The pandemic’s true death toll(economist.com)
economist.com
The pandemic’s true death toll
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates
43 comments
Mind that this is still very much a blurry picture. On the one hand, thanks to social distancing and masks, we've seen significantly fewer severe cases of flu, even to the point that some suggest that certain strains may have gone extinct. So these numbers would really reflect how much worse SARS COVID-2 is than last seasons' flu. On the other hand, there's also a number of deaths related to restricted access to health infrastructure and to habitual change, which is hard to account for. (E.g., I've read somewhere that the number of fatal car accidents in the US increased due to less traffic and higher average driving speeds, and there are probably many other indirectly correlated scenarios.) However, considering both, I think these numbers are still low.
In the US there was a 7% increase in traffic fatalities from 36,096 in 2019 to 38,680 in 2020.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show...
How? This is very counter intuitive.
My insurance halved this year because there was 60% less accidents in my country. During first few lockdowns there were almost no cars out on the road.
My insurance halved this year because there was 60% less accidents in my country. During first few lockdowns there were almost no cars out on the road.
"NHTSA’s analysis shows that the main behaviors that drove this increase include: impaired driving, speeding and failure to wear a seat belt.”
Alcohol consumption increased during 2020.
https://www.rand.org/news/press/2020/09/29.html
Less traffic meant that drivers could go faster.
Alcohol consumption increased during 2020.
https://www.rand.org/news/press/2020/09/29.html
Less traffic meant that drivers could go faster.
I guess, this is closely related to US-specifcic car infrastructure. Look up the term "stroad". (It's also hard to reproduce, where I live.)
The thing about excess deaths that I hope we can all appreciate is that it is not a political measure. We can argue about if those deaths were caused by COVID or by the response to it. But we can’t argue about the magnitude of the catastrophe overall. The body bags don’t lie.
Oh, you will find plenty of people that are more than happy to argue about the magnitude of body bags. We are no longer bound by the strictures of objective facts.
What about deaths due to smoking or obesity? Should we ban bacon and cigarettes?
"Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 7 million deaths per year. If the pattern of smoking all over the globe doesn't change, more than 8 million people a year will die from diseases related to tobacco use by 2030.Mar. 23, 2020"
"Obesity has reached epidemic proportions globally, with at least 2.8 million people dying each year as a result of being overweight or obese. Once associated with high-income countries, obesity is now also prevalent in low- and middle-income countries.Jun. 9, 2021"
"Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 7 million deaths per year. If the pattern of smoking all over the globe doesn't change, more than 8 million people a year will die from diseases related to tobacco use by 2030.Mar. 23, 2020"
"Obesity has reached epidemic proportions globally, with at least 2.8 million people dying each year as a result of being overweight or obese. Once associated with high-income countries, obesity is now also prevalent in low- and middle-income countries.Jun. 9, 2021"
Relevance?
Well, not that I remotely agree with the ridiculous overreaction to COVID, world-wide, nor do I think any of this is reasonable, but you can’t give somebody smoking or obesity by sneezing on them - you can with Coronavirus. So it’s still apples to oranges.
Isn't it probable that people most at risk are also more likely to spread the virus? They would shed much more virus, wouldn't they? So it's not so simple, someone who has a better functioning immune system represents a lesser risk to others. Is there a counterargument? I do recall some studies acknowledge this, but I don't have a reference.
Yes - the counter argument is that people who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic (think seasonal allergies or “it’s just a cold”) will go about their lives as normal. And this, for many, involves not washing hands after using the restroom, mild coughing and sneezing into their hand and touching things, and spreading germs through close conversations.
There were always people at the office that showed up with a fever, clearly exposing everyone on the bus and at the office, but for a large number of people, this is just one that we would have pushed through.
If you get covid with moderate symptoms, you (hopefully) stay home. People with severe symptoms go to the hospital or die. You don’t need to worry about those people being super spreaders. It’s the people that push through or feel mild symptoms and carry on without thought that are giving it to others, and those in turn may accidentally give it to the most vulnerable in their bubble.
And I hope when you or I get it, that it does feel just like a cold - or is even asymptomatic. But I know that for some percentage of the world it is not, and it will kill them.
