Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

edhopper

(33,580 posts)
Thu Aug 13, 2020, 09:46 AM Aug 2020

The True Coronavirus Toll in the U.S. Has Already Surpassed 200,000!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/12/us/covid-deaths-us.html

Across the United States, at least 200,000 more people have died than usual since March, according to a New York Times analysis of estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is about 60,000 higher than the number of deaths that have been directly linked to the coronavirus.


Something we all thought was true, but now an analytical confirmation.
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The True Coronavirus Toll in the U.S. Has Already Surpassed 200,000! (Original Post) edhopper Aug 2020 OP
Not a great title for the data FBaggins Aug 2020 #1
It still comes down to edhopper Aug 2020 #3
+ struggle4progress Aug 2020 #6
Occam's Razor does not justify oversimplifying complex problems FBaggins Aug 2020 #9
And Trump will keep screwing with the data until he gets what he wants. Initech Aug 2020 #2
I'm sure of it. "Excess deaths" is how they come up with the Hortensis Aug 2020 #4
"Flu kills only a fraction of the excess deaths" FBaggins Aug 2020 #8
200K cases plausibly linked to the epidemic and its various effects struggle4progress Aug 2020 #5
As far as the lock down being a causal factor edhopper Aug 2020 #7

FBaggins

(26,743 posts)
1. Not a great title for the data
Thu Aug 13, 2020, 10:37 AM
Aug 2020

That isn't uncommon. Editors often pick titles to grab attention that aren't necessarily supported by the article itself... so it's hard to tell whether it's the author or editor who made the mistake.

What the data supports is that there have been ~200k "excess deaths" during the period. It's natural to assume that they must be COVID deaths, but it's still an assumption, not an "analytical confirmation". Some things to consider:

There are lots of people dying over the last ~5 months who would not have died otherwise because they contracted the virus
There are also some people who would have died over the last few months anyway... but had the virus too
There are definitely some people who would not have died during the period and who did not contract the disease... but died of other causes (e.g., lack of medical care at the hospital because of COVID restrictions).
There are probably even some people who would have died during the period but who didn't die because COVID precautions also protected them from catching something else.

Rather than assuming that there are 30k COVID deaths that have somehow been hidden... I'd prefer to assume that saving hundreds of thousands of additional lives by locking down the economy had some negative side effects.

edhopper

(33,580 posts)
3. It still comes down to
Thu Aug 13, 2020, 10:48 AM
Aug 2020

there are 200,000 more deaths than have happened over that same time period over the last number of years. The death rate is pretty stable. Occam's Razor should lead us to the one thing different this year is the main cause. I would think the small percent of this that is because of the lockdown are cancelled by less deaths because of the lock down. (less driving miles, etc...)

FBaggins

(26,743 posts)
9. Occam's Razor does not justify oversimplifying complex problems
Thu Aug 13, 2020, 11:21 AM
Aug 2020

There isn't just "one thing" that's different this year.

That "one thing" has caused massive changes is many other things that also have potential impacts on life expectancy.

I would think the small percent of this that is because of the lockdown are cancelled by less deaths because of the lock down.

That's not an unreasonable starting assumption... but that doesn't mean that it's correct. I, too, assume that if we're still in the same place in January... there will be far fewer flu deaths than a normal year because masks and social distancing should work really well against the flu too. But that's just an assumption.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
4. I'm sure of it. "Excess deaths" is how they come up with the
Thu Aug 13, 2020, 10:52 AM
Aug 2020

algorhythms for estimating flu epidemic deaths. It was a big surprise to me to learn that death rates from the flu alone are far lower than the epidemic totals. Flu kills only a fraction of the "excess deaths."

FBaggins

(26,743 posts)
8. "Flu kills only a fraction of the excess deaths"
Thu Aug 13, 2020, 11:13 AM
Aug 2020

That's because flu kills a proportion of the NON excess deaths every year.

struggle4progress

(118,290 posts)
5. 200K cases plausibly linked to the epidemic and its various effects
Thu Aug 13, 2020, 10:59 AM
Aug 2020

It will include uncounted covid-19 cases, people whose immediate cause of death was something else but with covid-19 infection contributing, people unable or afraid to get other urgent medical care due to epidemic stresses on the medical system, people dying of drug overdoses or suicide from epidemic-related depression related to the epidemic (from economic problems, for example) &c&c

edhopper

(33,580 posts)
7. As far as the lock down being a causal factor
Thu Aug 13, 2020, 11:12 AM
Aug 2020

if so we would not see the excess deaths rising in the South after the lock down was eased.
It's clearly COVID.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The True Coronavirus Toll...