Canada, April: Under-65 excess mortality exceeds under-65 Covid-19 deaths(www150.statcan.gc.ca)
www150.statcan.gc.ca
Canada, April: Under-65 excess mortality exceeds under-65 Covid-19 deaths
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210712/dq210712b-eng.htm
125 comments
At this point I don't believe real change will happen until the majority of voters are somehow personally affected by this epidemic of overdoses. Canadian society has a very strong puritanical undercurrent to it that is rarely acknowledged. I've heard in casual conversation people say that addicts overdosing is a "problem that solves itself". Until these peoples' views are changed, the suffering will continue.
Drug addiction and overdosing are related but separate problems. While some solutions may impact both, they really should be treated very differently.
Overdoses happen because people are doing hard drugs while alone and/or are getting bad drugs. Prevention of overdosed means not locking up addicts for basic possession. Safe injection sites. Basic communication services such as handing out cellphones to addicts can make a huge difference (the cost of one ER visit will buy 100 cellphones). These things can be done now.
Stopping people from becoming addicts is different. It requires societal change so that people don't land in situations where they are likely to turn to drugs. That means employment programs. That means post-hospital monitoring of patients. That means decent affordable housing. That means much more expensive and long-term efforts.
Overdoses happen because people are doing hard drugs while alone and/or are getting bad drugs. Prevention of overdosed means not locking up addicts for basic possession. Safe injection sites. Basic communication services such as handing out cellphones to addicts can make a huge difference (the cost of one ER visit will buy 100 cellphones). These things can be done now.
Stopping people from becoming addicts is different. It requires societal change so that people don't land in situations where they are likely to turn to drugs. That means employment programs. That means post-hospital monitoring of patients. That means decent affordable housing. That means much more expensive and long-term efforts.
That assumes drug addicts are not employed and need housing. Those are poverty signals. While many in poverty are drug addicts many in regular society are as well. The long term solution must include all drug addicts.
I think, the problem is deeper. People turn towards drugs when something else in their life is terribly broken and they see no way of fixing it. And I suspect that the ongoing erosion of the middle class has something to do with it. I think the current popular viewpoint that we should just be ok with a growing fraction of the population effectively committing a gradual mental suicide, welcome it and make it easier, is totally wrong.
Totally agreed. I don't believe people are born predestined to become addicts; they may or may not have inherited a propensity for it, but circumstances are generally what pushes someone push over the edge into full blown addiction.
Viewing addiction as a moral failing rather than a maladaptive coping mechanism for a miserable existence and/or untreated mental illness is holding progress back.
Viewing addiction as a moral failing rather than a maladaptive coping mechanism for a miserable existence and/or untreated mental illness is holding progress back.
I'm not sure I agree.
For many, the substance one is addicted to generally starts out as something seen as fun and enjoyable. Take alcohol, the most widely celebrated addictive toxin in the world.
Stick with it for a bit, integrate into your life as a crutch (bad social skills, try drinking! need a way to relax, try drinking! bored, try drinking!) and eventually the effects of withdrawal keep you hooked. Even if you think you're not hooked, there's a chance you are.
It's a slide that is very difficult to travel in the opposite direction on. Some people will certainly slide further down due to life circumstances, but that's not really the problem, is it? You can't eliminate the fact that life is eventually going to really suck at one time or another.
The problem is that we allow companies to profit from addictive and usually harmful substances, and they are incentivized to keep people addicted. Alcohol, tobacco, and opiates - the root of an astounding amount of poor health, financial struggle, and early death among otherwise ordinary people.
Addiction isn't a moral failing of the individual as much as it is one of society, but in my opinion, for different reasons.
Think about it, there's real truth to it.
For many, the substance one is addicted to generally starts out as something seen as fun and enjoyable. Take alcohol, the most widely celebrated addictive toxin in the world.
Stick with it for a bit, integrate into your life as a crutch (bad social skills, try drinking! need a way to relax, try drinking! bored, try drinking!) and eventually the effects of withdrawal keep you hooked. Even if you think you're not hooked, there's a chance you are.
It's a slide that is very difficult to travel in the opposite direction on. Some people will certainly slide further down due to life circumstances, but that's not really the problem, is it? You can't eliminate the fact that life is eventually going to really suck at one time or another.
The problem is that we allow companies to profit from addictive and usually harmful substances, and they are incentivized to keep people addicted. Alcohol, tobacco, and opiates - the root of an astounding amount of poor health, financial struggle, and early death among otherwise ordinary people.
Addiction isn't a moral failing of the individual as much as it is one of society, but in my opinion, for different reasons.
Think about it, there's real truth to it.
Your entire 'real truth' doesn't even deal with the fact that many people can use substances without addiction, but some people absolutely cannot. So by your truth anyone who becomes an addict is weak.
I see a moral failing here.
I see a moral failing here.
> many people can use substances without addiction
My stance is that the majority of people regularly using some substance probably sit somewhere on the spectrum of addiction.
Most people just never bother to quit, because it hasn't caused too much of an interference. Or if it has, they say they'll "cut back." Soon enough they're right back where they started.
Addiction can exist in very subtle ways. It creeps up. It's also highly stigmatized, so nobody wants to admit that they're dependent on a substance.
With the exception of caffeine of course. Most people will openly admit their addiction to caffeine.
My stance is that the majority of people regularly using some substance probably sit somewhere on the spectrum of addiction.
