughter. Canada for example sentences mothers to at most 5 years with no minimum for killing their baby.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#169

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

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…

> Is "pointing out" data considered downplaying?

I'd consider it playing devil's advocate, depending on the scenario. The problem is, these days I often see a lot of bad faith arguments being passed off as "just playing devil's advocate".

You can be obese and diabetic and still live to be 80+ years old. My grandma is both, and will be turning 81 this year.

But if someone who is only 30, but obese and diabetic dies to COVID, it's a pretty damn bad faith argument to try to claim that COVID was not the cause of death.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#170

Post by _-david-_ »

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.

You should be careful how far you go with that reasoning. If someone commits suicide due to loneliness during the lockdown does that mean covid killed that person? In an indirect way sure, covid kill him, but in my view it should not be counted as a covid death. Just taking excess deaths without differentiating these kinds of deaths is going to result in misleading statistics. It will cause people to think a person who did not have covid actually died from getting covid.
Post reply on HN