The number of people dying is not the same as in any other year • Hacker News Board

Re: The number of people dying is not the same as in any other year

#111

Post by rurban » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 8:40 PM UTC

gabereiser wrote: post #31

jansan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany the number of deaths from COVID-19 is below the number of people who died from influenza in 2017/2018. So far COVID-19 klilled about 13000 people, while the official numbers for influenza 2017/18 is between 20000 and 25000.

Because you guys in Germany took the virus seriously and put measures in place. The US went full YOLO.

Nope, that's not a good explanation. German measures we're about the same as the in Western and Southern european nations, even too late. Most others were 2 weeks earlier.

The best explanation is that Germany and similar countries just have proper healthcare for seniors, esp. the retirement homes. The protected the vulnerable better. The bad countries are all united in cost cuts in those homes and healthcare. France, Belgium, UK, Spain, NL, Italy, US, Brazil. Belgium had the highest IFR due to not enough masks for caregivers. They had to share it. Spain et al also destroyed their previously excellent systems with the recent rightwing governments.

Socialism is apparently the best cure for COVID-19. Even if Germany is extremely rightwing, they still have proper healthcare and caregiving infrastructure.

Re: The number of people dying is not the same as in any other year

#112

Post by mcguire » Sat, Nov 21, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

bagacrap wrote: post #89

mcguire wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a bunch of non-COVID deaths were COVID related. This is why you look at all-cause mortality---where in the US/UK at least, things look worse, not better.

Some of the excess deaths this year were due to the way we handled covid and not the disease itself. Suicides are up. Medical care is being skipped or postponed (cancers are not found as early). So no, I don't think you can look at all cause mortality and say that any excess means the lockdown should be stricter.

"Some commentators made predictions of a large rise in suicides, which was reported in some cases with sensationalist language. But so far, thankfully, this hasn’t been borne out. While the publishing of suicide figures normally takes many months, the initial indications for 2020 suggest that there hasn’t been a rise this year."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2259889-we-need-to-be-m...

Re: The number of people dying is not the same as in any other year

#113

Post by anewguy9000 » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

fpgaminer wrote: post #82

anewguy9000 wrote: post #50

what these numbers and the media and your average joe terrified of dying seem to miss is something thats qualitative, not quantitative: quality of life. length of life could be enhanced for many, safe and securely shackled to a bed in a quasi-coma with a feeding tube down your throat. such a person may very well ask to die. it pains me to see ederly and terminally ill people saying goodbye to loved ones on zoom conne…

If _everyone_ wore masks and followed very basic guidelines, the virus would be dead in the water and we could go about living mostly normal lives. People could visit their loved ones, say goodbye to the terminally ill, work, have outdoor dining, see drive in movies. Scarce little impact on quality of life. Instead vast swathes of the U.S. and other countries flout even the most basic precautions making it impossible…

lots of things can be said when prefaced with, "if everyone would just...". i'm more concerned with reality.

Re: The number of people dying is not the same as in any other year

#114

Post by CryptoPunk » Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 3:17 AM UTC

rualca wrote: post #101

CryptoPunk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extripating the virus completely from the population, and keeping it out through total physical isolation of that population from the rest of the world, is a tall task. The question of whether it's an achievable or practical goal to pursue needs to be answered before that is made the objective, and the lifting of lockdown restrictions is made conditioned on the goal being reached. Anyone advocating that as the goal f…

> Extripating the virus completely from the population, and keeping it out through total physical isolation of that population from the rest of the world, is a tall task. The goal is not to erradicar the disease. The goal is to take basic measures so that it's incidence and transmission rate are kept low. Spain achieved that during the first wave, where in a matter of weeks they managed to get the fatality rate from…

>>If the disease is contained, we not only avoid the chance of being infected but we also have a shot at normality.

There is no normality with incredibly disruptive restrictions in place.

>If the disease is not contained and allowed to ravage the world then all we get is the despair of having people dying left and right while hospitals are saturated far beyond capacity and unable to respond to any need.

First of all, the average age of death for the coronavirus is something like 79. For most age groups, the virus is not extremely dangerous - even if it were allowed to spread like wildfire in a population without immunity, far more people under 50 will die from causes other than COVID19 in the virus' first year of exposure to humans. So no, society will not far into despair. 2.8 million people die in the US every year, and people seem to be able to continue to function.

Second, this doesn't go on indefinitely. Eventually people die or recover, with immunity. A population fully subjected to one wave of a virus will be far lessa affected in subsequent waves.