Most people just never bother to quit, because it hasn't caused too much of an interference. Or if it has, they say they'll "cut back." Soon enough they're right back where they started.
Addiction can exist in very subtle ways. It creeps up. It's also highly stigmatized, so nobody wants to admit that they're dependent on a substance.
With the exception of caffeine of course. Most people will openly admit their addiction to caffeine.
Yeah I mean addiction has a pretty concrete definition despite your enthusiasm that every use of 'substance' lies on a 'spectrum' and therefore you can't say anything at all about addiction because 'everyones addicted' to something to some degree? c'mon
FWIW since I started referring to this as poisonings (instead of overdoses) I've found folks to be much more amenable to conversation. Nobody likes the idea of the wicked poisoning the vulnerable.
How do folks respond when they find out many addicts clearly choose to take the "poison" for more complex highs? despite knowing the risk, despite cheaper priced "non-poison" offerings.
The dosage makes it poison, so it is an overdose if a properdose was sort and personally misjudged.
The dosage makes it poison, so it is an overdose if a properdose was sort and personally misjudged.
With nuance, I guess? Depends on the conversation.
I'd say that there's more agreement than disagreement. Here 70% of the overdoses are related to drugs cut with unpredictable levels of fentanyl. I'd say I've seen consensus on that being a "bad thing(tm)", and consensus that the criminals cutting street drugs with fentanyl are "bad guys(tm)".
I guess to your point about junkies making bad decisions, my peer group skews older, we've already said everything we can say about junkies making bad decisions 30+ years ago. It's true, but it makes for stale conversation and seems kind of orthogonal to, or at least adjacent to, the current fentanyl situation.
I'd say that there's more agreement than disagreement. Here 70% of the overdoses are related to drugs cut with unpredictable levels of fentanyl. I'd say I've seen consensus on that being a "bad thing(tm)", and consensus that the criminals cutting street drugs with fentanyl are "bad guys(tm)".
I guess to your point about junkies making bad decisions, my peer group skews older, we've already said everything we can say about junkies making bad decisions 30+ years ago. It's true, but it makes for stale conversation and seems kind of orthogonal to, or at least adjacent to, the current fentanyl situation.
>BC's health officer, who everyone has listened to during this pandemic, has begged the Federal government (the Province and City of Vancouver also begging) to decriminalize drugs to help with this issue, but the Feds have done nothing.
Alright, I'm going to poke the bear. How would decriminalization help? I'm assuming that by decriminialization, you mean legalizing the consumption, but not sale of drugs. If so, that doesn't solve the problem of the production of drugs, which IMO won't result in the changes that you want to see (drug users dying).
Alright, I'm going to poke the bear. How would decriminalization help? I'm assuming that by decriminialization, you mean legalizing the consumption, but not sale of drugs. If so, that doesn't solve the problem of the production of drugs, which IMO won't result in the changes that you want to see (drug users dying).
My wife actually asked this of some professionals working in this space yesterday at a local awareness event (she works in community services, unrelated to drug policy). The answer (paraphrased) was it doesn't directly stop the poisonings. It's in the spirit of harm reduction to open up more support channels. One example given was about going to the hospital and honesty with health professionals. Currently there's disincentives for an addict to disclose their addiction due to legal actions that get triggered upon disclosure. Removing those legal triggers could (would?) allow for more supervision without legal consequence to hopefully reduce the overall harm. It gave us something to chat about.
I'm curious, what rules exist? Are they at a federal or state level?
I don't know if the federal government plays a role here, but the duty to report type laws for professionals are typically at a provincial level. That being said, as far as I know, they are fairly consistent across provinces.
One example provided, which I've not fact-checked and might be limited to BC, was that disclosing addiction during a hospital visit opens up a file with child welfare services.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and saw a massive drop in all the secondary issues associated with drug use - overdose deaths, disease, etc. In fact they went from among the worst in the EU to among the best over a decade or so, and saw no material increase in drug use. In fact drug use in Portugal remains below the EU average. [1,2]
It’s long past time for us to follow suit.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
[2] https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...
It’s long past time for us to follow suit.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
[2] https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...
Portugal situation is a bit more nuanced than 'decriminalized all drugs' implies. Drugs are still very much illegal and cannot be owned or traded. Not even marijuana. What changed is that possession of small quantities of drugs no longer leads to prison, but may lead to administrative penalties.
> In July 2001, a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison as a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than a ten-day supply of that substance.[2] This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers.[9] Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.[10][11] Despite this, the law was still associated with a nearly 50% decrease in convictions and imprisonments of drug traffickers from 2001 to 2015.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Regula...
> In July 2001, a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison as a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than a ten-day supply of that substance.[2] This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers.[9] Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.[10][11] Despite this, the law was still associated with a nearly 50% decrease in convictions and imprisonments of drug traffickers from 2001 to 2015.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Regula...
That's what is typically meant by "decriminalization".
Unfortunately decriminalization is only a bad half-solution and all of those who profit off of both sides of the drug war will continue to exist, as will the inconsistent, contaminated, or mislabeled doses that are most fatal. It is absolutely imperative that we legalize nearly all recreational drugs along with regulatory measures to ensure that these medications are available OTC as standardized individually-packaged doses.
The minimization of harm from drug abuse does also depend on broader societal factors (e.g. wealth inequality), and the transition will be complex, but there are measures to be taken that could drastically cut down on overdoses deaths in no more than a few weeks.
