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

Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

thecentersquare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 600 posts

Re: Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

#341

Post by throwntoday »

lettergram wrote: post #275

People tend not to die in that age range from natural causes. Even covid has a relatively low impact in that range. For instance, I’d expect higher deaths in 2020 from covid than this year, assuming the vaccines are effective and not causing the issues (perhaps they are...?) I’m curious what factors are the major causes. I’m guessing mental health, obesity and drugs. Although anecdotal, I know multiple people who had…

>assuming the vaccines are effective and not causing the issues (perhaps they are...?)

The numbers on vaccine complications are almost certainly underreported, you could surmise this just by observing how they have made every effort to shut down any negative media about it to prevent "vaccine hesitancy".

Perhaps it's not the vaccines even, but mistakes during administration from undertrained or exhausted medical workers (i.e. malpractice). At any rate the media appears to be making no fuss about the increasing number of young people getting heart attacks.

Re: Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

#342

Post by joe_the_user »

andrewclunn wrote: post #12

> "The CDC weekly death counts, which reflect the information on death certificates and so have a lag of up to eight weeks or longer, show that for the week ending Nov. 6, there were far fewer deaths from COVID-19 in Indiana compared to a year ago – 195 verses 336 – but more deaths from other causes – 1,350 versus 1,319." So last year more covid deaths (particularly among the elderly), but while those numbers have de…

Well a lot of people were avoiding medical care (precisely because of Covid concerns), so this makes some sense. Couple that with the increased death rate for younger people and something has happened to worsen the health and outcomes generally for that population. Cue wild speculation and theories.

Not sure how your first two sentences above aren't speculation. It's like you're preemptively attack all the other speculation as "wild".

Re: Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

#343

Post by woodruffw »

abyssin wrote: post #294
woodruffw wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Working from home can remove a lot of the accountability that keeps addicts in check. This is a cruel twist, given that suicide deaths actually decreased in 2020[1], probably for the reason you've mentioned: spending nearly all of your time with others makes you accountable and removes opportunities for self-harm. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/VSRR016.pdf

I’m not a native speaker, but there seems to be something inappropriately judgmental about the wording of “keeping in check”. Loneliness is hard for many and causes suffering, and drugs are sometimes used to try to manage suffering. More use is linked to more accidents.

I can see the judgemental interpretation, but I don't think that's what the GP intended. I read it as "most people suffering from addiction benefit from accountability, one form of which is the in-person responsibilities of work."

Re: Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

#344

Post by joshuahedlund »

jack_squat wrote: post #327
halfjoking wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right - I’m anti-vaxx when it comes to mRNA vaccines and I often link to mainstream articles like this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-more-usual-dyi... Mainstream articles are biased with the spin of the situation but the facts are there. It goes over some causes of deaths - mostly heart/clotting issues, exactly what you’d expect from the vaxx. That’s why we call it the “clot-shot” In England p…

Doesn't that all make sense? I'm not sure what the issue is here. The statistic that vaccinated people 18-59 are dying at twice the rate presumably true, so of course the reuters article doesn't deny it. The Reuters article presents a totally believable explanation, which is also in the original article's comments. What they are saying is that this can be true for the age range 18-59, but simultaneously not be true f…

Simpson’s paradox is fascinating. If the result above does not seem intuitive, think of an extremely simplified version: imagine that half of everyone in their 50’s is vaxxed and no one on their 20’s is. Next imagine that of 1000 people in their 50’s, 100 of 500 vaxxed people die from non-covid sources, 100 of 500 unvaxxed people die from non-covid sources, plus 50 unvaxxed people in their 50’s die from covid and no vaxxed people do. And imagine that 0 out of 2000 people in their 20’s die from anything.

150 out of 2500 unvaxxed deaths in 18-59

100 out of 500 vaxxed deaths in 18-59 (higher rate)

But: 150 of 500 unvaxxed deaths in 50-59

100 of 500 vaxxed deaths in 50-59 (lower rate)

It would be true that more vaxxed people died than unvaxxed in the 18-59 age group without the vaccine causing any death, but only because the larger number of surviving young people swamps the higher relative death rates among the higher relative vaxxed elderly.

Re: Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

#345

Post by sailingparrot »

smartplaya2001 wrote: post #337

i wonder if it has anything related to the covid vaccine rollout? The timing coincides.

A much simpler explanation is that this is a side effect of the pandemic itself.

The timing of the vaccine roll out is of course related to the timing of the pandemic. So it's expected that we would see some loose correlation in timing between the different events related to the pandemic.

Things such as increase in mental issues and increased drug consumption due to loneliness, lack of medical care due to overflowed hospitals or loss of income etc. all took time to build up once the pandemic started. Just as it took time to manufacture and distribute a vaccine once the pandemic started.

Re: Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

#346

Post by netizen-936824 »

the_optimist wrote: post #339
netizen-936824 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” "that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying" Am I missing something? Is this not a comparison?

Yes, you miss the context of the conversation. No, it is not a comparison.

If elderly people are not in the data set, why are they mentioned at all?

Re: Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

#347

Post by sm4rk0 »

FabHK wrote: post #281
nop_slide wrote: post #270

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?

You could check for excess mortality among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. I think the data is very clear: vaccination does not lead to excess mortality (unlike COVID).

What data are you citing?

There's official data showing the opposite (I personally checked each data point in that graph): https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/vaccinated-english-adult...

Re: Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

#348

Post by evv555 »

woodruffw wrote: post #189
mlyle wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree the report makes its point poorly and phrases statistics carelessly, but you made a similar mistake: they explicitly state it exceeds COVID deaths over ages 18-45. All these media reports were all influenced by this underlying factsheet from FAF. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S0szR2Ua9v0Sr91YhDD7gPrXsDk... Broadly, it appears true: fentanyl deaths look like they outweigh all those things in the younger pop…

Thanks for linking the factsheet. These deaths are a useless tragedy, and it frustrates me to see them framed against another useless tragedy. The CDC's death count with age breakdowns[1] shows that over twice as many people aged 18-64 died of COVID-19 than drug overdoes, combined across 2020 and 2021. That flips when you limit it to just 18-45, which is the statistic FAF is using. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/…

>it frustrates me to see them framed against another useless tragedy.

The framing is relevant since the increase is arguably a product of the lockdown/social isolation. Generally it's not Boomers or the upperclass who are having to deal with opiate addiction. Is it a coincidence that their needs once again supersede the needs of others? Maybe

Re: Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

#349

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

hervature wrote: post #186

My hypothesis is that this is caused from diabetes. I first learned about this when my friend was diagnosed with diabetes at the beginning of the pandemic. He said that Stanford was investigating a potential connection. Now there is a bit more literature [1]. If you go to [2] and select "Weekly Number of Deaths by Cause Subgroup" and then "Other select causes" from the dropdown, you will see that diabetes jumped up a…

A good chunk is fentanyl and suicide: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/micaelaburrow/2020/07/28/redfi...

Re: Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

#350

Post by netizen-936824 »

the_optimist wrote: post #286
netizen-936824 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As others point out here, this is a literary construction flagging that in his specific context, he is not referencing old people. He is making the very point that he is above accused of not making. Just as if I were to chop the quote in your sentence “this part may have been added by a reporter” (which is not a self-reference to your own quote possibly having been edited by a reporter), the context is important. The…

It is a literary construction that makes the sentence contain incorrect information. A correct statement would have not mentioned elderly people at all because they are not included in the data:

"There has been an increase in deaths of working age 18-64 year olds."

Full stop. No need to mention the elderly.

Post reply on HN