Estimated cumulative excess deaths during Covid, World(ourworldindata.org)
ourworldindata.org
Estimated cumulative excess deaths during Covid, World
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-economist-single-entity
150 comments
That complexity was pretty ruthlessly exploited here in the US by groups that wanted to downplay the issue and end mitigation efforts. Endless takes on "well actually they didn't die of COVID they already had $co-morbidity-x or $co-morbidity-y and that's what REALLY killed them".
The point is valid. The risks of COVID-19 to people who did not have serious co-morbidities was continuously overstated. This led to measurable misunderstandings among normal people as to the actual risk.
https://catalyst.independent.org/2021/03/24/americans-misinf...
https://catalyst.independent.org/2021/03/24/americans-misinf...
> This led to measurable misunderstandings among normal people as to the actual risk.
You say "normal people" as if not having co-morbidities is more common. But large swathes of the population are old, obese, have asthma or some other co-morbidity.
You say "normal people" as if not having co-morbidities is more common. But large swathes of the population are old, obese, have asthma or some other co-morbidity.
Apparently despite those large swaths, the actual rate of hospitalization (at least as of September of 2021) is dramatically lower than most people expect.
Why do you think that is?
Why do you think that is?
> 71.6% of adults aged 20 and over are overweight, including obesity. Nearly 40% of American adults aged 20 and over are obese.
You're making my point. The data is from the US.
Somehow, despite high rates of that specific comorbidity, the data shows Americans are hospitalized at dramatically lower rates than Americans estimate.
The post I replied to said:
> That complexity was pretty ruthlessly exploited here in the US by groups that wanted to downplay the issue [...]
Apparently it was not exploited too ruthlessly if surveys show people were still grossly overestimating COVID-19 severity in the population.
Does this result in better COVID-19 policies being made? Who is responsible for this disconnect between reality and what is perceived? How can we fix it?
Or does it even need fixing? Perhaps we'd save more lives if everyone were convinced half of COVID-19 cases were fatal.
Somehow, despite high rates of that specific comorbidity, the data shows Americans are hospitalized at dramatically lower rates than Americans estimate.
The post I replied to said:
> That complexity was pretty ruthlessly exploited here in the US by groups that wanted to downplay the issue [...]
Apparently it was not exploited too ruthlessly if surveys show people were still grossly overestimating COVID-19 severity in the population.
Does this result in better COVID-19 policies being made? Who is responsible for this disconnect between reality and what is perceived? How can we fix it?
Or does it even need fixing? Perhaps we'd save more lives if everyone were convinced half of COVID-19 cases were fatal.
Likewise, certain US groups who pointed to total deaths not only ignored comorbidities but also that the average age of death for a Covid victim is past the average age of life expectancy.
They then and still are trying to push vaccines on cohorts that absolutely do not need them (see numerous EU countries who are not doing this).
On top of that, they managed to convince many US citizens that vaccines prevented transmission as part of their efforts to force vaccines on everyone. Go check some past HN threads for a wild ride!
Bonus points are awarded for obesity being a major risk factor that we’ve done 0 to address post Covid despite the absolutely massive benefits we’d see from it - Id wager far outstripping masking or vaccinating. Externalities for thee but not for me, I guess.
They then and still are trying to push vaccines on cohorts that absolutely do not need them (see numerous EU countries who are not doing this).
On top of that, they managed to convince many US citizens that vaccines prevented transmission as part of their efforts to force vaccines on everyone. Go check some past HN threads for a wild ride!
Bonus points are awarded for obesity being a major risk factor that we’ve done 0 to address post Covid despite the absolutely massive benefits we’d see from it - Id wager far outstripping masking or vaccinating. Externalities for thee but not for me, I guess.
> Likewise, certain US groups who pointed to total deaths not only ignored comorbidities but also that the average age of death for a Covid victim is past the average age of life expectancy.
Did they ignore them, or were they just not devaluing the lives of the sick and elderly? If 10,000,000 people are dead that would otherwise be living, standing up and saying "but they were old or fat!" has a kind of asshole sting to it, no?
> They then and still are trying to push vaccines on cohorts that absolutely do not need them (see numerous EU countries who are not doing this).
Vaccines aren't just for the people that get them. They are for the people around them as well. I'm a perfectly healthy 35 year old, but I visit my 90 year old grandfather often, and live in a community with many elderly. If the vaccine makes me less likely to transmit, that's good for everyone, whether or not it matters much to me in isolation.
> On top of that, they managed to convince many US citizens that vaccines prevented transmission as part of their efforts to force vaccines on everyone.
They do tho. Maybe not 100%, but to a degree they certainly do.
> Bonus points are awarded for obesity being a major risk factor that we’ve done 0 to address post Covid despite the absolutely massive benefits we’d see from it - Id wager far outstripping masking or vaccinating. Externalities for thee but not for me, I guess.
Not even sure what you're saying here.
Did they ignore them, or were they just not devaluing the lives of the sick and elderly? If 10,000,000 people are dead that would otherwise be living, standing up and saying "but they were old or fat!" has a kind of asshole sting to it, no?
> They then and still are trying to push vaccines on cohorts that absolutely do not need them (see numerous EU countries who are not doing this).
Vaccines aren't just for the people that get them. They are for the people around them as well. I'm a perfectly healthy 35 year old, but I visit my 90 year old grandfather often, and live in a community with many elderly. If the vaccine makes me less likely to transmit, that's good for everyone, whether or not it matters much to me in isolation.
> On top of that, they managed to convince many US citizens that vaccines prevented transmission as part of their efforts to force vaccines on everyone.
They do tho. Maybe not 100%, but to a degree they certainly do.
> Bonus points are awarded for obesity being a major risk factor that we’ve done 0 to address post Covid despite the absolutely massive benefits we’d see from it - Id wager far outstripping masking or vaccinating. Externalities for thee but not for me, I guess.
Not even sure what you're saying here.
That's what always struck me. Sure the majority are old but they're still dying from COVID not from something else, also there's a significant number that aren't old and if we do nothing because the most at risk portion are already old we're going to lose a lot that aren't. We spend massive amounts of money keeping the elderly alive every day because we recognize that time is important and precious for these people and their families so we don't just dump them at 85 because "well you've outlived most of your cohort already anyways".
