Nationwide, all ages, total mortality for the first 15 weeks of the calendar year for the average of 2013-2019:

846,835

Nationwide, all ages, total mortality for the first 15 weeks of the 2020 calendar year:

848,042

Delta between total mortality for the first 15 weeks of average of 2013-2019 and first 15 weeks of 2020:

+1207

serious, good faith question: how can this be?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40100123)

Did you see this article?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40111017)

i mean, i think there is excess mortality from fraudvirus, but not that much.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40100155)

<18: 79% (meaning FEWER people in this cohort died over the same period compared to average)

18-65: 99% (yes, again, FEWER deaths)

65+: 102% (so here's our first increase)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40100139)

1. Less car accidents and less accidents generally

2. Less flu deaths cause people are being more hygienic and isolated

3. Fraudvirus deaths are mostly people with one foot in the grave anyway

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40100148)

<18: -2215 (so FEWER deaths than average)

18-64: -4495 (again, same story)

65+: 13817 (first time number gets bigger)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40100153)

comparison is banning cars vs. doing a lockdown, not cars vs. virus

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40101264)

the number of lives saved versus the number of people killed matches precisely enough to have a delta of 1,000 people between lockdown+virus and no-lockdown+no-virus? Even accounting for population growth?

maybe this is right, but this sort of beggars belief to me

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40100169)

1 524 4656 59165 420 4021 59146 80% 86% 100% -19

2 606 4833 59852 457 4014 59194 75% 83% 99% -658

3 578 4726 58421 445 3920 57668 77% 83% 99% -753

4 528 4543 57604 473 3765 57065 90% 83% 99% -539

5 494 4440 57278 454 3641 56529 92% 82% 99% -749

6 473 4334 57261 488 3640 57136 103% 84% 100% -125

7 485 4297 57021 510 3652 56339 105% 85% 99% -682

8 431 4242 56187 527 3515 56039 122% 83% 100% -148

9 399 4110 55859 596 3541 55638 149% 86% 100% -221

10 350 4129 56087 572 3660 55173 164% 89% 98% -914

11 319 4033 55231 565 3623 53239 177% 90% 96% -1992

12 272 3929 54864 485 4071 53130 178% 104% 97% -1734

13 254 3815 54173 386 5433 55778 152% 142% 103% 1605

14 219 3789 54094 408 8045 60195 187% 212% 111% 6102

15 178 3724 53739 380 7723 55773 213% 207% 104% 2034

TOTAL 6109 63600 846835 7166 66264 848042 131% 107% 100% 1207

EDIT: nope looks like shit. oh well i tried

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40100201)

all ages: 2020 deaths were 103%, 111%, and 104% of same-week deaths from averaged prior six years

<18: 2020 deaths were 64%, 57%, 43% of same-week deaths from averaged prior six years

18-64: 2020 deaths were 98%, 102%, 88% of same-week deaths from averaged prior six years

65+: 2020 deaths were 106%, 117%, 111% of same-week deaths from averaged prior six years

especially considering this doesn't adjust for population increase, this seems like a minimal increase.

for the sake of argument, if we took the delta of all deaths from just those three weeks, averaged out the delta from those three weeks with the intent to capture the "peak," and multiplied the average of those numbers by 52 (considering most people think we're a year away from a vaccine), the result is: 168,844 more deaths than we'd otherwise have in the same period

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40100387)

Bro, even 1 death justifies complete destruction of our economy, freedom, and standard of living

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40100907)

here's the data. data direct from cdc. all calcs mine

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40100571)

Absolutely scintillating scholarship ITT. Forwarding it to the Nobel committee.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40101219)

"More than 27,000 New Yorkers have died since the start of the novel coronavirus outbreak in March — 20,900 more than would be expected over this period and thousands more than have been captured by official coronavirus death statistics."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40104560)

week 10 delta of all-cause mortality over average from the last 6 years:

1

week 11:

17

week 12:

324

week 13:

1564

week 14:

4298

week 15:

4831

week 16:

1765

first, i don't understand how the NYT reached a delta of 20,900 - i see a delta of 12,799. now maybe we should be gracious and assume that between april 16-april 27 (the publication date of the article) we saw 8,000 more deaths. but that would mean the pace is accelerating... and i'd ask how they reach that calculation considering the CDC isn't yet able to certify that result.

but forget that. the average weekly deaths over average during the period of time the NYT selected equals 1828 more deaths per week. i'm not arguing that isn't significant as hell. but i want clarity.

so let's annualize the peak. if we take the peak total all-cause mortality death of NYC for the period selected by the NYT, we get 149,760 deaths. what amount of deaths would we expect to see? 57,564. NYC population is 8,399,000. so:

normal year: 0.6% of all NYC residents die

2020: 1.7% of all NYC residents die

draw your own conclusions. i'm not sure.