This is probably too simple, but: Transmission = infectiousness x interactions. In your example, People with weak immune systems, who are more infectious, are less likely to have interactions.
There were always people at the office that showed up with a fever, clearly exposing everyone on the bus and at the office, but for a large number of people, this is just one that we would have pushed through.
If you get covid with moderate symptoms, you (hopefully) stay home. People with severe symptoms go to the hospital or die. You don’t need to worry about those people being super spreaders. It’s the people that push through or feel mild symptoms and carry on without thought that are giving it to others, and those in turn may accidentally give it to the most vulnerable in their bubble.
And I hope when you or I get it, that it does feel just like a cold - or is even asymptomatic. But I know that for some percentage of the world it is not, and it will kill them.
This is probably too simple, but: Transmission = infectiousness x interactions. In your example, People with weak immune systems, who are more infectious, are less likely to have interactions.
We did ban smoking in public spaces because of the same reasoning as with Covid - it's ok to do dumb things that affect yourself, but not if it affects others.
Why don't we ban driving? We'd save a lot of lives lost to car crashes. And a lot of those lives are passengers and pedestrians, i.e., "others".
Driving is heavily regulated in terms of what kind of cars are legal and how and where they can be operated. Its just a matter of degrees and cost/benefit as assessed by the public. We don't ban driving outright but be ban all kinds of automotive use.
> Its just a matter of degrees and cost/benefit as assessed by the public.
That's the point, though: COVID lockdowns happened even though much of the public said the benefits of locking down weren't worth the costs.
That's the point, though: COVID lockdowns happened even though much of the public said the benefits of locking down weren't worth the costs.
> much of the public
Was it at least half of the public, though? Just because cars are a less contentious subject doesn't mean that public opinion doesn't ultimately dictate how they are regulated.
Was it at least half of the public, though? Just because cars are a less contentious subject doesn't mean that public opinion doesn't ultimately dictate how they are regulated.
Because the modern world depends on the automobile, and from a utilitarian point of view the modern world has still had a positive effect on life expectancy.
Car culture should not be a foregone conclusion, though -- you are right about that. Many European nations -- the Netherlands being the typical example -- have done a pretty good job of fostering a bike culture in their cities. But us Americans sure love our cars, and so it's ultimately a political question, not a moral one.
Car culture should not be a foregone conclusion, though -- you are right about that. Many European nations -- the Netherlands being the typical example -- have done a pretty good job of fostering a bike culture in their cities. But us Americans sure love our cars, and so it's ultimately a political question, not a moral one.
I find this thread quite amusing. Starting with covid we have examples of other things which cause large amounts of death, with the intention being to normalize these large-scale causes of mortality.
* Smoking: Is being phased out in much of the developed world, with various restrictions, taxes, etc
* Obesity: Widely recognized as a problem, with attempts such as sugar taxes, etc. Solutions are less widely agreed upon, but the fact that is a problem is not in question.
* Driving: Again, road toll is a known issue which we try to reduce. Driving itself should likely be reduced but the bigger motivation is climate related.
* Smoking: Is being phased out in much of the developed world, with various restrictions, taxes, etc
* Obesity: Widely recognized as a problem, with attempts such as sugar taxes, etc. Solutions are less widely agreed upon, but the fact that is a problem is not in question.
* Driving: Again, road toll is a known issue which we try to reduce. Driving itself should likely be reduced but the bigger motivation is climate related.
> Starting with covid we have examples of other things which cause large amounts of death, with the intention being to normalize these large-scale causes of mortality.
The intent isn't to normalize anything. The intent is to show that COVID is unique among things that cause large amounts of death in that for some reason, people are all too willing to sacrifice all of their freedom and privacy over it.
> * Driving: Again, road toll is a known issue which we try to reduce.
Yes, we try to reduce it. But not by saying "driving is illegal now because it kills people."
The intent isn't to normalize anything. The intent is to show that COVID is unique among things that cause large amounts of death in that for some reason, people are all too willing to sacrifice all of their freedom and privacy over it.
> * Driving: Again, road toll is a known issue which we try to reduce.
Yes, we try to reduce it. But not by saying "driving is illegal now because it kills people."
Can we just take a moment to appreciate the irony of saying that the measures against covid "don't justify the costs" when the article literally says more people have died (either directly from covid or indirectly) during the pandemic than from smoking/obesity/car accidents?