> Did they ignore them, or were they just not devaluing the lives of the sick and elderly?
Not devaluing the lives of the elderly is implicitly devaluing the lives of the not elderly. This is a trade off that was given almost no consideration in the greater (US) discussion.
> They do tho. Maybe not 100%, but to a degree they certainly do.
The degree is extremely important here. Without a certain level of transmission prevented this benefit becomes nonexistent. See grandpa enough times and he’ll catch it. That you don’t know the degree but still felt safe seeing him is very concerning and you were likely mislead.
> Not even sure what you're saying here.
Choosing to focus on masks and vaccines while ignoring obesity removes are principled arguments for the former. The latter has benefits both against future pandemics of all kinds as well as broad public health benefits. Thus, anyone not raising hell about how fat America is while advocating for forced vaccination and mask wearing is playing politics and not really interested in public health outcomes.
Like you, people claimed forced vaccinations were justified by externalities - but the same logic was not applied to forced weight loss.
Not devaluing the lives of the elderly is implicitly devaluing the lives of the not elderly. This is a trade off that was given almost no consideration in the greater (US) discussion.
> They do tho. Maybe not 100%, but to a degree they certainly do.
The degree is extremely important here. Without a certain level of transmission prevented this benefit becomes nonexistent. See grandpa enough times and he’ll catch it. That you don’t know the degree but still felt safe seeing him is very concerning and you were likely mislead.
> Not even sure what you're saying here.
Choosing to focus on masks and vaccines while ignoring obesity removes are principled arguments for the former. The latter has benefits both against future pandemics of all kinds as well as broad public health benefits. Thus, anyone not raising hell about how fat America is while advocating for forced vaccination and mask wearing is playing politics and not really interested in public health outcomes.
Like you, people claimed forced vaccinations were justified by externalities - but the same logic was not applied to forced weight loss.
> Not devaluing the lives of the elderly is implicitly devaluing the lives of the not elderly. This is a trade off that was given almost no consideration in the greater (US) discussion.
It did though. We are going back to normal for the most part, despite the continuing risk to the elderly. Early lockdown was for everyone since very little was known about the disease.
> Choosing to focus on masks and vaccines while ignoring obesity removes are principled arguments for the former.
It's an obvious matter of practicality. Masks are easy and fast and will, statistically, do more good than a country wide weight loss drive. Would it be better long term if the country was fit? Yeah, for far more reasons than COVID. That's not practical though, as evidenced by the governments pre-existing desire and failure to make that happen.
> Like you, people claimed forced vaccinations were justified by externalities - but the same logic was not applied to forced weight loss.
Which is completely consistent with the state of the world pre-covid?
It did though. We are going back to normal for the most part, despite the continuing risk to the elderly. Early lockdown was for everyone since very little was known about the disease.
> Choosing to focus on masks and vaccines while ignoring obesity removes are principled arguments for the former.
It's an obvious matter of practicality. Masks are easy and fast and will, statistically, do more good than a country wide weight loss drive. Would it be better long term if the country was fit? Yeah, for far more reasons than COVID. That's not practical though, as evidenced by the governments pre-existing desire and failure to make that happen.
> Like you, people claimed forced vaccinations were justified by externalities - but the same logic was not applied to forced weight loss.
Which is completely consistent with the state of the world pre-covid?
phkahler(4)
bvhvhfcgxfdf(2)
Along similar lines, the legal system ends up dealing with this as well. Because a crime is often defined both in terms of actions taken (e.g. "Person X stabbed person Y".) and in terms of outcomes (e.g. "Person Y died."), the legal system needs to connect the cause and the outcome. So, if X is a surgeon, and stabbing was part of an unsuccessful surgery trying to save Y's life, that wouldn't be murder.
* X stabs Y, and Y immediately dies. Simplest case, X is responsible for Y's death.
* X stabs Y as part of a surgery. Y was predicted to have 2 months to live, but instead dies on the operating table. X did not murder Y, even though they were the cause of Y's death occurring on that specific day, rather than 2 months later.
* X stabs Y as part of a mugging, and Y immediately dies. Coincidentally, Y was predicted to have 2 months to live, but instead dies in the mugging. X did murder Y, even though it was the same difference in total lifespan as the previous example than 2 months later, because the intent matters.
* X stabs Y as part of a mugging, but it only requires some light stitches. While Y is driving to the emergency room, they are killed in a car accident. X would be liable for causing injury, but wouldn't be liable for the death, because it was an unrelated coincidence.
* X stabs Y, and Y later dies of blood loss at the hospital after refusing treatment for religious reasons. The defense argues that this should be counted as manslaughter instead of murder, because Y's refusal of treatment breaks the chain of causality between the action and the eventual outcome. The judge disagrees, as "defendants must take their victims as they find them."
These are all hypotheticals based on my layman's understanding of the law, except for the last one, which occurred in the case of a Jehovah's Witness who refused blood transfusions for religious reasons [0]. This became more of a ramble than I intended, but I definitely agree that causation is tricky, and "cause" could be any of "action with a causal link", "immediately preceding cause", or "deviation from a just world that initiated a causal chain", and would lead to vastly different statistics depending on the definition.
[0] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1975/3.html
* X stabs Y, and Y immediately dies. Simplest case, X is responsible for Y's death.
* X stabs Y as part of a surgery. Y was predicted to have 2 months to live, but instead dies on the operating table. X did not murder Y, even though they were the cause of Y's death occurring on that specific day, rather than 2 months later.
* X stabs Y as part of a mugging, and Y immediately dies. Coincidentally, Y was predicted to have 2 months to live, but instead dies in the mugging. X did murder Y, even though it was the same difference in total lifespan as the previous example than 2 months later, because the intent matters.
* X stabs Y as part of a mugging, but it only requires some light stitches. While Y is driving to the emergency room, they are killed in a car accident. X would be liable for causing injury, but wouldn't be liable for the death, because it was an unrelated coincidence.
* X stabs Y, and Y later dies of blood loss at the hospital after refusing treatment for religious reasons. The defense argues that this should be counted as manslaughter instead of murder, because Y's refusal of treatment breaks the chain of causality between the action and the eventual outcome. The judge disagrees, as "defendants must take their victims as they find them."
