Coronavirus cases and deaths among UM members
- Thread starter Onder
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
If I understand, they're saying that the increase in deaths simply means that a lot of people with underlying conditions are dying, and a lot of people with no underlying conditions are dying--as well as people with treatable conditions who aren't seeking help. If it were only already compromised people, the deaths would be lower.
That was my understanding, but that's based on a single quick read.
Allfader
Kvelding
That's exactly the current situation at hand. That's why this shit can't be taken lightly and people can't just trust on the premise that "I'm young and healthy, so this virus won't do anything to me".
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
The word "underlying" isn't used anywhere in the article you posted, so I don't know where you're reading that. Per the CDC data cited, one third of all wuflu deaths are from people 85+ and nearly two thirds are 75+; the national life expectancy rate is 79. Being elderly *is* an underlying condition, and it's clearly the predominant one for wuflu. How then are they determining that those people would have lived that much longer?
Additionally, the NYT (somewhat incidentally) reveals another weakness of trying to make this kind of prediction, when they mention that Hurricane Maria resulted in less than 100 direct deaths but the breakdown of order and healthcare availability ultimately killed 3000 over a period of months. From what I'm seeing, overall hospital attendance for non-wuflu health issues is actually down, which could mean that some people are foregoing or not receiving care because of prioritization of wuflu patients (and hospitals are paid more to treat the latter).
All I see is pure speculation and I doubt there will be any meaningful analysis until after the worst is over.
Einherjar86
Active Member
"Underlying" is my word; I'm simply using it to mean those more susceptible to the illness. This includes the elderly, as you mention. The article is presenting data that refutes arguments that say a) it's only the more susceptible (the elderly and immunocompromised) who are dying, and b) people under 50 (or so) aren't being affected. The death toll suggests that it's affecting people in all groups.
I don't think they're saying people in the higher age brackets would have lived much longer, although many of them certainly would have lived somewhat longer. That's not the point though; they're just saying that the number of susceptible people doesn't account for the high numbers we're seeing.
You're right that hospital attendance is down, and that people aren't receiving care for typically treatable illnesses. The article addresses this.
I don't think they're saying people in the higher age brackets would have lived much longer, although many of them certainly would have lived somewhat longer. That's not the point though; they're just saying that the number of susceptible people doesn't account for the high numbers we're seeing.
You're right that hospital attendance is down, and that people aren't receiving care for typically treatable illnesses. The article addresses this.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
Slammed
Active Member
- Jun 15, 2017
- 31,455
- 45,126
- 113
In this country medicos are bracing for a larger than usual number of late onset cancers and the like by the end of the year because of covid and people's reluctance to present at the hospital and clinic at the moment. However the number of flu cases already presenting is down something like 60% because of isolation.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
No one says that it literally only affects the elderly, and the NYT story, again, does not even acknowledge let alone refute a more honest telling of the argument ('elderly' = no results, 'old' = no results, 'morbid' = no results). The death toll in your posted article suggests that the death is largely driven by the elderly, and accounts elsewhere suggest that obesity, diabetes, and prior cardiac or lung problems are the most common co-morbidities in younger cases.
If you acknowledge that old age is the major factor in death, then you are acknowledging that old age makes up a major aspect of susceptibility, are you not? If you acknowledge that, then how can you not acknowledge that the high rate of death among old people is the major reason for the high overall rate of death?
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm not sure where the contradiction is. I think the death rates are primarily driven by old age and increased susceptibility; but those alone don't account for the high numbers. I'm also not saying that as many younger people as older are dying; I'm saying that disproportionate numbers of both are dying.
It's true that not all of these deaths are being caused by coronavirus, and it's possible that a lot of deaths in younger people have to do with other ailments. The article says we probably are witnessing a mix of under-reporting and increases in alternative CODs. There's no way to know for sure; but we do know that death rates are up, and that the elderly and immunocompromised only explain a portion of them. I don't think the article is saying that more younger people are dying because of coronavirus; the increase in deaths outside of the already-susceptible may have to do with non-covid issues, but it's still being exacerbated by the coronavirus outbreak.
It's true that not all of these deaths are being caused by coronavirus, and it's possible that a lot of deaths in younger people have to do with other ailments. The article says we probably are witnessing a mix of under-reporting and increases in alternative CODs. There's no way to know for sure; but we do know that death rates are up, and that the elderly and immunocompromised only explain a portion of them. I don't think the article is saying that more younger people are dying because of coronavirus; the increase in deaths outside of the already-susceptible may have to do with non-covid issues, but it's still being exacerbated by the coronavirus outbreak.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
I can agree with that, but then I go back to my original issue with the particular sentence I pointed out from the article, which is that they're attacking a strawman. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that wuflu is deadlier than most epidemics we've had over the last 100 years. The more common argument comes from the "don't let the cure be worse than the disease" people, and I'm totally against cherry-picking zoomer suicides extrapolating unemployment into the future to make the counter-argument fwiw. Just saying that the NYT piece either 1) says nothing by attacking a strawman with widely-available evidence, or 2) says a lot while failing to back it up with much more than speculation based on the same evidence.
Einherjar86
Active Member
For the sake of compromise, I'll say that it's probably more of a strawman than my sharing initially implied. But I do think there's a significant body of highly visible media personalities who've spread the idea that it's no worse than influenza. And then you have people protesting outside city hall who admit on camera that they think it's no worse than the flu. This might be a small percentage of people, but it's a highly visible percentage. Obviously, the media is partly to blame for that visibility.
Dak
mentat
National life expectancy includes deaths at very young ages. Actually making it to 75 means you are less likely to die at/before 79. Quality adjusted life year (QALY) is likely the metric that would need to be looked at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
Fair point, but then what would be the typical age of death for a person that survives to 75? What you are referring to was highly relevant in the medieval days but I don't think it makes much more than a few years' difference in the West today. A quick google is telling me that the average male who makes it to 65 will ultimately make it to 83 on average.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Hits close to home right now lol beard and hair is getting kinda hobo-tier.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Einherjar86
Active Member
I couldn't take it anymore. Set my beard trimmer to the longest length and went to town on my head. It's around my ears that really annoys me; I can't stand it when my hair is spilling over the tops of my ears.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Yeah that's me right now and I usually have it buzzed. Once I start feeling it on my ears I get irritated.
Dak
mentat
Yeah it mattered more then, but my point stands. The deaths in the 85+ crowd aren't losing a lot of QALYs due to ceiling effects but deaths between ages of 65-75 could be (depending on the levels of comorbidities of course).
At this point it's clear though that the lockdown was too late and halfassed, and therefore more or less ineffective and things need to open back up with an increase in sanitizing procedures and masks. Otherwise we're going to have far worse issues due to people going without work/businesses closed permanently etc.
Similar threads