The number of deaths even is lower than it could've been because countries implemented all sorts of draconian measures until vaccinations rolled out, so y'all appear to be simultaneously arguing that there should be more covid deaths cus freedom and/or we should make larger sacrifices to economic activity for lesser causes.
Either way, it strikes me as a weak argument.
The number of deaths even is lower than it could've been because countries implemented all sorts of draconian measures until vaccinations rolled out, so y'all appear to be simultaneously arguing that there should be more covid deaths cus freedom and/or we should make larger sacrifices to economic activity for lesser causes.
Either way, it strikes me as a weak argument.
> more people have died (either directly from covid or indirectly) during the pandemic than from smoking/obesity/car accidents
The word "indirectly" is the key there. A lot of the excess deaths were because of the measures against COVID, such as cancer cases that went undiagnosed while they were treatable because people had to cancel their checkups, or methanol poisoning because everyone was suddenly manufacturing their own hand sanitizer, often unsafely.
The word "indirectly" is the key there. A lot of the excess deaths were because of the measures against COVID, such as cancer cases that went undiagnosed while they were treatable because people had to cancel their checkups, or methanol poisoning because everyone was suddenly manufacturing their own hand sanitizer, often unsafely.
"A lot" is a modifier you can put in the front of whatever factor supports a given narrative. A lot of people got turned away by overwhelmed hospital staff. A lot of people live in China. A lot of people died in India (which has poorer medical infrastructure than US). A lot of US Republicans died for not following CDC advice. A lot of covid deaths happened in short spiky bursts.
One can weave a quite different narrative from those points (one that supports policies like Australia's or China's, for example)
One can weave a quite different narrative from those points (one that supports policies like Australia's or China's, for example)
> A lot of the excess deaths were because of the measures against COVID, such as cancer cases that went undiagnosed while they were treatable because people had to cancel their checkups, or methanol poisoning because everyone was suddenly manufacturing their own hand sanitizer, often unsafely.
Such a claim simply beggars belief. Please cite some figures that back up your assertions.
Such a claim simply beggars belief. Please cite some figures that back up your assertions.
If everyone accepts the statistics, the argument usually moves to the counter-factuals.
TL;DR: they estimate 3.3x more deaths than official covid death reports (15.2 million excess deaths vs 4.5 million reported covid deaths)
I thought we were over counting, not under...
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-phe-accused-exaggerati...
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-phe-accused-exaggerati...
if 'we' means Public Health England, then you're correct. but other countries aren't reporting that way.
Excess deaths includes both deaths due to COVID itself and deaths due to society's response to it. We overcounted the former, but the presence of the latter more than makes up for that.
Twain's observation is timeless: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
The article you linked seems to be about the UK, specifically, and the reason to suspect over-counting of covid deaths in the UK is based on covid death comparisons with nearby countries.
The economist study is global, and is counting excess deaths during the pandemic, whether directly due to covid or not. In addition to the deaths we've counted from covid, there may be uncounted covid deaths, as well as deaths that happened because the hospitals were full, or people were avoiding going to the hospital, or because we've got an increase in drug & alcohol use during lockdowns.
The economist study is global, and is counting excess deaths during the pandemic, whether directly due to covid or not. In addition to the deaths we've counted from covid, there may be uncounted covid deaths, as well as deaths that happened because the hospitals were full, or people were avoiding going to the hospital, or because we've got an increase in drug & alcohol use during lockdowns.
> an increase in drug & alcohol use during lockdowns
The first wing to have been changed into a Covid wing in Colmar (First French hotspot for covid, pre-lockdown) was the addictology (don't know if its an english word) service, since it had with a lot of beds, small ventilators and IVs. My cousin's wife told me that most of her "regular" patients disappeared, whether they were in remission or not, and either students/young workers did not had alcohol poisoning anymore, or they stopped calling the hospital.
On the other hand, while they were a lot of death, some functioning addicts (again, is this understandable for English people?) stopped consuming during of lockdown. So i guess a mixed bag.