These are all hypotheticals based on my layman's understanding of the law, except for the last one, which occurred in the case of a Jehovah's Witness who refused blood transfusions for religious reasons [0]. This became more of a ramble than I intended, but I definitely agree that causation is tricky, and "cause" could be any of "action with a causal link", "immediately preceding cause", or "deviation from a just world that initiated a causal chain", and would lead to vastly different statistics depending on the definition.
[0] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1975/3.html
A study investigating the causes of the discrepancy:
https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/...
> An early response to Covid-19, including borders’ controls and a strong test and trace capacity, could improve epidemiological surveillance and minimize excess mortality, with stringent and lengthy lockdowns not providing a significant benefit.
https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/...
> An early response to Covid-19, including borders’ controls and a strong test and trace capacity, could improve epidemiological surveillance and minimize excess mortality, with stringent and lengthy lockdowns not providing a significant benefit.
The paper doesn't investigate the causes of the discrepancy, but only the causes of the excess mortality, ie. why are there so many deaths due to Covid, not why there are so many more deaths than those actually reported.
As for the cited part of the conclusion, this is silly in practice. Obviously not letting in any infectious case would be much better, but when that happens, which always does in practice, the stringent lockdowns are only solution left until you get everyone vaccinated. So it's like comparing apple to orange.
As for the cited part of the conclusion, this is silly in practice. Obviously not letting in any infectious case would be much better, but when that happens, which always does in practice, the stringent lockdowns are only solution left until you get everyone vaccinated. So it's like comparing apple to orange.
Stringent lock downs are not the only solution. Sweden had an extremely light touch with very few restrictions, were heavily shit on for their “mishandling” of Covid, but as of now they have the lowest cumulative excess deaths percentage of all the OECD during the Covid era.
Do you have a source for the claim of lowest cumulative excess deaths percentage of all of the OECD? Because as far as I can tell [1] there are a couple countries, such as Japan or New Zealand that have done quite a bit better.
[1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
[1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
This article among many others that can be found online: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/11/08/sweden-wins-country-that...
Data comes from: https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=104676
Data comes from: https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=104676
Quite a large difference in excess deaths compared to the other study with New Zealand being especially striking (+6588 from the OECD study vs -440 in the economist one).
The analysis code and description for the study I linked to can be found here [1], which is always nice to see.
And browsing through different scientific studies on excess deaths I see negative values for NZ much more often than positive values (see for example [2]), so I am thinking that the OECD study is more of an outlier here (see [3] for a meta-analysis).
[1] https://github.com/TheEconomist/covid-19-excess-deaths-track... [2] https://elifesciences.org/articles/69336.pdf [3] https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/vaccines/vaccines-10-01702...
[1] https://github.com/TheEconomist/covid-19-excess-deaths-track... [2] https://elifesciences.org/articles/69336.pdf [3] https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/vaccines/vaccines-10-01702...
The striking thing about The Economist list is that, while you can point to various data points and come up with a rationale why one might be low or another might be high (e.g. NZ is a small island nation that pretty much closed its borders). overall there really isn't much of a pattern. What is it about the Balkans that puts them towards the top of the list? Why did Lithuania fare significantly worse than Estonia? And while Sweden did a bit worse than Norway and Denmark, it did better than Finland in terms of excess deaths percentage.
Some of those claims are a bit silly, at least for the USA, since we have never had secure border controls. And actually securing the border was never a realistic proposition during the early phase of the pandemic.
And the part about a strong test and trace capability is obviously nonsense. That didn't work in any of the countries that tried, except previous perhaps in China where the government is able to exercise a level of totalitarian control worse than any virus.
It's disappointing that this kind of unrealistic garbage makes it though peer review.
And the part about a strong test and trace capability is obviously nonsense. That didn't work in any of the countries that tried, except previous perhaps in China where the government is able to exercise a level of totalitarian control worse than any virus.
It's disappointing that this kind of unrealistic garbage makes it though peer review.
Its a real shame they don't have a related research on Long Covid which the WHO estimated at 144 million in October. To me it looks like we are running on about 1 direct death to 3 indirect deaths and about 21 disabled.
All in most of the impact of Covid 19 so far seems to be 84% disabled, 12% excess dying and 4% directly dying from the acute infection. Most of the impact is after the acute infection has passed.
All in most of the impact of Covid 19 so far seems to be 84% disabled, 12% excess dying and 4% directly dying from the acute infection. Most of the impact is after the acute infection has passed.
giraffe_lady(2)
The economist has a good breakdown https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
By coincidence, the median estimate and world population are both fairly round numbers: 20M deaths on a planet with 8B people. Put another way: 1 in every 400 people on earth died from this disease. It's hard to process.
>1 in every 400 people on earth died from this disease.
1 in 400 people are (estimated) excess deaths during the pandemic. This is not the same thing as claiming that all of them were in fact killed by the disease itself.
1 in 400 people are (estimated) excess deaths during the pandemic. This is not the same thing as claiming that all of them were in fact killed by the disease itself.
I agree, the disease itself might not have killed as many, but the effects of the pandemic most likely did. It was by far the largest deviation from the norm during the time and therefore carries by far the largest responsibility of excess deaths (as excess deaths are deaths outside of what would be ordinary).
You’re going to have to bring citations.
An incredibly novel infectious disease that kills older people at an intensely meaningful rate is clearly the driver here.
An incredibly novel infectious disease that kills older people at an intensely meaningful rate is clearly the driver here.
You’re making a (possibly reasonable) leap of logic, but formally speaking, the parent post is 100% correct.
About 1 in 10 die each year in the US as a result of medical malpractice. The oft-cited 2016 John Hopkins study has it at ~250k (of 2.7m all-cause).
For 2016 that's 1 in 1300 people in the US, a first world nation with world class medical infrastructure.
I wonder what's the worldwide figure? And what % of it overlaps with that 1 in 400?
For 2016 that's 1 in 1300 people in the US, a first world nation with world class medical infrastructure.
I wonder what's the worldwide figure? And what % of it overlaps with that 1 in 400?
The number of people who died due to malpractice would have likely been much lower than normal during the first year or so of the pandemic because for at least some of that time hospitals were overwhelmed with covid patients and they stopped doing a lot of their normal procedures.
