[burger]

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...cle-link-4

BC

I'm not sure how to square that with this one which disagrees. Maybe because the NYT piece is continuously updated?

At any rate it doesn't really matter if one place or another is accurate, in general all evidence points toward the estimates are an undercount and we won't really know how badly for a while.

There are significant time lags in reporting deaths.  It's on the order of several weeks normally.  Now, it's probably in the months range.

So I would treat all of these all-cause mortality numbers as biased low going back at least a couple of months.

[burger]

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...cle-link-4

BC

I'm not sure how to square that with this one which disagrees. Maybe because the NYT piece is continuously updated?

At any rate it doesn't really matter if one place or another is accurate, in general all evidence points toward the estimates are an undercount and we won't really know how badly for a while.

There are significant time lags in reporting deaths.  It's on the order of several weeks normally.  Now, it's probably in the months range.

So I would treat all of these all-cause mortality numbers as biased low going back at least a couple of months.