Corona killer stats

losta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
392
Deaths per million inhabitants

1. Italy 166
2. Spain 122
3. Netherlands 37
4. France 36
5. Iran 31
6. Switzerland 31
7. Belgium 31
8. UK 15
9. Denmark 11
10. Sweden 10
11. Portugal 10
 

chemfis

Active Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
82
Why Covid-19 deaths are a substantial over-estimate
Next, what about the deaths? Many UK health spokespersons have been careful to repeatedly say that the numbers quoted in the UK indicate death with the virus, not death due to the virus – this matters. When giving evidence in parliament a few days ago, Prof. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London said that he now expects fewer than 20,000 Covid-19 deaths in the UK but, importantly, two-thirds of these people would have died anyway. In other words, he suggests that the crude figure for ‘Covid deaths’ is three times higher than the number who have actually been killed by Covid-19. (Even the two-thirds figure is an estimate – it would not surprise me if the real proportion is higher.)

This nuance is crucial – not just in understanding the disease, but for understanding the burden it might place on the health service in coming days. Unfortunately nuance tends to be lost in the numbers quoted from the database being used to track Covid-19: the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. It has compiled a huge database, with Covid-19 data from all over the world, updated daily – and its figures are used, world over, to track the virus. This data is not standardised and so probably not comparable, yet this important caveat is seldom expressed by the (many) graphs we see. It risks exaggerating the quality of data that we have.

The distinction between dying ‘with’ Covid-19 and dying ‘due to’ Covid-19 is not just splitting hairs. Consider some examples: an 87-year-old woman with dementia in a nursing home; a 79-year-old man with metastatic bladder cancer; a 29-year-old man with leukaemia treated with chemotherapy; a 46-year-old woman with motor neurone disease for 2 years. All develop chest infections and die. All test positive for Covid-19. Yet all were vulnerable to death by chest infection from any infective cause (including the flu). Covid-19 might have been the final straw, but it has not caused their deaths. Consider two more cases: a 75-year-old man with mild heart failure and bronchitis; a 35-year-old woman who was previously fit and well with no known medical conditions. Both contract a chest infection and die, and both test positive for Covid-19. In the first case it is not entirely clear what weight to place on the pre-existing conditions versus the viral infection – to make this judgement would require an expert clinician to examine the case notes. The final case would reasonably be attributed to death caused by Covid-19, assuming it was true that there were no underlying conditions.
 

Papa Smurf

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
20,409
why is Africa taking sooooooo long to get there in the charts? Not enough testing?
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
15,475
Why Covid-19 deaths are a substantial over-estimate
Next, what about the deaths? Many UK health spokespersons have been careful to repeatedly say that the numbers quoted in the UK indicate death with the virus, not death due to the virus – this matters. When giving evidence in parliament a few days ago, Prof. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London said that he now expects fewer than 20,000 Covid-19 deaths in the UK but, importantly, two-thirds of these people would have died anyway. In other words, he suggests that the crude figure for ‘Covid deaths’ is three times higher than the number who have actually been killed by Covid-19. (Even the two-thirds figure is an estimate – it would not surprise me if the real proportion is higher.)

This nuance is crucial – not just in understanding the disease, but for understanding the burden it might place on the health service in coming days. Unfortunately nuance tends to be lost in the numbers quoted from the database being used to track Covid-19: the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. It has compiled a huge database, with Covid-19 data from all over the world, updated daily – and its figures are used, world over, to track the virus. This data is not standardised and so probably not comparable, yet this important caveat is seldom expressed by the (many) graphs we see. It risks exaggerating the quality of data that we have.

The distinction between dying ‘with’ Covid-19 and dying ‘due to’ Covid-19 is not just splitting hairs. Consider some examples: an 87-year-old woman with dementia in a nursing home; a 79-year-old man with metastatic bladder cancer; a 29-year-old man with leukaemia treated with chemotherapy; a 46-year-old woman with motor neurone disease for 2 years. All develop chest infections and die. All test positive for Covid-19. Yet all were vulnerable to death by chest infection from any infective cause (including the flu). Covid-19 might have been the final straw, but it has not caused their deaths. Consider two more cases: a 75-year-old man with mild heart failure and bronchitis; a 35-year-old woman who was previously fit and well with no known medical conditions. Both contract a chest infection and die, and both test positive for Covid-19. In the first case it is not entirely clear what weight to place on the pre-existing conditions versus the viral infection – to make this judgement would require an expert clinician to examine the case notes. The final case would reasonably be attributed to death caused by Covid-19, assuming it was true that there were no underlying conditions.
That makes no sense. Italy can't even deal with all the dead bodies, and this is implying 2/3rds would have died anyway. Yeah bs.

If Covid-19 hyper-accelerates your death, then you died because of Covid-19.
 

losta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
392
Deaths per million inhabitants

1. Italy 178
2. Spain 145
3. Netherlands 45
4. France 40
5. Belgium 37
6. Switzerland 35
7. Iran 31
8. UK 19
9. Denmark 12
10. Portugal 12
11 Sweden 11
12. Austria10
13. Ireand 9
14. USA 7
15. Germany 6
16. Norway 5
17. Slovenia 5
18. Greece 4
19. Panama 4
20. Albania 4
 

netstrider

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
1,049
Well, for a country like Netherlands for example, they will be the one of the first to recover at least. Maybe that is how their government is looking at it? From there they can manufacture and export.
 

Verde

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
1,432
That makes no sense. Italy can't even deal with all the dead bodies, and this is implying 2/3rds would have died anyway. Yeah bs.