Even when doctors and hospitals weren't enforcing it, many people were putting off non-critical medical care because they didn't want to go into the hospital or doctor's office and risk getting exposed.
Fewer people being treated, and fewer elective procedures being performed means fewer chances for error.
One exception of course would be ER/ICU staff who were so stressed, overworked, and understaffed that I wouldn't doubt if the number of mistakes in those places increased to some extent.
Even when doctors and hospitals weren't enforcing it, many people were putting off non-critical medical care because they didn't want to go into the hospital or doctor's office and risk getting exposed.
Fewer people being treated, and fewer elective procedures being performed means fewer chances for error.
One exception of course would be ER/ICU staff who were so stressed, overworked, and understaffed that I wouldn't doubt if the number of mistakes in those places increased to some extent.
Some countries show estimated excess deaths less than the confirmed Covid deaths. I imagine this might be attributed to lifestyle changes reducing deaths from other causes.
Of the countries that I have looked at, Sweden is perhaps the most interesting, as the figures tracked closely together until the beginning of 2021, and then diverged rapidly over the next few months.
Of the countries that I have looked at, Sweden is perhaps the most interesting, as the figures tracked closely together until the beginning of 2021, and then diverged rapidly over the next few months.
Interesting. Sweden was famous for not locking down, and the vaccination rollout started in December 2020.
Depending on the level or lockdowns, that can be due to things like less traffic and people staying home, thus less deaths associated with activities forgone.
Until COVID took hold at the beginning of 2022 Australia saw a reduction in deaths due to the above factors, which more than countered deaths due to COVID, leading to the death rate being lower than normal.
Another significant factor was the complete elimination of flu as a byproduct of COVID countermeasures (zero recorded flu cases or deaths for about a year). Flu came back in from overseas (with a vengeance) when the restrictions lifted.
Another significant factor was the complete elimination of flu as a byproduct of COVID countermeasures (zero recorded flu cases or deaths for about a year). Flu came back in from overseas (with a vengeance) when the restrictions lifted.
It looks like there was minimal to no lockdown in Sweden: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sweden-covid-and-lockdow...
It's a misconception that life went on as normal in Sweden. Plenty of activities were reduced or curtailed and business and personal travel from surrounding countries was dramatically reduced.
Even so, it saw much higher mortality rates than its neighbours.
Even so, it saw much higher mortality rates than its neighbours.
> Even so, it saw much higher mortality rates than its neighbours.
Did they?
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1596815870676041729
Did they?
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1596815870676041729
That's a very poor source to be relying on.
Actual studies of the COVID death rate in the Nordics all show Sweden having a much worse mortality rate.
[0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14034948211047...
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/140349482098026...
[2] https://jogh.org/2022/jogh-12-05017
[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113834/cumulative-coron...
Actual studies of the COVID death rate in the Nordics all show Sweden having a much worse mortality rate.
[0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14034948211047...
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/140349482098026...
[2] https://jogh.org/2022/jogh-12-05017
[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113834/cumulative-coron...
As bad as the US is (and getting worse) many places in the world have really horrific traffic deaths, so reduced activity on roads can be a big factor.
It could also be due to differences in the standard for what counts as a COVID death. Maybe those countries over counted.
Rough estimation from this chart.
10 people die every year per 1000.
During this covid it had been 11 people per thousand per year.
10 people die every year per 1000.
During this covid it had been 11 people per thousand per year.
Your math is wrong. The death rate in 2020 and 2021 was usually 20-30% higher than expected, not 10%. For a while in the US, it was 40% higher.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778361
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778361
this chart
How this varies by economy, and varies from declared covid mortality will be a fascinating story. As a disease which mainly caused fatalities in the older cohort it won't have quite the same long tail consequences Spanish flu did on childbirth and social structure, but it will have some.
Of course an almost unquantifiable and continuing tragedy for families everywhere.
Of course an almost unquantifiable and continuing tragedy for families everywhere.
What will be interesting is looking at data 5-10 years out. If most of the deaths were in the elderly, Covid simply accelerated their death by X years.
You’d expect that you’d see a reduction in deaths over the next ~10 years (when those people would have died from other causes).
You’d expect that you’d see a reduction in deaths over the next ~10 years (when those people would have died from other causes).
> If most of the deaths were in the elderly, Covid simply accelerated their death by X years.
"simply"?
"simply"?
Ultimately isn't that what any cause of death does? "Accelerate death" from whenever the second-worst thing you had going on would have gotten you?
I think I get what the parent comment was going for (i.e., that it only moved the date of death a little bit, as opposed to how the death of an otherwise healthy child would imply a date of death that moved a lot), but it's a weird way to say it.
I think I get what the parent comment was going for (i.e., that it only moved the date of death a little bit, as opposed to how the death of an otherwise healthy child would imply a date of death that moved a lot), but it's a weird way to say it.
You’d make a poor healthcare statistician getting upset over words like that.
Does it upset you the UK government values a year of human life at about 30,000 GBP?
Does it upset you the UK government values a year of human life at about 30,000 GBP?
Where do you get "upset" from one word in quotation marks, followed by a question mark?
It was an invitation for clarification about what you meant.
How would you distinguish Covid from, say, murder, which also accelerates deaths by X years?
It's true that if the death rate is higher now, then the death rate may be lower in the future, but I'm not sure that's a useful way of thinking. If the death rate were 100% now, then the death rate would be 0% in the future. It all balances out, right? Except, that's not the way it works, because the dead never get their years or lives back.
We're all mortal and will eventually die sooner or later. But in most cases, later is much better than sooner.
I'd also mention that you probably wouldn't appreciate having 30,000X GBP stolen from you.
It was an invitation for clarification about what you meant.
How would you distinguish Covid from, say, murder, which also accelerates deaths by X years?
It's true that if the death rate is higher now, then the death rate may be lower in the future, but I'm not sure that's a useful way of thinking. If the death rate were 100% now, then the death rate would be 0% in the future. It all balances out, right? Except, that's not the way it works, because the dead never get their years or lives back.
We're all mortal and will eventually die sooner or later. But in most cases, later is much better than sooner.
I'd also mention that you probably wouldn't appreciate having 30,000X GBP stolen from you.
You seem to be missing the point.
Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? Someone in an old age home near the end of their life dying isn’t equivalent to a young child dying.