Unfortunately decriminalization is only a bad half-solution and all of those who profit off of both sides of the drug war will continue to exist, as will the inconsistent, contaminated, or mislabeled doses that are most fatal. It is absolutely imperative that we legalize nearly all recreational drugs along with regulatory measures to ensure that these medications are available OTC as standardized individually-packaged doses.
The minimization of harm from drug abuse does also depend on broader societal factors (e.g. wealth inequality), and the transition will be complex, but there are measures to be taken that could drastically cut down on overdoses deaths in no more than a few weeks.
> The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison as a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than a ten-day supply of that substance.
Indeed this is the difference between decentralization and legalization.
They did a lot of things yes! Very true. I advocate for the whole model.
Indeed this is the difference between decentralization and legalization.
They did a lot of things yes! Very true. I advocate for the whole model.
Are you sure? Litmus test ;) Are you for de-legalization of marijuana?
PS. I always assumed that decriminalization and legalization are synonyms because it never crossed my mind that possessing a tiny quantity of a substance, even illegal, can lead to jail. I'm all for decriminalization of 'personal use' quantities of any given drug.
PS. I always assumed that decriminalization and legalization are synonyms because it never crossed my mind that possessing a tiny quantity of a substance, even illegal, can lead to jail. I'm all for decriminalization of 'personal use' quantities of any given drug.
Haha, myself personally?
No, I think any drugs that have been measured and studied to be less harmful than alcohol should be completely legal. And so that is, checks notes all of big ones. [1]
I see decriminalization as a minimum. I do also think a legalization or decriminalization strategy should take into account the harms associated with these substances and offer programs to mitigate social and individual harms.
[1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-...
No, I think any drugs that have been measured and studied to be less harmful than alcohol should be completely legal. And so that is, checks notes all of big ones. [1]
I see decriminalization as a minimum. I do also think a legalization or decriminalization strategy should take into account the harms associated with these substances and offer programs to mitigate social and individual harms.
[1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-...
Appreciate the honesty :) Consider that those with a more conservative position are highly suspicious of underspecified language ('decriminalization', without explicit scope modifiers), which only seem to serve to open the floodgates, and then in a few short years we end up with schools pushing heroin to kids behind their parent backs. All in the name of 'harm reduction' and 'undoing stigma'.
Yep, that's definitely true. In my opinion, for most drug addictions, it is in fact a symptom of a situation than the problem itself. For some people with certain biologies, I suppose that may not be entirely accurate. However one of my favorite studies compares the experiences of GIs before the war, in Vietnam, and when they got back.
Table 1 shows that before the war, 11% of the group surveyed used narcotics. In Vietnam it spiked to 43%. When they got back? 10%. [1]
For most of them, it was heroin. They literally cold turkey quit heroin when they got back from Nam.
What all this tells me is that telling addicts they can’t have drugs and sending them to prison won’t stop them from doing drugs. What will is making them not want to do drugs by changing their situation.
[1] https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.64.12...
Table 1 shows that before the war, 11% of the group surveyed used narcotics. In Vietnam it spiked to 43%. When they got back? 10%. [1]
For most of them, it was heroin. They literally cold turkey quit heroin when they got back from Nam.
What all this tells me is that telling addicts they can’t have drugs and sending them to prison won’t stop them from doing drugs. What will is making them not want to do drugs by changing their situation.
[1] https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.64.12...
The Vietnam story is definitely an interesting datapoint. They went to Vietnam, had easy access to heroin (it was a war zone, certain civilian rules no longer applied) and fell to the vice. Not sure why you discount the possibility that the primary motivations of cold turkey quitting heroin were the elimination of easy access to heroin and the stigma of living the rest of their lives as heroin addicts.
Prison for drug use is cruel punishment, but therapy & community service (hello Portugal) are entirely reasonable (and effective!) approaches to the problem.
Prison for drug use is cruel punishment, but therapy & community service (hello Portugal) are entirely reasonable (and effective!) approaches to the problem.
I mean, that is in the word "decriminalisation". The idea being that it's not criminal anymore, but that's as far as we go.
[deleted]
See also Switzerland.
Illegality of drugs results in riskier behaviours (ie. hiding that you're using, using alone) that result in higher chances of overdose. Decriminalization is thought to yield safer use of drugs that will reduce deaths.
There is also a broader issue of stigma. If the illegal stigma around drug use goes away, and addictions are treated more like a medical issue, it is thought that it will be more normalized for drug users to get help instead of shying away.
On the opposite side there is also a stigma around medical professionals helping "addicts" that are breaking the law and many doctors are reluctant to touch these sort of health issues with a 10 foot pole. Decriminalization could help do away with this problem and pave the way to prescription of a safe supply of drugs.
Drug users having a prescribed safe supply of drugs is the ultimate solution to the core problem here of a utterly toxic drug supply.
There is also a broader issue of stigma. If the illegal stigma around drug use goes away, and addictions are treated more like a medical issue, it is thought that it will be more normalized for drug users to get help instead of shying away.
On the opposite side there is also a stigma around medical professionals helping "addicts" that are breaking the law and many doctors are reluctant to touch these sort of health issues with a 10 foot pole. Decriminalization could help do away with this problem and pave the way to prescription of a safe supply of drugs.
Drug users having a prescribed safe supply of drugs is the ultimate solution to the core problem here of a utterly toxic drug supply.