EDIT: all data linked below

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40110295)

we’ve been told 50k deaths from COVID so far. But our mitigation measures reduced ALL other deaths by 49k?

def possible but seems strange. seems like occham’s razor is that we’re recharacterizing other types of death as COVID deaths, but I’m looking for reasons to disprove that hypothesis. Do u have one?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40101476)

Global coronavirus death toll could be 60% higher than reported | Free to read

Mortality statistics show 122,000 deaths in excess of normal levels across 14 countries analysed by the FT

© FT montage; AFP/Getty

John Burn-Murdoch, Valentina Romei and Chris Giles in London yesterday

Print this page

735

Be the first to know about every new Coronavirus story

The death toll from coronavirus may be almost 60 per cent higher than reported in official counts, according to an FT analysis of overall fatalities during the pandemic in 14 countries.

Mortality statistics show 122,000 deaths in excess of normal levels across these locations, considerably higher than the 77,000 official Covid-19 deaths reported for the same places and time periods.

If the same level of under-reporting observed in these countries was happening worldwide, the global Covid-19 death toll would rise from the current official total of 201,000 to as high as 318,000.

To calculate excess deaths, the FT has compared deaths from all causes in the weeks of a location’s outbreak in March and April 2020 to the average for the same period between 2015 and 2019. The total of 122,000 amounts to a 50 per cent rise in overall mortality relative to the historical average for the locations studied.

In all the countries analysed except Denmark, excess deaths far outnumbered the official coronavirus death tolls. The accuracy of official death statistics from the virus is limited by how effectively a country is testing people to confirm cases. Some countries, including China, have retrospectively revised up their death tolls from the disease.

A chart showing how deaths from all causes have shot up in countries across the world during Covid-19 outbreaks

According to the FT analysis, overall deaths rose 60 per cent in Belgium, 51 per cent in Spain, 42 per cent in the Netherlands and 34 per cent in France during the pandemic compared with the same period in previous years.

Some of these deaths may be the result of causes other than Covid-19, as people avoid hospitals for other ailments. But excess mortality has risen most steeply in places suffering the worst Covid-19 outbreaks, suggesting most of these deaths are directly related to the virus rather than simply side-effects of lockdowns.

Editor’s note

The Financial Times is making key coronavirus coverage free to read to help everyone stay informed. Find the latest here.

David Spiegelhalter, professor of the public understanding of risk at Cambridge university, said the daily counts in the UK, for instance, were “far too low” because they only accounted for hospital deaths.

“The only unbiased comparison you can make between different countries is by looking at all cause mortality . . . There are so many questions about the rise we’ve seen in death that have not got Covid on the death certificate, yet you feel are inevitably linked in some way to this epidemic.”

The extra deaths are most pronounced in urban areas with the worst virus outbreaks, and have completely overwhelmed reporting mechanisms in some. This is especially worrying for many emerging economies, where total excess mortality is orders of magnitude higher than official coronavirus fatalities.

In Ecuador’s Guayas province, just 245 official Covid-related deaths were reported between March 1 and April 15, but data on total deaths show that about 10,200 more people died during this period than in a typical year — an increase of 350 per cent.

A chart showing how deaths from all causes have more-than-doubled in many cities worldwide during Covid-19 outbreaks

In the northern Italian region of Lombardy, the heart of Europe’s worst outbreak, there are more than 13,000 excess deaths in the official statistics for the nearly 1,700 municipalities for which data is available. This is an uptick of 155 per cent on the historical average and far higher than the 4,348 reported Covid deaths in the region.

The region surrounding the Italian city of Bergamo registered the worst increase internationally with a 464 per cent rise in deaths above normal levels, followed by New York City with a 200 per cent increase, and Madrid, Spain, with a 161 per cent increase.

In the Indonesian capital Jakarta, data on burials shows an increase of 1,400 relative to the historical average during the same period — 15 times the official figure of 90 Covid deaths for the same period.

A funeral worker watches as the body of an unidentified person who died of unknown causes is placed into a niche at the Girona Cemetery, Spain © Felipe Dana/AP

The challenge is not confined to the developing world. In England and Wales, the number of fatalities in the week ending April 10 was the highest this century. The figure was 76 per cent higher than the average for the same week in the past five years, and the number of excess deaths was 58 per cent higher than the total number of reported Covid-deaths for the same period.

“If we want to . . . [understand] the ways different countries have responded to the surging pandemic and how [it] has affected the health of the population, the best way is to count excess deaths,” said David Leon, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

Father Bruno Lefèvre Pontalis walks behind pall bearers carrying a coffin past empty pews in the nave of Saint-François-Xavier church during the funeral service of a coronavirus victim during lockdown in Paris, France © Nathan Laine/Bloomberg

Experts have warned of serious under-reporting of Covid-19 cases in residential facilities for the elderly, who are particularly vulnerable to the virus. “Very few countries appear to be testing people in care homes, staff and residents, systematically,” said Adelina Comas-Herrera, research fellow at the Care Policy and Evaluation Centre of the London School of Economics.

Even the much higher numbers of deaths in the pandemic suggested by excess mortality statistics are likely to be conservative, as lockdowns mean that “mortality from numerous conditions such as traffic accidents and occupational injuries possibly went down”, said Markéta Pechholdová, assistant professor of demography at the University of Economics, Prague.