You can make good public health policy without measuring the gains and costs of any particular policy.
Saying “were going to save every single life no matter what” is a path to ruin.
Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? Someone in an old age home near the end of their life dying isn’t equivalent to a young child dying.
You can make good public health policy without measuring the gains and costs of any particular policy.
Saying “were going to save every single life no matter what” is a path to ruin.
> You seem to be missing the point.
> Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years?
No, I understand your point very well now. It is what I always thought it was.
Someday you may feel differently. If you live long enough, you may finally understand. But then it'll be too late, and the generations younger than you will also want to send you on "Logan's Run".
> Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years?
No, I understand your point very well now. It is what I always thought it was.
Someday you may feel differently. If you live long enough, you may finally understand. But then it'll be too late, and the generations younger than you will also want to send you on "Logan's Run".
Now you're not even arguing in good faith.
Usually you need to argue for a better theory than what's being done, not make quip remarks about a movie.
Usually you need to argue for a better theory than what's being done, not make quip remarks about a movie.
> Now you're not even arguing in good faith.
I'm not even arguing, either in good or bad faith.
How do you argue with someone who places no value on the lives of older people? My intention was, and still is, to end this conversation.
I'm not even arguing, either in good or bad faith.
How do you argue with someone who places no value on the lives of older people? My intention was, and still is, to end this conversation.
You’re definitely not arguing in good faith with the personal attacks.
Where's the personal attack?
I suspected that you had a certain view, so I prompted you to clarify your view, and you did indeed clarify your view:
> Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? Someone in an old age home near the end of their life dying isn’t equivalent to a young child dying.
By your own words, you devalue the lives of older people.
I think it was good for everyone to see what you really believe, but I don't expect to be able to change your mind, so there's nothing to argue.
The only "personal attack" in this thread was:
> You’d make a poor healthcare statistician getting upset over words like that.
I suspected that you had a certain view, so I prompted you to clarify your view, and you did indeed clarify your view:
> Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? Someone in an old age home near the end of their life dying isn’t equivalent to a young child dying.
By your own words, you devalue the lives of older people.
I think it was good for everyone to see what you really believe, but I don't expect to be able to change your mind, so there's nothing to argue.
The only "personal attack" in this thread was:
> You’d make a poor healthcare statistician getting upset over words like that.
Healthcare statisticians would get upset with the careless use of that word. And they would call it out if used in a professional context.
I was trying to write a reply to call out the use of that word. People need to be more careful with their language.
It’s difficult to talk about some subjects online when people are so keen to mince other people’s words like this. They obviously meant nothing by it and you’re letting pedantry invalidate the point they were making. I’d prefer if you’d lower your editorial expectations for casual internet discussions more than I’d prefer everyone edit their word choices so carefully (unrealistic expectation honestly).
Not meant to pick on you, this is a common thing I see when certain topics are discussed but it does not benefit the discussion at all.
Not meant to pick on you, this is a common thing I see when certain topics are discussed but it does not benefit the discussion at all.
Pedantry is about minor errors. I think it is careless to refer to millions of deaths like that.
But we might be coming with different expectations. This might be a serious discussion or it might be a casual internet discussion. Do you agree that if it's serious then people should be more careful with their words?
And if it's casual then are you complaining that I've strayed off topic?
But we might be coming with different expectations. This might be a serious discussion or it might be a casual internet discussion. Do you agree that if it's serious then people should be more careful with their words?
And if it's casual then are you complaining that I've strayed off topic?
Maybe the point was that they should have meant something by it. We're talking about death and misery on an immense scale, and certainly many of the people reading any comment here will have been affected, will be sitting alone reading this when they otherwise wouldn't. Is it so awful to ask people to consider that, to weigh their words carefully, given this context?
Or yet another possibility is “simply” meant that the concept of people dying earlier than they otherwise would have is just an easy to grep concept most laymen can understand and thus a simple concept to discuss. If only.
This is a leaky medium for communication. It’s fast and casual and only text. Over analyzing each word is fine, but if you don’t like the word choice just move on. Trying to educate people to communicate how you want them to is a losing battle.
Also this node of the conversation is about data and analytics and now pedantry more than the underlying topic of death.
This is a leaky medium for communication. It’s fast and casual and only text. Over analyzing each word is fine, but if you don’t like the word choice just move on. Trying to educate people to communicate how you want them to is a losing battle.
Also this node of the conversation is about data and analytics and now pedantry more than the underlying topic of death.
All causes of death “simply” accelerated another subsequent cause of death.
Yeah this is the problem I have with COVID discourse. Simply no regard for elderlies because they don't dominate the pop culture discussion. They way we have sacrificed our older people to COVID will be one of the worst atrocities commited in human history.
I also thought about this. In 5-10 years it would equalize as consecutive years would have less deaths.
Then again you will have excess deaths because of mental health problems that covid causes, medical problems because medical care was not available and etc. These would not equalize.
Then again you will have excess deaths because of mental health problems that covid causes, medical problems because medical care was not available and etc. These would not equalize.
All deaths are an acceleration of death, old or young. We haven't yet found immortality.
Missing: estimated Covid deaths without intervention (lockdowns, vaccination, etc.)
Isn't Sweden a decent comparison for not locking down? And the majority of less developed countries also did minimal lockdown. And Africa as a whole has a 6% vaccination rate, so we can make comparisons
Yup. While they had a lot of elderly die early on that's mostly been it. They certainly haven't had the issues of people missing their cancer screenings, alcoholisms/suicide due to isolation in lockdowns etc. that many other countries have had.
And Africa as a whole practically unaffected.
And Africa as a whole practically unaffected.
These are countries with much higher mortality rates already because many of their health systems are not even close to as well-funded and available as a European one. So, many fewer cancer screenings to go to. And more deaths already from other ailmants.
Also, largely these countries are much hotter and more aerated / outdoors places. So, comparisons are not particularly helpful.
Also, largely these countries are much hotter and more aerated / outdoors places. So, comparisons are not particularly helpful.
At the time, there were at least claims that, well, even absent government edicts, people did adjust behaviors to a certain degree. It's unfortunate but, at this point, it's starting to look like there are so many confounding variables--and so many people dug in on political positions--that it's going to be hard to say, even with the advantage of hindsight, what optimal courses of action should have looked like. Vaccinations were almost certainly helpful on net but not a silver bullet. Other mitigations were probably more or less helpful at various stages of the pandemic but likewise were probably not as helpful as proponents said they were and some were probably on net harmful.