It depends on which version of "decriminalization" one subscribes to. If it means not locking people up for possession then that can keep people out of the prison cycle. It means people will be less afraid to ask for help with their addictions. But if decriminalization means all drugs can be openly bought and sold, THAT won't help. Marijuana is one thing, but allowing carfentanil or rohypnol to be easily acquired by all would end very badly.
The idiots mixing in the Fent might actually use a scale if simply having one isn't another charge upgrade etc
[deleted]
It's important to remember that this is what the mortality looks like after all the measures that were put in place to protect against covid. I.e. after repeated reasonably strict lock-downs, masks, travel restrictions, and so on and so forth. The increase in alcohol and drug deaths shouldn't be compared to the number of covid deaths that did occur to judge those measures, but to the number of covid deaths that didn't.
Very true. But at some point the public discourse and public health policy must consider tradeoffs.
A. Lockdowns have costs. Deficits that will take decades to pay off. Lives lost to alcohol and depression. Economic hardship. A lost education year. Etc.
B. The pandemic has vastly different risk profiles for different age groups. At an extreme, under 20s have 1/1000 fatality risk compared to over 70s. It is fundamentally faulty to design a blanket one size fits all policy under such circumstances.
A. Lockdowns have costs. Deficits that will take decades to pay off. Lives lost to alcohol and depression. Economic hardship. A lost education year. Etc.
B. The pandemic has vastly different risk profiles for different age groups. At an extreme, under 20s have 1/1000 fatality risk compared to over 70s. It is fundamentally faulty to design a blanket one size fits all policy under such circumstances.
I'm not arguing against comparing different policies, I'm just pre-emptively pointing out a flawed way of interpreting the data. You can see people trying to interpret it that way elsewhere in this thread already... for example in the math in this (now flagged dead, not by me) comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28342601
Neither of your points A or B are at all discussed in this data, nor are they responsive to my comment. I'd classify them as largely off topic and I'm not going to respond past pointing that out. The data at hand does not discuss financial costs of either lockdowns or letting people get sick. Does not compare risks between different age groups (apart from giving number of deaths under 65). Does not discuss policy ideas. Etc.
Neither of your points A or B are at all discussed in this data, nor are they responsive to my comment. I'd classify them as largely off topic and I'm not going to respond past pointing that out. The data at hand does not discuss financial costs of either lockdowns or letting people get sick. Does not compare risks between different age groups (apart from giving number of deaths under 65). Does not discuss policy ideas. Etc.
The data points that A and B exist and are worthy of further consideration. The data is likely too noisy to draw further conclusions. Perhaps in your neck of woods things are different, but on USA West Coast there is near zero public discussion of either cost tradeoffs or age groups.
What are some of the options?
Instead of having blanket lockdowns for everyone, reserve certain hours or days for at-risk people. A few of the stores near me, like Target and Wal-Mart, were closed from 7-9 am every day unless you were a senior citizen. That seems like a better solution than restaurants and non-essential stores being forced to close down 24/7.
I went to a local mall a few days ago, and the amount of stores that went out of business because of the lockdowns is rediculous. I wouldn't be suprised if the whole mall has to close down soon, there's no way it's profitable to keep it running with 2-3 snack vendors and a couple of barber shops / nail salons being the major businesses left.
I went to a local mall a few days ago, and the amount of stores that went out of business because of the lockdowns is rediculous. I wouldn't be suprised if the whole mall has to close down soon, there's no way it's profitable to keep it running with 2-3 snack vendors and a couple of barber shops / nail salons being the major businesses left.
Seems like this would just make it so there would be no hospital beds available for non-covid things no? Unless maybe Canada has a few times more hospitals / beds per capita than the US?
It does not, and any discussion of whether certain public health measures should've been implemented should take that into consideration. Toronto-area hospitals were literally sending ICU patients to smaller cities because their own wards were overflowing. Moreover, attrition rates among clinicians (nurses especially) has been atrocious over the past year or so. People are only willing to put up with so much shit for so long, and most provincial systems have zero slack at the moment.
That said, measures like GP described were/are in play in many cities. Seniors time was a fixture in the first few months of the pandemic, especially in smaller areas that did not experience a large caseload.
That's another point too: I think a lot of HN commenters are unaware of just how fragmented and regional the Canadian healthcare system is. No two provinces implemented the same restrictions or policies at the same time, and only a couple put in strict stay-at-home style lockdowns. Note how the article mentions large increases in both Ontario (lax policies, then sudden strict lockdowns) with Alberta (very few restrictions). Even in Ontario, walking outside the biggest few cities would result in an immediate drop of most of the strict measures present in, say, the GTA. I know it's hard to capture this nuance discussing with strangers on some random online forum, but it's essential if we are to properly discuss cause and effect.
That said, measures like GP described were/are in play in many cities. Seniors time was a fixture in the first few months of the pandemic, especially in smaller areas that did not experience a large caseload.
That's another point too: I think a lot of HN commenters are unaware of just how fragmented and regional the Canadian healthcare system is. No two provinces implemented the same restrictions or policies at the same time, and only a couple put in strict stay-at-home style lockdowns. Note how the article mentions large increases in both Ontario (lax policies, then sudden strict lockdowns) with Alberta (very few restrictions). Even in Ontario, walking outside the biggest few cities would result in an immediate drop of most of the strict measures present in, say, the GTA. I know it's hard to capture this nuance discussing with strangers on some random online forum, but it's essential if we are to properly discuss cause and effect.
