281–290 of 600 posts
I can already see this being used as a source that the vaccines are the reason for the increased deaths. Could anyone point out if how vaccines as the casue could be ruled out by this data?
Mortality rates are basically up in all countries (at least those who can adequately measure it). My bet is that "after Covid" we will see rates under the pre-pandemic value for a couple of years as Covid was most lethal to those that would have died the next 0-5 years anyways without it.
This story [1] (NYT paywall) is clearer IMHO: 1. 600,000 more elderly Americans, or 1 of 100, have died during the Covid epidemic than would have died had the epidemic not occurred. 2. 200,000 more non-elderly Americans, or 1 of 1,400, have died—but that's mostly ages 15-64, so more like 1 in 1,000 adults of working age. 3. The CDC says adult death rates were up 20%. [2] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/13/us/covi…
I can already see this being used as a source that the vaccines are the reason for the increased deaths. Could anyone point out if how vaccines as the casue could be ruled out by this data?
Why are you asking to rule it out and not question wether or not it _might_ be a contributing factor (however that might be)?
Does this data provide any support whether vaccines could be or not be a contributor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think he's saying elderly people aren't dying? Because that's what those precise words would mean when you take them out of context. In context, it's clear that he's not talking about elderly people at all.
I've had to chop up the quote to point out the exact part I take issue with. The entire quote is a comparison of age groups, of which he does not appear to have data for. Also as others have mentioned, this part may have been added by the reporter who definitely doesn't cite Amy source for the comparison. Either option equates to poor reporting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Within my brothers circle of friends / former friends etc, amongst those that participate in recreational drug use, there have been a crazy number of Fentanyl related deaths. They're all between the ages of 25 - 30. I can't help but wonder how much this has an impact.
All of the non-COVID deaths I’ve heard of among younger people ( Working from home can remove a lot of the accountability that keeps addicts in check. When your coworkers can’t see you, it’s much easier to be inebriated or otherwise suffering from addiction-related issues without feeling social pressure to correct it.
Not only that but the lockdowns making people low-key depressed which would also be a reason for using addictive substances since they often go hand-in-hand together.
I could be pretty much classified an alcoholic during most of 2019-2020 because a six-pack a day keeps the boredom away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're in group life so selection should be limited. And they said the deaths are mostly not COVID.
From the article: “working-age people who are employees of businesses with group life insurance policies” - that’s a quite comparable effect although indeed not via the individual health screening thus less pronounced. Those not working are quite more likely to die. What I don’t under from the article: they mention a $100 million loss on disability, but the effect of this size on mortality should be many billions.
I sort of agree that the insurance financial risks associated with a low mortality population can be high in unusual situations, but it's not a blanket explanation for any particular situation.
“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.” This sounds very strange indeed, I'd like to see the numbers. For instance Euromomo https://www.euromomo.eu collects the statistics about death rates, here is a plot for the Italian death rate and you can see the mortality spikes with the covid wa…
> Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.” Do we have an actuarial crisis on our hands? We’ve seen the same thing in finance, disaster preparedness and other unrelated industries. We have “once in 200 years” events happening it seems far more often than once in 200 years. And how does it…
I commented on this elsewhere, but I think your point is fair. Many real-world processes follow power laws, but they are modeled as normal distributions. The issue with that is that a power law can "look like" a normal distribution, except it has fat tails, where you get these "once until the heat death of the universe" type events much more frequently.
Nonlinearity Breeds Contempt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eX6KaSBjc&list=LL&index=32...