Missing: estimated Covid deaths with adequate intervention (lockdowns were followed rigorously, everyone actually got vaccinated, etc.)
Missing: years of potential life lost
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_potential_life_lost
Perhaps a more useful metric, since so many more older people died from Covid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_potential_life_lost
Perhaps a more useful metric, since so many more older people died from Covid.
There are enormous numbers of papers trying to quantify this. If you haven't seen these estimates, you didn't read any Covid literature in 2020 or 2021.
Or, to be blunt, they tried to stick with non-fiction.
People asking for estimates that fit their agenda is quite predictable, but those estimates aren't very useful. Anyway, your point stays, ignoring the huge amount of estimates produced, and asking for them later is quite a bad posture.
People asking for estimates that fit their agenda is quite predictable, but those estimates aren't very useful. Anyway, your point stays, ignoring the huge amount of estimates produced, and asking for them later is quite a bad posture.
I built some tooling around the CDC data. I am interested in input on how to better visualize it: https://mcculley.github.io/VisualizingObservedDeaths/
Or about 1 in 400 people. This estimates that in the US about 1 in 4 of those deaths was from something other than Covid:
https://brownstone.org/articles/deaths/
https://brownstone.org/articles/deaths/
Why is the 95% upper bound negative on March 9, 2020? Early COVID saved lives?
Confirmed: 4009 • Upper bound, 95%: -22,912 • Central: -127,918 • Lower bound: -246,089
Confirmed: 4009 • Upper bound, 95%: -22,912 • Central: -127,918 • Lower bound: -246,089
At that stage few people were dying (it took another couple weeks) but lockdowns were preventing car accidents and such
Some countries (UK, France, Denmark) show confirmed Covid deaths outstripping excess deaths. I wonder why that is.
Lockdowns and reduced movements limited both COVID spread and "regular deaths"
(due to say, traffic accidents, work accidents, other respiratory diseases that were also suppresed by increased hygiene, etc).
The end result; overall lower rate of death than usual, and a chunk of the deaths that did occur due to COVID.
(due to say, traffic accidents, work accidents, other respiratory diseases that were also suppresed by increased hygiene, etc).
The end result; overall lower rate of death than usual, and a chunk of the deaths that did occur due to COVID.
Yeah. My country had fewer deaths than usual in 2020 and 2021, and a bit more than usual so far in 2022.
There a number of reasons, however, co-morbidity plays an important role. If you have stage 4 terminal cancer, any viral infection can push you over the edge. In normal years you wouldn't even get tested for this.
In the UK at least a death where the person had tested +ve for covid within a certain (quite long) time period was recorded as a covid death.
So you catch covid, recover, then get hit by a bus. Covid death.
Meanwhile some countries report next to no deaths, also clearly not correct. The reported data is clearly close to worthless and yet it suits too many people's purposes to use it.
So you catch covid, recover, then get hit by a bus. Covid death.
Meanwhile some countries report next to no deaths, also clearly not correct. The reported data is clearly close to worthless and yet it suits too many people's purposes to use it.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
"You are asked to start with the immediate, direct cause of death on line Ia, then to go back through the sequence of events or conditions that led to death on subsequent lines, until you reach the one that started the fatal sequence."
Seems unlikely that someone getting hit by a bus would be listed as a Covid death. I would be interested in your source.
"You are asked to start with the immediate, direct cause of death on line Ia, then to go back through the sequence of events or conditions that led to death on subsequent lines, until you reach the one that started the fatal sequence."
Seems unlikely that someone getting hit by a bus would be listed as a Covid death. I would be interested in your source.
"death in a person with a laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 test and died within (equal to or less than) 28 days of the first positive specimen date will now be reported"
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/public-health-england-death-da...
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/public-health-england-death-da...
Contextually this is clearly about people who died of disease, rather than accidents. It actually represented a tightening of the earlier definition, therefore resulting in the number of deaths defined as being from COVID-19 being reduced by around 5000.
I was shocked reading further down,
“ 1) A death in a person with a laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 and either: died within 60 days of the first specimen date or died more than 60 days after the first specimen date, only if COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate”
Implying that in the first instance, covid does not need to appear anywhere on the death certificate and it will still be counted.
“ 1) A death in a person with a laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 and either: died within 60 days of the first specimen date or died more than 60 days after the first specimen date, only if COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate”
Implying that in the first instance, covid does not need to appear anywhere on the death certificate and it will still be counted.
No. This isn’t the definition used in the official COVID death statistics published by the ONS. That’s based on a stricter definition, requiring that COVID-19 appear as a cause of death on the death certificate.
The definition listed here is used only by the Health Security Agency (formerly Public Health England) to provide a useful point in time metric for the severity of the pandemic across a range of data sources. The benefit is that the data may be available faster than the official ONS stat, allowing for earlier interventions.
With information like this it’s always important to dig deeper into the context of who, what, when, and why, rather than taking it at face value. Especially when in this case both the HSA and ONS quite openly and transparently explain both their criteria and reasoning.
All else being equal it seems a decent proxy. If you died of an illness within 60 days after testing positive for COVID, it’s almost certainly a contributing factor if not the main cause.
The definition listed here is used only by the Health Security Agency (formerly Public Health England) to provide a useful point in time metric for the severity of the pandemic across a range of data sources. The benefit is that the data may be available faster than the official ONS stat, allowing for earlier interventions.
With information like this it’s always important to dig deeper into the context of who, what, when, and why, rather than taking it at face value. Especially when in this case both the HSA and ONS quite openly and transparently explain both their criteria and reasoning.
All else being equal it seems a decent proxy. If you died of an illness within 60 days after testing positive for COVID, it’s almost certainly a contributing factor if not the main cause.
So who uses which data source? You can guarentee that people just pick the one that suits their objective.
Here we just state "deaths within 28 days..." no qualifier. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
But at the bottom 'developed by the Health Security Agency' so it's likley using the definition that doesn't specify the cause of death on the death certificate.
That's the #1 result on Google for uk coronavirus deaths.