On the other hand the accurate comparison should be QALYs not deaths. Even leaving aside quality impacts, a 40 year old dying from lockdown-induced alcohol overdose loses far more life years than a 70 year old dying from no-lockdown COVID.
It is a good metric, but it comes off a bit callously, and if you're going to get into the weeds there you might need to consider that one persons years are not used as well as others by many metrics, so how do you calculate that? Income per year on average? Children reared? Discretionary spending as a judge to how well someone enjoyed their life?
I'd say stopping at number of deaths is a better metric.
I'd say stopping at number of deaths is a better metric.
QALY isn’t perfect (or even especially good), but it’s clearly better than number of deaths.
If it's so clear why don't you draw a picture as to why.
Because saving someone who’s 95 years old and about to keel over isn’t, on expectation, as valuable as saving someone who’s 5 years old and has a whole life ahead of them.
If you think a 70 year old dying is anywhere near as bad as a 10 year old dying, I don't know what to say to you.
Unfortunately, I don’t think we have any definitive answer as to what those measures really did to prevent covid deaths, nor do i think will we ever (eg: the recent debate on sweden handling of covid)
I don’t think you can ever get anything definitive. But if you compare Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. All in the same region, with very similar cultures, similar diets, similar language, etc etc
You can see the difference clear enough to make inferences.
There were a lot of people in the scientific community, Perhaps the majority, suggested Sweden’s method was superior to what many other countries were doing.
The fact is, people are effectively believing what they want. There wouldn’t be a need for censorship if the truth was clear.
You can see the difference clear enough to make inferences.
There were a lot of people in the scientific community, Perhaps the majority, suggested Sweden’s method was superior to what many other countries were doing.
The fact is, people are effectively believing what they want. There wouldn’t be a need for censorship if the truth was clear.
You could compare the relative performance of US states for an even better comparator, eg Florida and Texas. I know they are in the news now, but they’ve been open all year and performed better than many more restricted states.
Sweden is apparently much more dense in the cities, has larger cities, bigger migrant population etc so apparently making comparisons across Scandinavia isn’t as helpful as you would expect.
Sweden is apparently much more dense in the cities, has larger cities, bigger migrant population etc so apparently making comparisons across Scandinavia isn’t as helpful as you would expect.
The clarity presupposes that 'cumulative covid deaths / million' is the ultimate measure of a society's worth and achievement. We are incredibly focused on this one metric, to the expense of literally everything else.
Indeed. Restrictions and deaths seem very loosely correlated. For the most part they delayed things, but there is surprisingly little evidence that the cure is better than the disease.
I definitely don't think we have a definitive answer yet.
I think one day you might be able to get a good definitiveish answer. For instance, you can assume that everyone gets covid in the "no measures" case, and extrapolate death rates using serosurveillance to get the portion of the population infected in reality. Once Covid is "over" you can see the number of people who died in reality.
There will always be all sorts of errors in such an estimate. From bad data, to things like death rate depending on your assumptions about variants, vaccines, and the make up of the population. But once we get the "how we did in the end numbers" it's plausible that we can make some sort of comparison to "how we could have done".
I think one day you might be able to get a good definitiveish answer. For instance, you can assume that everyone gets covid in the "no measures" case, and extrapolate death rates using serosurveillance to get the portion of the population infected in reality. Once Covid is "over" you can see the number of people who died in reality.
There will always be all sorts of errors in such an estimate. From bad data, to things like death rate depending on your assumptions about variants, vaccines, and the make up of the population. But once we get the "how we did in the end numbers" it's plausible that we can make some sort of comparison to "how we could have done".
It's also important to remember that scientifically it's unclear whether lockdowns even reduce covid mortality.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... found "full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality."
That's exactly what I was thinking, one way to get a estimate of this number would be to compare per capita infections and deaths with a country with somewhat similar demographics that had no real lockdown measures to see roughly how many lives were saved. The Netherlands comes to mind.
Another way to do it would he to compare only the under 65 per capita infection rate in a similar country (could also be Netherlands) that had no lockdown and use the mortality rate for that demographic in the first country (which would be Canada in this case) and determine roughly how many lives were saved.
Another way to do it would he to compare only the under 65 per capita infection rate in a similar country (could also be Netherlands) that had no lockdown and use the mortality rate for that demographic in the first country (which would be Canada in this case) and determine roughly how many lives were saved.
Since viruses tend to become less deadly overtime to the host. You have no idea if it was better to let COVID run, and people develop natural immunity.
The delta variant in India is much more infectious, but also much less deadly to the population there. Exactly the change you expect a virus to make overtime, since killing the host tends to end the viruses ability to spread. Its turning into cold, or mild flue.
This virus was only ever a real threat to the elderly, who still control most of the wealth, and vote in large numbers. What you're seeing is politics of self preservation of the eldest generation on the way out, at the expense the younger generations. Much like hoarding resources, they continue to quench to life. At some point younger people will rebel if this continues.
The real threat is return to authoritarianism. It has killed tens of millions in the last century.
The delta variant in India is much more infectious, but also much less deadly to the population there. Exactly the change you expect a virus to make overtime, since killing the host tends to end the viruses ability to spread. Its turning into cold, or mild flue.
This virus was only ever a real threat to the elderly, who still control most of the wealth, and vote in large numbers. What you're seeing is politics of self preservation of the eldest generation on the way out, at the expense the younger generations. Much like hoarding resources, they continue to quench to life. At some point younger people will rebel if this continues.