If Covid-19 hyper-accelerates your death, then you died because of Covid-19.
You will have to define "hyper-accelerate", but I can assure you that when a late stage cancer, diabetes, heart disease, copd, tb etc patient's death is accelerated by a cold the cause of death it is not listed as a cold.
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
15,475
You will have to define "hyper-accelerate", but I can assure you that when a late stage cancer, diabetes, heart disease, copd, tb etc patient's death is accelerated by a cold the cause of death it is not listed as a cold.
No definition is necessary, and the common cold is no comparison. Just open up any news site you prefer and the devastation of Covid-19 is clear. Thousands of people are dying every day and it's folly to say that they basically all died of natural causes. The vast majority would otherwise be alive, even if their health isn't amazing. Most of them still had a hefty chunk of their life still to live.
 

Mirai

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
527
You will have to define "hyper-accelerate", but I can assure you that when a late stage cancer, diabetes, heart disease, copd, tb etc patient's death is accelerated by a cold the cause of death it is not listed as a cold.
Cold won't do it. Yes actual causes of death should be listed. So if it's a pulmonary embolism, a common cause of cancer death, it would be listed as that.
 

Verde

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
1,432
Cold won't do it. Yes actual causes of death should be listed. So if it's a pulmonary embolism, a common cause of cancer death, it would be listed as that.
As a co-mortality factor.
 

Verde

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
1,432
the devastation of Covid-19 is clear. Thousands of people are dying every day and it's folly to say that they basically all died of natural causes. The vast majority would otherwise be alive, even if their health isn't amazing. Most of them still had a hefty chunk of their life still to live.
The average age of 2/3rds of the Covid19 dead in Italy is 85.
An average 85 yo has a life expectancy of 5 years.
By 28-3-20 4500 people over the age of 80 with Covid19 died in Italy.
The population over 80 yo is +-4.4 million. (4500/4400000 = +-1/1000)
It is not at all unreasonable to assume that many more than 1 in every 1000 people over this age has a life expectancy of less than 1 year.
 

Sudo Panic

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
693
Why Covid-19 deaths are a substantial over-estimate
Next, what about the deaths? Many UK health spokespersons have been careful to repeatedly say that the numbers quoted in the UK indicate death with the virus, not death due to the virus – this matters. When giving evidence in parliament a few days ago, Prof. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London said that he now expects fewer than 20,000 Covid-19 deaths in the UK but, importantly, two-thirds of these people would have died anyway. In other words, he suggests that the crude figure for ‘Covid deaths’ is three times higher than the number who have actually been killed by Covid-19. (Even the two-thirds figure is an estimate – it would not surprise me if the real proportion is higher.)

This nuance is crucial – not just in understanding the disease, but for understanding the burden it might place on the health service in coming days. Unfortunately nuance tends to be lost in the numbers quoted from the database being used to track Covid-19: the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. It has compiled a huge database, with Covid-19 data from all over the world, updated daily – and its figures are used, world over, to track the virus. This data is not standardised and so probably not comparable, yet this important caveat is seldom expressed by the (many) graphs we see. It risks exaggerating the quality of data that we have.

The distinction between dying ‘with’ Covid-19 and dying ‘due to’ Covid-19 is not just splitting hairs. Consider some examples: an 87-year-old woman with dementia in a nursing home; a 79-year-old man with metastatic bladder cancer; a 29-year-old man with leukaemia treated with chemotherapy; a 46-year-old woman with motor neurone disease for 2 years. All develop chest infections and die. All test positive for Covid-19. Yet all were vulnerable to death by chest infection from any infective cause (including the flu). Covid-19 might have been the final straw, but it has not caused their deaths. Consider two more cases: a 75-year-old man with mild heart failure and bronchitis; a 35-year-old woman who was previously fit and well with no known medical conditions. Both contract a chest infection and die, and both test positive for Covid-19. In the first case it is not entirely clear what weight to place on the pre-existing conditions versus the viral infection – to make this judgement would require an expert clinician to examine the case notes. The final case would reasonably be attributed to death caused by Covid-19, assuming it was true that there were no underlying conditions.
Could you link the article that you're quoting from otherwise its just hearsay.
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
12,123
Could you link the article that you're quoting from otherwise its just hearsay.
Try:

And a more in-depth article:

Its not reported much in the mainstream media, because they like to preserve the illusion that every life is sacred, and it is worth spending millions to prolong lifespan by a few months. Hard-headed doctors, politicians and epidemiologists know this, but few are prepared to say so publicly, to avoid being seen as uncaring. Nobody wants to be categorised as a "granny killer", even if this would preserve the lives of more productive younger adults.

Realistic details can be found in popular publications such as New Scientist:
 
Last edited:

chemfis

Active Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
82
Could you link the article that you're quoting from otherwise its just hearsay.
It's in the spectator magazine.

 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
12,123
It's in the spectator magazine.

Be wary. The Spectator is a very enlightening and entertaining read, but it is literary and politically oriented. I have seen articles which contain fundamental scientific inaccuracies and biases, and would not rely on that as a source of primary information.

Edit:
1. Not a bad article as such, though written by a pathologist, not an epidemiologist.
2. The Spectator has a paywall, with only 2 free articles per month.
 
Last edited:

chemfis

Active Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
82
Be wary. The Spectator is a very enlightening and entertaining read, but it is literary and politically oriented. I have seen articles which contain fundamental scientific inaccuracies and biases, and would not rely on that as a source of primary information.

Edit:
1. Not a bad article as such, though written by a pathologist, not an epidemiologist.
2. The Spectator has a paywall, with only 2 free articles per month.
I was a subscriber for about a year and enjoyed that very much, I have a science background and checked a few times on their facts in various articles, never could fault them. Do you have any specific examples?

Not a subscriber any more simply due to cost, went for a "New Scientist" subscription instead. I have seen very similar figures stated in their articles.
 
Top