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

181–190 of 387 posts

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#181

Post by sweezyjeezy »

shortstuffsushi wrote: post #135
sweezyjeezy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

OK - how about same amount of people, but more equally distributed like the Spanish Flu?

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#182

Post by dntrkv »

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…

At the end of the day, the question is, how many more deaths happened due to COVID than there would be otherwise. For that answer, we can look at excess mortality (which the article uses), which shows more deaths than the official COVID death tally.

https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#183

Post by Daishiman »

jschwartzi wrote: post #156
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…

YLL is a horrifying metric because it values someone who is 20 over someone who is 60. The only argument I can see for its "usefulness" as a statistic is if you want to imply that the old are less useful than the young. This kind of statement about the bare utility of a human life is the same statement that underlies a lot of how we have treated the disabled or those on welfare in the past. And it only makes sense if…

Not necessarily. In my persona value system I would much rather live 20 more years when I'm 20 over living those same years once I'm 60.

It makes sense if we consider the possibility of novel life experiences to be an important value of how we live life. If you've made it to 60 (a not uncommon life expectancy), you've had a chance to travel, have children, live through many different life occasions, etc. If you're 20, you've barely had two years as a legal adult where you could make something of your life. It has little to do with economic productivity.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#184

Post by xkjkls »

hervature wrote: post #139
amcoastal wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think one side is using infinity. The issue here is that lockdowns, if done effectively, don't have to last for a full year. Look at Australia. Look at New Zealand. They managed to lock down for substantially less than a year, get the disease under control, and resume life mostly as normal. The US was not, but that also needs to be included in the tradeoff. It wasn't obvious that applying enough pressure wouldn't have prevented the uncontrolled explosion that we now have to deal with.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#185

Post by mssundaram »

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…

Thank you, somebody with some sense

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#186

Post by jollybean »

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…

It's also greater than all of US military combat deaths for every war combined i.e. Civil War, WW1/2, Korea, Vietnam etc.. And think of how much concern (legitimately so) we have for them.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#187

Post by kube-system »

_-david-_ wrote: post #170
TameAntelope wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I think the person above meant:

>"Would this person be alive were it not [for contracting] for COVID?"

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#188

Post by username90 »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #159
username90 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flu seasons before vaccines were much worse than now though, it was like having covid every single year. The Spanish flu was about an order of magnitude worse than the normal flu seasons which is why it was so devastating. > 900,000 death * 15 yll/death [0] = 13.5 million YLL Right, so an average American lost 0.03 years of their life due to covid. I guess some thinks everything they did last year to save that 0.02 o…

You appear to be making the assumption that disease spread would not be different had lockdown not happened. The question isn't cost of lockdown vs cost of disease with lockdown, it's cost of lockdown vs cost of disease without lockdown. Without a lockdown, April and May would probably have had 10x (at least) more cases, and way more than 10x more deaths because hospitals wouldn't have had the space to hold everyone…

No country in the world is even close to an order of magnitude worse than USA regardless of what they did, so it isn't a reasonable estimate. Worst case is less than about 2x USA's numbers, I used that as an estimate of how many lives you saved with your measures.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#189

Post by xkjkls »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #51
whimsicalism wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the former, if someone is actually willing to listen to evidence, you can cite them numbers of average years of life lost per covid death (~15).

>you can cite them numbers of average years of life lost per covid death That's practically inviting them to cite back the average life lost from the 1918 flu. If you're trying to counter someone who's downplaying Covid that is probably not something you should invite them to do.

Is the point here to argue that the Spanish Flu was worse? Yes, it was. But I think someone crying, "This is the worst pandemic in 100 years", sounds like they are pretty on the money.

Re: Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

#190

Post by nonameiguess »

nostromo wrote: post #133
UncleOxidant wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That isn't true. The parent comment said the "entire population" lost a year of their lives. K-12 students are about 17% of the US population, not all of it.
Post reply on HN