The real threat is return to authoritarianism. It has killed tens of millions in the last century.
Exactly. We created the TSA, Patriot Act and spent billions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We can’t compare the costs to the deaths we’ve had from terrorism since (zero) we need to compare it to all the terrorism deaths that were prevented.
See why that’s a bad argument?
We can’t compare the costs to the deaths we’ve had from terrorism since (zero) we need to compare it to all the terrorism deaths that were prevented.
See why that’s a bad argument?
> Based on the newly updated provisional dataset released today from the Canadian Vital Statistics Death Database, from the end of March 2020 to the beginning of April 2021, an estimated 62,203 deaths were reported among Canadians aged 0 to 64. This represents 5,535 more deaths than expected were there no pandemic, after accounting for changes in the population such as aging. Over the same period, 1,380 COVID-19 deaths have been attributed to the same age group (those younger than 65), suggesting that the excess mortality is, in large part, related to other factors such as increases in the number deaths attributed to causes associated with substance use and misuse, including unintentional (accidental) poisonings and diseases and conditions related to alcohol consumption.
The summary is the lock downs resulted in +4,155 excess deaths under 65 for 2020?
Thats pretty damning for the government and a confirmation of what anti-lock down protesters have been saying since last year.
If they let under 65s free while sheltering the vulnerable and keeping mask and distance protocol would there be 4x the covid deaths, probably not.
And we could have avoided the ~$400+ billion dollar deficit.
Thats pretty damning for the government and a confirmation of what anti-lock down protesters have been saying since last year.
If they let under 65s free while sheltering the vulnerable and keeping mask and distance protocol would there be 4x the covid deaths, probably not.
And we could have avoided the ~$400+ billion dollar deficit.
It's not immediately obvious that the excess deaths are lockdown related deaths. There's also a growing overdose epidemic among that age group, for example.
It's well supported that the combination of lock down isolation[1] in addition to the free CERB money resulted in the spike of drug abuse / suicide deaths[2].
[1] https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-coronavirus-is-killing-thousa...
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cerb-pandemic-opioid-addict...
...
And I don't believe we have even begun to see the psychological / developmental effects of isolation and distance learning on young kids.
[1] https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-coronavirus-is-killing-thousa...
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cerb-pandemic-opioid-addict...
...
And I don't believe we have even begun to see the psychological / developmental effects of isolation and distance learning on young kids.
No, it's absolutely not well supported that deaths by suicide have increased.
I mean, from your own link:
> We don’t have data that the lockdowns are causing more suicides,
I mean, from your own link:
> We don’t have data that the lockdowns are causing more suicides,
But we can see the impact of those who has become orphans because of COVID. I prefer your armchair problems any day
The results of the study are that more orphans were created by the lockdowns than covid.
The study doesn’t say those who die because of their addiction during lockdown were parents.
I would guess that people who are socially isolated and unemployed are more likely to engage in drug abuse.
I believe that increasing trend in overdose deaths was accounted for in the excess mortality calculation used in the article.
That's not what it says at all. This is preliminary and no conclusions have been made. It could be that 4155 COVID deaths were not properly tested and incorrectly categorized.
I disagree. The paper goes into some details explaining how many deaths are due to alcohol abuse vs. poisoning etc. They also have a list of conditions that they associate with the various causes of death. For example, if somebody dies of alcoholic gastritis, they classify the death as alcohol-related.
Now, like all estimates, I am sure there are errors, but it's not like they haven't done their homework.
There isn't enough data in the paper to blame the lockdown per se, however. E.g., it could be that the media fear-mongering is driving people crazy more than usual. There is no way to tell.
Now, like all estimates, I am sure there are errors, but it's not like they haven't done their homework.
There isn't enough data in the paper to blame the lockdown per se, however. E.g., it could be that the media fear-mongering is driving people crazy more than usual. There is no way to tell.
[deleted]
Yeah, restrictions in Canada varied by region and shifted on and off, so it would take a lot more analysis to say one way or the other.
There could actually be way less covid deaths due to improper testing.
I'm glad people are finally admitting that there could be problems with covid testing.
I'm glad people are finally admitting that there could be problems with covid testing.
An unfortunately very anti certain-narratives title.
Thank you gc.ca for covering something with hard fact. Living in another country with statistically provable damage driven by recent policy (that by scale is demonstrably larger than the benefit) it's a difficult position to hold even with data as you will be called alarmist, heartless or nonsensical.
It's very unfortunate to read this, I wonder does anyone know does Canada's policy on marijuana at all correlate with this recent problem (akin to Scotland thinking relaxing drugs policy wouldn't be making things worse) or is this driven by other causes?
(Genuine question sorry, did some quick googling but I must be getting tired I'm getting conflicting information)
Thank you gc.ca for covering something with hard fact. Living in another country with statistically provable damage driven by recent policy (that by scale is demonstrably larger than the benefit) it's a difficult position to hold even with data as you will be called alarmist, heartless or nonsensical.
It's very unfortunate to read this, I wonder does anyone know does Canada's policy on marijuana at all correlate with this recent problem (akin to Scotland thinking relaxing drugs policy wouldn't be making things worse) or is this driven by other causes?
(Genuine question sorry, did some quick googling but I must be getting tired I'm getting conflicting information)
Canadian here - I don't know of any data that addresses your question about marijuana, and I'm not even really sure what that data would look like. Could you give an example of data on this topic that might be interesting?