The first wing to have been changed into a Covid wing in Colmar (First French hotspot for covid, pre-lockdown) was the addictology (don't know if its an english word) service, since it had with a lot of beds, small ventilators and IVs. My cousin's wife told me that most of her "regular" patients disappeared, whether they were in remission or not, and either students/young workers did not had alcohol poisoning anymore, or they stopped calling the hospital.
On the other hand, while they were a lot of death, some functioning addicts (again, is this understandable for English people?) stopped consuming during of lockdown. So i guess a mixed bag.
I've wondered if the excess deaths due to covid could be contributing to the worker shortage we're seeing in many industries in the US. I believe we're at more than a million excess deaths in the US since the start of 2020, and while many of those were older people already out of the workforce, a significant number may be people who would otherwise be working in food service or retail.
I don’t think it’s significant, only ~21% of direct COVID deaths have been of people 18 to 65. Even if all the excess deaths not counted as COVID were of working age people (they’re not), the total would still be small compared to the millions out of work. If those low end jobs aren’t getting filled, it’s because the businesses aren’t offering enough to attract and keep workers (not just pay but also working conditions).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
Much bigger factor was that a lot of people who were in a debt trap got some breathing space and got better jobs. So they are not going back to killing themselves just to survive till next day.
If they got better jobs, then wouldn't the overall number of unfilled jobs be the same, since taking the new job would cancel out leaving the old one?
My aunt had some worrying health signs in February of 2020 and her doctor scheduled some scans to followup, to look for cancer.
The pandemic hit. All non-essential medical procedures were put on hold until further noticed. Hospitals were either too full or getting ready to become too full. Her scans got delayed.
This delayed finding the cancer, delayed chemo, delayed everything. She made it only a few days into 2021. If they had caught it just a little bit earlier, well, who knows what might have been.
She never caught covid-19. But I view her as a casualty of the pandemic.
And this is why excess deaths is a more important measure than how many corpses you can find virus particles in.
The pandemic hit. All non-essential medical procedures were put on hold until further noticed. Hospitals were either too full or getting ready to become too full. Her scans got delayed.
This delayed finding the cancer, delayed chemo, delayed everything. She made it only a few days into 2021. If they had caught it just a little bit earlier, well, who knows what might have been.
She never caught covid-19. But I view her as a casualty of the pandemic.
And this is why excess deaths is a more important measure than how many corpses you can find virus particles in.
I wonder how the data is handled when you take into account that some major countries may be deliberately reporting an incorrect number of deaths.
call up a few morgues and ask them if they buried more people during this "pandemic" or before it. I did and i stopped watching the news. I was in New York City and the fear porn news told us they where digging mas graves in central park. That along with so much other fake news turned out to be complete and utter lies.
Translation: You did an anecdotal survey of a handful of morgues in your area, and used that as confirmation of your pre-existing biases. What you say you did proves nothing about the scope of the pandemic beyond that the few morgues you specifically called hadn't buried more people.
Also, no one was digging mass graves in Central Park. But they were utilizing existing mass graves at a much accelerated rate on Hart Island, which has been used as a public cemetery for over 150 years, burying unclaimed people and those whose loved ones can’t afford private burials.
From an excerpt last summer:
> There are usually about 25 burials on the island each week ... that number has climbed to nearly 25 each day. ... Bodies are ordinarily held at the city’s morgues anywhere from 30 to 60 days ... But to make room for the influx of deceased individuals during the pandemic, the city’s medical examiner’s office announced a new policy of holding unclaimed bodies for only up to 15 days before they are transferred to the island.
I know it probably doesn't matter if for the specific poster this is in response to, but for anyone else reading this, more reading: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/will-we-e...
Also, no one was digging mass graves in Central Park. But they were utilizing existing mass graves at a much accelerated rate on Hart Island, which has been used as a public cemetery for over 150 years, burying unclaimed people and those whose loved ones can’t afford private burials.
From an excerpt last summer:
> There are usually about 25 burials on the island each week ... that number has climbed to nearly 25 each day. ... Bodies are ordinarily held at the city’s morgues anywhere from 30 to 60 days ... But to make room for the influx of deceased individuals during the pandemic, the city’s medical examiner’s office announced a new policy of holding unclaimed bodies for only up to 15 days before they are transferred to the island.
I know it probably doesn't matter if for the specific poster this is in response to, but for anyone else reading this, more reading: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/will-we-e...