Here we just state "deaths within 28 days..." no qualifier. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
But at the bottom 'developed by the Health Security Agency' so it's likley using the definition that doesn't specify the cause of death on the death certificate.
That's the #1 result on Google for uk coronavirus deaths.
Not sure how much this matters, but Public Health England was disbanded March 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_England
This is uniform across Europe, it's 30 days from a positive test to have comparable numbers. That isn't very reliable any more as testing is reduced and not comparable from country to country (it was more reliable in 2020).
The "got hit by bus after positive test" group is so small it's negligible. E.g. in my country, there have been more covid deaths in two weeks than traffic accidents during the whole year.
Because of the variation in testing practices, excess deaths is the only reliable statistic we have now.
The "got hit by bus after positive test" group is so small it's negligible. E.g. in my country, there have been more covid deaths in two weeks than traffic accidents during the whole year.
Because of the variation in testing practices, excess deaths is the only reliable statistic we have now.
Could be Covid-inspired change in behavior/lifestyle that resulted in fewer deaths from other causes.
6 million covid deaths?
6.6 million confirmed COVID deaths, but excess mortality from all deaths compared to previous years is 16-28 million.
Strangely, the two measures only diverged from July 2020. It could be that:
- the initial strict lockdowns prevented deaths from more diseases
- some later deaths were caused by COVID indirectly (without it being registered as the cause)
Strangely, the two measures only diverged from July 2020. It could be that:
- the initial strict lockdowns prevented deaths from more diseases
- some later deaths were caused by COVID indirectly (without it being registered as the cause)
There are more options than that of course. One would be that government(s) started playing with their reporting stats or even just started being less able to confirm what the cause was.
It could also be that extended lockdowns caused a ton of deaths
> It could also be that extended lockdowns caused a ton of deaths
Do you have any evidence at all that comes close to suggest this hypothesis, let alone substantiate it?
Do you have any evidence at all that comes close to suggest this hypothesis, let alone substantiate it?
Not the person you're responding to, but here's one example: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1087542. tl;dr: closing schools causes children in South Asia to not be treated for malnutrition and immunizations and have increased teen pregnancies with inadequate medical attention. Estimated 230,000 excess deaths. Read the PDF report for more details.
You appear to be blaming those estimated 230,000 excess deaths on lockdowns. The article blames the pandemic itself. That's not the same thing.
Closing the schools is a lockdown measure, the pandemic didn't close the schools
Alright, maybe I'm misreading it. Can you show me where it says that closing the schools caused 230,000 deaths? My reading was that those deaths are blamed on a combination of factors, few of which I'd think were due to voluntary lockdowns.
The main ones appear to be a reduction in health services, with cause unstated. That's probably largely due to people being pulled into dealing with the pandemic itself and not enough resources to go around? And then it also raises "The region also suffered increased levels of unemployment, poverty and food insecurity due to the pandemic, further undermining public health, the report said"
The main ones appear to be a reduction in health services, with cause unstated. That's probably largely due to people being pulled into dealing with the pandemic itself and not enough resources to go around? And then it also raises "The region also suffered increased levels of unemployment, poverty and food insecurity due to the pandemic, further undermining public health, the report said"
Saying the cause is "the pandemic" is to avoid pointing fingers
>voluntary lockdowns
Who's saying voluntary?
>The report – which covered Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – also found that about 420 million children were out of school due to the pandemic and its related control measures.
>“Given the cultural and social context of South Asia, the suspension of these services is deepening inequalities and is likely to lead to an increase in the number of maternal and neonatal deaths”
This parts of the article specifically say the closing of schools is likely to cause an increase in deaths. And, again, the closing of schools is a lockdown measure, not something COVID did
The article says that there was a drop on treatment of malnutrition and puts a number 228,000 of deaths on that cause, and in poorer countries this kind of things (along with family violence) are found primarily on schools by teachers. Which obviously can't happen when schools are closed
>"The region also suffered increased levels of unemployment, poverty and food insecurity due to the pandemic, further undermining public health, the report said"
Increased unemployment is a direct consequence of mandatory lockdowns
>voluntary lockdowns
Who's saying voluntary?
>The report – which covered Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – also found that about 420 million children were out of school due to the pandemic and its related control measures.
>“Given the cultural and social context of South Asia, the suspension of these services is deepening inequalities and is likely to lead to an increase in the number of maternal and neonatal deaths”
This parts of the article specifically say the closing of schools is likely to cause an increase in deaths. And, again, the closing of schools is a lockdown measure, not something COVID did
The article says that there was a drop on treatment of malnutrition and puts a number 228,000 of deaths on that cause, and in poorer countries this kind of things (along with family violence) are found primarily on schools by teachers. Which obviously can't happen when schools are closed
>"The region also suffered increased levels of unemployment, poverty and food insecurity due to the pandemic, further undermining public health, the report said"
Increased unemployment is a direct consequence of mandatory lockdowns
> The article says that there was a drop on treatment of malnutrition and puts a number 228,000 of deaths on that cause, and in poorer countries this kind of things (along with family violence) are found primarily on schools by teachers. Which obviously can't happen when schools are closed
How much of that happens at school and how much is separate? The article doesn't say.
Not to mention, closing schools doesn't mean that the government(s) couldn't provide healthcare services in other ways.
If I lock my dining room and starve, I didn't starve because I locked the room. I starved because I stopped eating.
> Increased unemployment is a direct consequence of mandatory lockdowns
It's also a direct consequence of everyone stopping spending money or going anywhere on their own accord, because nobody wants to catch a deadly disease.
It certainly seems probable that some deaths are directly attributable to lockdowns. This article doesn't give me much idea how many that would be though.
How much of that happens at school and how much is separate? The article doesn't say.
Not to mention, closing schools doesn't mean that the government(s) couldn't provide healthcare services in other ways.
If I lock my dining room and starve, I didn't starve because I locked the room. I starved because I stopped eating.
> Increased unemployment is a direct consequence of mandatory lockdowns
It's also a direct consequence of everyone stopping spending money or going anywhere on their own accord, because nobody wants to catch a deadly disease.
It certainly seems probable that some deaths are directly attributable to lockdowns. This article doesn't give me much idea how many that would be though.
Increase in suicides
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6...
Increase in police brutality https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/covid19-lo...