My gut feeling is probably not, legalizing marijuana definitely made marijuana more popular, but I haven't seen any reason to believe it's increasing the popularity of still illegal drugs or alcohol (the sources of these deaths). If anything I would expect that it competes with them (but again have no data to back that up).
My gut feeling is probably not, legalizing marijuana definitely made marijuana more popular, but I haven't seen any reason to believe it's increasing the popularity of still illegal drugs or alcohol (the sources of these deaths). If anything I would expect that it competes with them (but again have no data to back that up).
Thanks for letting me know.
Not sure what data would show that, maybe if there was a strong increase associated in time with legal drug policy change(s)? Other than that, I suppose a link between prosecutions and deaths...
I worry that lockdowns haven't helped situations like this, but saying that is... inflammatory...
Not sure what data would show that, maybe if there was a strong increase associated in time with legal drug policy change(s)? Other than that, I suppose a link between prosecutions and deaths...
I worry that lockdowns haven't helped situations like this, but saying that is... inflammatory...
Total Deaths in Ontario:
2019-2020* 115,126
2018-2019 109,019
And the overall death rate is roughly inline with the population growth, which is about 1.7 percent and normal variation. If official number of COVID deaths is accurate. 9,400 people died of COVID in Ontario.
Assuming those 9,400 deaths were all in the ICU and none at home or palliative care. There are 400 hospitals in the Province. So average of COVID deaths per hospital/per year is 9400/400 = 23.5
I can easily see how 23 more people in a community serviced by a hospital could have committed suicide due to drug abuse over losing their business, job, or livelihood or just being locked up with nothing else to do but think.
2019-2020* 115,126
2018-2019 109,019
And the overall death rate is roughly inline with the population growth, which is about 1.7 percent and normal variation. If official number of COVID deaths is accurate. 9,400 people died of COVID in Ontario.
Assuming those 9,400 deaths were all in the ICU and none at home or palliative care. There are 400 hospitals in the Province. So average of COVID deaths per hospital/per year is 9400/400 = 23.5
I can easily see how 23 more people in a community serviced by a hospital could have committed suicide due to drug abuse over losing their business, job, or livelihood or just being locked up with nothing else to do but think.
Correction: Under-65 excess mortality exceeds under-65 Covid-19 deaths.
That resolves an ambiguity; it's not particularly charitable to call it a 'correction' though, IMO.
Also, I know it's not standard, but this almost wants a '(July)' (or even April?) in the title. Not to mention that it's not the original title.. but then, much like a tweet, the submitter's just trying to call out the relevant/intended part of a much broader page.
Also, I know it's not standard, but this almost wants a '(July)' (or even April?) in the title. Not to mention that it's not the original title.. but then, much like a tweet, the submitter's just trying to call out the relevant/intended part of a much broader page.
Fair. Luckily there is an edit button :)
[deleted]
Extended lockdowns were always QALY negative for populations under 60. The destruction from this panic will manifest over decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
You’re comparing mortality rates with lockdowns and determining that we’d be better off without lockdowns. But your benchmark then needs to be covid19 mortality without lockdowns and with potential healthcare collapse.
You're absolutely right, thankfully we have countries that didn't really do lockdowns aside from closing borders like Sweden and Netherlands, countries with similar demographics as far as genetics and comorbidity, so we can get an estimation of that number if we like.
Completely uncomparable cultures, it does not remotely make sense to draw parallels between these countries.
I wouldn't argue that a European diaspora country were that culturally unrelated to a European country. Completely incomparable is a stretch.
But the culture isn't what we are comparing. What we are looking for is the comorbidities in the age range of 0-65 in both countries. They have similar climate ranges, similar eating habits, similar healthcare systems, similar genetics, etc. So we should expect that under similar covid contingencies we would get similar mortality in that age group. We wouldn't of course get exact equal values, at the very least random variance would introduce some discrepancy, but we can get a very good idea of what would've happened to that age range in Canada had there been no lockdown measures.
But the culture isn't what we are comparing. What we are looking for is the comorbidities in the age range of 0-65 in both countries. They have similar climate ranges, similar eating habits, similar healthcare systems, similar genetics, etc. So we should expect that under similar covid contingencies we would get similar mortality in that age group. We wouldn't of course get exact equal values, at the very least random variance would introduce some discrepancy, but we can get a very good idea of what would've happened to that age range in Canada had there been no lockdown measures.
potential health care collapse and also more deaths due to covid in that population and more long covid symptoms that further tax the health care system not to mention quality of life moving forward. there is no way to know for sure since by nature you can't control for it and test it but I'd suspect that there was a net benefit to the lockdowns.
>potential healthcare collapse
Hate to break the news to you but the Canadian healthcare system collapsed a long time before Corona. Just ask anyone who has been to a hospital in Toronto before Corona.
Hate to break the news to you but the Canadian healthcare system collapsed a long time before Corona. Just ask anyone who has been to a hospital in Toronto before Corona.
Doesn't Canada have one of the best healthcare systems in the world? If that how "collapsing" looks like to you, you might need to adjust your worldview.
The problem here is mostly the lack of available nurses and doctors, who have to pull insane shifts to compensate. Hospitals are also very concentrated in urban areas. Canada has 30% less nurses per capita than the US.
