Excess deaths

[BostonCard]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/m...mm6942e2_w

The CDC estimated that there have been 299,000 deaths more than we might have expected this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  About 2/3 are directly attributable to COVID-19 itself, while the rest areattributed to other causes.  But, as the authors note:

estimates of excess deaths attributed to COVID-19 might underestimate the actual number directly attributable to COVID-19, because deaths from other causes might represent misclassified COVID-19–related deaths or deaths indirectly caused by the pandemic. Specifically, deaths from circulatory diseases, Alzheimer disease and dementia, and respiratory diseases have increased in 2020 relative to past years (7), and it is unclear to what extent these represent misclassified COVID-19 deaths or deaths indirectly related to the pandemic (e.g., because of disruptions in health care access or utilization).

One other interesting thing to note is the age-specific breakdown. While on an absolute basis, the number of excess deaths is largest in older age groups, on a relative basis, the percent increase in death is highest in the 25-44 year group, largely because this is a group that doesn’t have a high baseline mortality.

BC

[BostonCard]

Lyman Stone (a demographer) does a weekly analysis of excess deaths.  It's a useful, if morbid, read:

https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/...95649?s=20

His estimate is that as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are somewhere between 300-400,000 more deaths than would have been expected, "with 340-370k being the best estimate."

The 1918 flu pandemic is estimated to have killed 675,000 in the US (to be fair, as a share of the population at the time, it is a lot more than twice the excess deaths we've seen in the US).

BC

[Goose]

The 1918 flu pandemic is estimated to have killed 675,000 in the US (to be fair, as a share of the population at the time, it is a lot more than twice the excess deaths we've seen in the US).


BC

Give us time, were getting there.

[lex24]

The 1918 flu pandemic is estimated to have killed 675,000 in the US (to be fair, as a share of the population at the time, it is a lot more than twice the excess deaths we've seen in the US).


BC

Give us time, were getting there.

The Spanish Flu infected approx 1/3 of the World Pop. It also had a higher than usual death rate for young people. This is not the Spanish Flu.

 I realize it is the duty of this board to be as pessimistic and ghoulish as possible. But let me throw some numbers out maybe you’ll feel a little bit better: 


Covid mortality rates by age group (per 100,000)

1-14. 0.14
15-24.      0.98
25-34.      3.8
35-44.      11.69
45-54.      29

Of these numbers, I suspect a decent percentage had comorbidities.

[M T]

 I realize it is the duty of this board to be as pessimistic and ghoulish as possible.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  Maybe you should stop reading it.

I think of this board as trying to be as honest and open about the situation.   We may differ strongly on our viewpoints, but I've rarely seen what I thought was manipulative behavior.

This is the death rate timeline in the UK in 1918.  If the COVID pandemic is following a similar pattern, and we're on the upslope of the big wave, I'd have to say it sure looks like we might anticipate about 2x-4x the number of deaths we've already had.  I hope we don't follow that same pattern.   Of course, modern medicine is a lot better now.  (which I expect they were saying in 1918, and will say again in 2118).



P.S., I just checked the CDC site.  In the US, the current COVID death rate is measured as 0.4 per 100K over the last week (that's per day).  I believe that would then be 0.0028 (weekly deaths per 10K) on this chart.

[BostonCard]

There are a lot of positives.

Care has improved drastically since 1918.  Mortality would be a lot worse if we were limited to 1918 healthcare.  Hell, care for COVID-19 has improved dramatically since March 2020. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-0...39901770=1

As you note, there is a strong age and comorbidity gradient with mortality.  All deaths are tragic, so you don't want to make light of the fact, but the reaction would rightly be much different if mortality were highest amongst children, or even, as in 1918, among young adults.

Signs are pointing towards us being able to deploy a vaccine to the most vulnerable by the end of the year, and to the broader population starting next spring.  Cases and deaths will decline quickly as the population, especially the most at risk, get a vaccine. 

But we should not minimize the disease either.  COVID-19 would probably infect 1/3 or more of the world population by the time its through were it not for the imminent arrival of vaccine.  At that point we'd be talking about 500,000 to 1 million deaths in the US alone and maybe 12 million deaths worldwide.  That's less as a percentage of the population than the 1918 flu pandemic, but certainly enough to qualify as the worst pandemic since the 1918 flu pandemic.

To put things into perspective, at the peak of polio in 1952, there were 57,628 reported cases and 3,145 deaths.  This is much worse than polio.

BC

[lex24]

 I realize it is the duty of this board to be as pessimistic and ghoulish as possible.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  Maybe you should stop reading it.

I think of this board as trying to be as honest and open about the situation.   We may differ strongly on our viewpoints, but I've rarely seen what I thought was manipulative behavior.

This is the death rate timeline in the UK in 1918.  If the COVID pandemic is following a similar pattern, and we're on the upslope of the big wave, I'd have to say it sure looks like we might anticipate about 2x-4x the number of deaths we've already had.  I hope we don't follow that same pattern.   Of course, modern medicine is a lot better now.  (which I expect they were saying in 1918, and will say again in 2118).



P.S., I just checked the CDC site.  In the US, the current COVID death rate is measured as 0.4 per 100K over the last week (that's per day).  I believe that would then be 0.0028 (weekly deaths per 10K) on this chart.

There is good information on this board at times. There is also a ton of doom and gloom. And a propensity to rip anyone that does not fall in line with the doom and gloom. That’s my perspective. Right or wrong.

---

There are a lot of positives.

Care has improved drastically since 1918.  Mortality would be a lot worse if we were limited to 1918 healthcare.  Hell, care for COVID-19 has improved dramatically since March 2020. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-0...39901770=1

As you note, there is a strong age and comorbidity gradient with mortality.  All deaths are tragic, so you don't want to make light of the fact, but the reaction would rightly be much different if mortality were highest amongst children, or even, as in 1918, among young adults.

Signs are pointing towards us being able to deploy a vaccine to the most vulnerable by the end of the year, and to the broader population starting next spring.  Cases and deaths will decline quickly as the population, especially the most at risk, get a vaccine. 

But we should not minimize the disease either.  COVID-19 would probably infect 1/3 or more of the world population by the time its through were it not for the imminent arrival of vaccine.  At that point we'd be talking about 500,000 to 1 million deaths in the US alone and maybe 12 million deaths worldwide.  That's less as a percentage of the population than the 1918 flu pandemic, but certainly enough to qualify as the worst pandemic since the 1918 flu pandemic.

To put things into perspective, at the peak of polio in 1952, there were 57,628 reported cases and 3,145 deaths.  This is much worse than polio.

BC

Balanced post. Thanks.  I don’t for a second minimize how bad this thing is. I just don’t agree with all of the steps taken and I’m not afraid to say so.

[BostonCard]

Balanced post. Thanks.  I don’t for a second minimize how bad this thing is. I just don’t agree with all of the steps taken and I’m not afraid to say so.

We know each other outside this board, and I know you aren't someone to delude yourself into thinking that this is just a cold.  I disagree with you on the importance of the steps that are taken (see my response to your post about the curfew), but you should not feel afraid to say so.  We are at a point where as infections and hospitalizations mount there will be a lot of pressure to "do something", and it is important to think through what that would be.  I think a curfew can help; I can be persuaded that other steps might be more effective, but I do think that increasing restrictions are coming, and I would argue that the sooner they are made, the less onerous they will have to be.

BC