Delay or avoidance of medical care https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a4.htm
This is without counting the huge economic downturn it caused and the pause on developing of small children
Extended strict lockdowns were an incredible mistake, I didn't even think it was controversial
Increase in police brutality https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/covid19-lo...
Delay or avoidance of medical care https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a4.htm
This is without counting the huge economic downturn it caused and the pause on developing of small children
Extended strict lockdowns were an incredible mistake, I didn't even think it was controversial
None of those are calculated to come anywhere close to the excess deaths caused by COVID.
Overall, suicide rates in most countries either dipped or remained the same. [0][1]
Whether or not police brutality saw an increase, its effect on mortality was negligible at population levels.
As for the delay or avoidance of medical care, which did have statistical impact, that has been as severe in places that didn't have severe lockdowns as for places that did. Turns out if the medical system and hospitals become overwhelmed with a novel disease that has an effect on their ability to perform regular treatment too.
Very, very few places did extended strict lockdowns.
[0] https://www.statnews.com/2021/11/16/the-pandemic-didnt-incre...
[1] https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/research-policy/...
Overall, suicide rates in most countries either dipped or remained the same. [0][1]
Whether or not police brutality saw an increase, its effect on mortality was negligible at population levels.
As for the delay or avoidance of medical care, which did have statistical impact, that has been as severe in places that didn't have severe lockdowns as for places that did. Turns out if the medical system and hospitals become overwhelmed with a novel disease that has an effect on their ability to perform regular treatment too.
Very, very few places did extended strict lockdowns.
[0] https://www.statnews.com/2021/11/16/the-pandemic-didnt-incre...
[1] https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/research-policy/...
I'd say the discrepancy is quite the elephant in the room to explain for medical professionals.
Edit: found an article investigating it: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/...
> An early response to Covid-19, including borders’ controls and a strong test and trace capacity, could improve epidemiological surveillance and minimize excess mortality, with stringent and lengthy lockdowns not providing a significant benefit.
Edit: found an article investigating it: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/...
> An early response to Covid-19, including borders’ controls and a strong test and trace capacity, could improve epidemiological surveillance and minimize excess mortality, with stringent and lengthy lockdowns not providing a significant benefit.
How many deaths world wide (estimated, as these numbers are always estimates) from the 2018 flu season?
“Excess deaths” can mean undiagnosed Covids OR death from staying at home too much.
Both related to Covid, no?
Sort of, but the opporunity to fix them would be different.
There's not a whole lot you can do to alter the effect a virus has on a human body (at least not immediately after discovering it), but you might be able to learn a lot from the effects of various types of government intervention, what helped and what hurt, and make plans that reduce the negative effects the next time action is needed.
There's not a whole lot you can do to alter the effect a virus has on a human body (at least not immediately after discovering it), but you might be able to learn a lot from the effects of various types of government intervention, what helped and what hurt, and make plans that reduce the negative effects the next time action is needed.
Consider the case of a 1800's patient who undergoes bloodletting, exsanguination is caused by their condition in the same manner that side effects of lock downs are caused by covid.
The real question that needs answering is what the cost of lockdowns was and for that we’d need to compare to suicide statistics for the same period.
Nothing more can hurt the dead and politicians and people don't care if it wasn't their own friends/family.
What we should be dealing with is the millions, maybe even a billion worldwide that will have long-covid for the rest of their miserable existence.
They're alive but the quality of life is just gone, likely forever.
We saw this with the original covid, SARS-COV-1 in 2003, many never recovered.
What we should be dealing with is the millions, maybe even a billion worldwide that will have long-covid for the rest of their miserable existence.
They're alive but the quality of life is just gone, likely forever.
We saw this with the original covid, SARS-COV-1 in 2003, many never recovered.
> millions, maybe even a billion worldwide that will have long-covid for the rest of their miserable existence.
What? I don't think there is any data to suggest that 1/8 of the world population has long-COVID or that they have a miserable existence. That's quite judgmental to say about someone also.
> They're alive but the quality of life is just gone, likely forever.
Forever? How do we know? So many people recovered from long-COVID. Everyone is different, there is no data to suggest that people will have lasting symptoms forever.
What? I don't think there is any data to suggest that 1/8 of the world population has long-COVID or that they have a miserable existence. That's quite judgmental to say about someone also.
> They're alive but the quality of life is just gone, likely forever.
Forever? How do we know? So many people recovered from long-COVID. Everyone is different, there is no data to suggest that people will have lasting symptoms forever.
Convenient isn't it that they still don't have a test to detect and prove long-covid, forget treating it.
Not going to get into a pointless argument here about it, there are already many studies showing at least 10% of people who get covid now have long-covid and it's decimated the workforce.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-data-shows-long-covid...
Long-Covid deniers might be the worst of all because the suffering is very real and they don't "get it" until it's their turn, and then it's too late.
Not going to get into a pointless argument here about it, there are already many studies showing at least 10% of people who get covid now have long-covid and it's decimated the workforce.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-data-shows-long-covid...
Long-Covid deniers might be the worst of all because the suffering is very real and they don't "get it" until it's their turn, and then it's too late.
> Long-Covid deniers might be the worst of all
Nice new epithet.
> Convenient isn't it that they still don't have a test to detect and prove long-covid, forget treating it.
This sounds like you're a conspiracy theorist. Not only are you condemning everyone by making up a new epithet, you're couching it all in your conspiracy theory that they're hiding evidence of long covid?
Nice new epithet.
> Convenient isn't it that they still don't have a test to detect and prove long-covid, forget treating it.
This sounds like you're a conspiracy theorist. Not only are you condemning everyone by making up a new epithet, you're couching it all in your conspiracy theory that they're hiding evidence of long covid?
We are going to eugenics them. You can already see the foundations of it in the "no one wants to work anymore" campaign, the immediate and intense denial of long covid as even a thing, the absolute refusal to consider or weigh long-term effects in covid policies, things like MAID in canada, the increasingly aggressive propaganda campaign against the homeless.
For people with long covid we're going to deny it's real, deny healthcare, blame them for their financial consequences, give no support, then offer suicide.
For people with long covid we're going to deny it's real, deny healthcare, blame them for their financial consequences, give no support, then offer suicide.
That makes excess deaths valuable in the case of COVID.