You obviously haven't been to a hospital in Toronto in the last 10 years. Go visit St Joes, you walk in and take a ticket like you're at the butchers. The ticket is to get in line for administration. After administration you wait 12 hours for someone to see you. Just peek through the emerg doors and you see people in hallways lying in beds. The Canadian medical system is shit compared to the US medical system.
Disclaimer: EXPAT who has used both.
Disclaimer: EXPAT who has used both.
I'm also an expat who's used both. No doubt the Canadian healthcare system has problems, but... I saw similar things and experienced similar wait times in American hospitals (Seattle), and then had the privilege of paying thousands of dollars for it.
There's a serious problem of a widespread lack of access to family doctors, ER overcrowding, and extremely long EMT response times.
At least, there is in BC. Each province manages health care as they see fit.
At least, there is in BC. Each province manages health care as they see fit.
No.
Based on what? Your hunch?
This ranking says it's 24 in the world, after excluding microstates (anything under 1 million people): https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/best-heal...
This ranking says it's 24 in the world, after excluding microstates (anything under 1 million people): https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/best-heal...
I have been to Toronto hospitals. My only complaint is with the admissions clerks who take your info and are very slow about doing it.
I've been to hospitals in Toronto pre-covid. Nothing but good things to say. I've always been able to see a doctor quickly. When imaging was needed it was available quickly. Etc.
I'm told that the wait time for very-specialized specialists is unreasonable long (and believe it), but the general standard of care here is very good.
I'm told that the wait time for very-specialized specialists is unreasonable long (and believe it), but the general standard of care here is very good.
Unless you are about to die in the next month imaging can take month.. there is a reason why there was a pile of clinics in Buffalo that used to cater to Canadians. You drive across get your CT done get a CD then drive back. Alternatively you wait 2 month. Now you are just fucked
Or you can “know” people then you can get it done tomorrow.
Or you can “know” people then you can get it done tomorrow.
I don't "know" people, connections have never played a role in the healthcare I received (except the lack of them I suppose). This is simply not my experience. I'll go over me actual experiences:
1. Potential appendicitis. Got a cat scan within hours of arriving at the hospital. Admittedly if this was actual appendicitis it would be a "about to die in the next month without surgery" situation (turned out not to be).
2. Weird long term issue relating to alcohol causing a literal pain in my side (sharp pain, relatively minor). Completely non-urgent, this existed since I first drank alcohol and the most likely explanation is that "some peoples bodies just don't like alcohol".
The doctor first asked for a ultrasound to diagnose that, no appointment necessary, literally walked into the ultrasound place, gave them the paperwork, got an ultrasound, walked out in under 20 minutes.
Ultrasound from that didn't end up turning up anything useful, so the doctor asked for a chess x-ray. This time an appointment was necessary, I made it via phone that night. A spot was available the next day. Again I walked in, got an x-ray, and left in under 20 minutes.
Various other tests (e.g. bloodwork for a few things) followed a similar pattern.
I do live in Toronto, and these experiences were downtown (the non-hospital imaging was all done in the kensington health building, I think the hospital was east general), which has a higher concentration of health services than most of Ontario/Canada.
1. Potential appendicitis. Got a cat scan within hours of arriving at the hospital. Admittedly if this was actual appendicitis it would be a "about to die in the next month without surgery" situation (turned out not to be).
2. Weird long term issue relating to alcohol causing a literal pain in my side (sharp pain, relatively minor). Completely non-urgent, this existed since I first drank alcohol and the most likely explanation is that "some peoples bodies just don't like alcohol".
The doctor first asked for a ultrasound to diagnose that, no appointment necessary, literally walked into the ultrasound place, gave them the paperwork, got an ultrasound, walked out in under 20 minutes.
Ultrasound from that didn't end up turning up anything useful, so the doctor asked for a chess x-ray. This time an appointment was necessary, I made it via phone that night. A spot was available the next day. Again I walked in, got an x-ray, and left in under 20 minutes.
Various other tests (e.g. bloodwork for a few things) followed a similar pattern.
I do live in Toronto, and these experiences were downtown (the non-hospital imaging was all done in the kensington health building, I think the hospital was east general), which has a higher concentration of health services than most of Ontario/Canada.
[deleted]
> Hate to break the news to you but the Canadian healthcare system collapsed a long time before Corona. Just ask anyone who has been to a hospital in Toronto before Corona.
And the solution for an already collapsed health system is to overload it even more with a pandemic, right?
And the solution for an already collapsed health system is to overload it even more with a pandemic, right?
"A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit." It's interesting how the same crowd that once chanted this in favor of action on global warming etc. is the crowd that wanted everyone locked down or restricted until grandma's (or more recently immuocompromised or even kids) at 0% risk regardless of the second-order consequences.
A society grows great when people care about others.
Which isn't a one-way street.
That's pretty trite to state in the context of the information presented in this article. Evidently, insufficient care was given, and perhaps concern had been misplaced.
Kind of understating things here. There's a toxic drug crisis in this country and it has killed thousands upon thousands in recent years. This was happening well before the pandemic.
Literally 5 people every day in British Columbia are dying due to overdoses, directly related from the fact that the drugs are poisoned, not what they appear, and it has become impossible to ascertain a correct dosage.
This should be an election issue (Canada is having an election issue atm) but sadly it won't be. BC's health officer, who everyone has listened to during this pandemic, has begged the Federal government (the Province and City of Vancouver also begging) to decriminalize drugs to help with this issue, but the Feds have done nothing.