Bill Gates on the global battle with coronavirus

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40101520)

They also say "experts" have looked at other countries (not U.S. yet) and concluded there have been 121K excess deaths over the last month or so.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40103137)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/covid-19-death-toll-undercounted/?arc404=true

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40104206)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTis2i3Fevwg0ErztYCU-wjBEZ_ZeymAiuOsloNN53p-a9-jwvfuva674HZBxoKO77F_wVuYMinq3h5/pubhtml

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40110055)

michigan only has COMPLETE cdc data available between march 1 - april 11. that's a weakness, and ill update. so its not as good as NYC. but this period of time has a raw death delta of 1617 (so that's all-cause mortality in that period compared with all-cause mortality for the same period over the averaged last six years). we'd normally see 11,603 deaths during this time, but we saw 13,220.

okay so let's do an annualization delta. we'll assume the peak of deaths carried forward for a whole year. to determine this delta, i'm actually going to be generous and narrow the peak only to the WORST part of the peak, so, to be clear, i'm being highly conservative to capture only the three worst death weeks in MI. so going forward, we're talking march 22 - april 11.

average weekly death delta: 533

multiplied as if peak applied to year: 27,716 more deaths than average year

so in a normal year, MI would see 99,684 deaths.

in a hypothetical peak-COVID all year year, MI would see 127,400 deaths.

MI has 9,987,000 residents. turned into percentages, that means in a normal year, 0.9% of all residents die. in a COVID-peak year, 1.2% of all residents die

link to aggregated data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSCWmLe4jDb2vlanaDhUq1qhQZ-t7Vl2kSac_p1ThrJY0bxBZMBCSw0Yu72QLOVyAH0r47FyGyzIaP1/pubhtml

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40110631)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

This is directly comparing average of three previous years week with a given week.

Only 3 weeks are "above average," March 28 (102%), April 4 (113%) and April 11 (115%).

It's also clear this is a New York City problem (209% for 2/104/25), they're basically single-handedly raising the death rate. NJ and NY are fucked, too. Everything else is literally a rounding error. (Asterisk about it takes 8 weeks to get in death certificates blah blah blah)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40115683)

second, they are using running totals but aren't accounting for any group in which there is LOWER than average mortality. in other words, if you have a "negative excess" death amount in a subcategory, that amount is reported as zero. and that's a big problem given that certain groups have way negative death rates (sort by age in my data!)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40150139)

updated numbers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40150111)

- the impact of this pandemic has so far been HEAVILY localized in terms of mortality impact. the overall balance of the pandemic's effect on mortality nationwide has been slightly - and i do mean slightly - positive. but it's a barely cognizable bump.

- this was no joke in NYC. NYC got wrecked, full stop. conservative media is ignoring this. that might be a sign for the future of the country, but we also need to recognize NYC is just categorically a different type of living experience than just about anywhere else in the country. we're acting like NYC is everywhere, it is not, but that doesn't mean it won't be in the future...

- ...but michigan's data kind of makes me doubt it. michigan was selected as a state because i'm from there, but also because it was pretty universally recognized as a state impacted disproportionately to its population. when you tear into the numbers, however, you can find that the overall increase in mortality has been extremely slight across the state. MI's mortality also appears to have peaked, so the worst is over.

- we have no idea how to categorize CAUSE of death. i think that "COVID-19 DEATH" statistics are useless. witness: the bizarre jitter in the weeks leading up to COVID when physicians were trying to categorize flu or pneumonia deaths. each physician was just looking at the bodies in front of them, and the aggregate was that we were seeing enormous spikes in "pneumonia" or "flu" deaths. news flash (which, to be fair, we could only see in retrospect) they were COVID deaths, we just didn't know it yet.

- liberal media is selectively choosing states with the bad impact to try to illustrate that all of their selected interventions were worth it. look at the NYT excess mortality stat page. they happened to select the eight or nine jurisdictions that have a positive mortality balance. guess what nationwide it's almost even with average.

- other measures of excess mortality reporting have nonsense cooked into them, which is how you're getting these reports that the COVID death rate is underreported. horseshit. look at the CDC's excess mortality measurement tool (which surprisingly appeared two weeks ago... hmm) which doesn't agree with their own general universal mortality data. why? look at their measurement methodology.

- the age distribution is insane. drakemallard is right about one thing - if you have a teen or young child you're putting them at way, way more risk doing whatever it is that you stopped doing when we were on quarantine. the rate of 0-17 mortality has dropped like a stone. we're literally seeing HALF as many people in this age group die as normal... which isn't surprising because suicide is harder when the entire family is at home, and accidents are more difficult when you can't play at the house where ricky's dad doesn't lock up his guns

- the 18-64 age distribution also needs to be trumpeted from the hilltops. this group is basically at baseline...

- but we're also minimizing the impact this has had on people 65+. they are citizens too. what happened in our nation's nursing homes WAS a disgrace.

that's all for now

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40159770)

So what we have known since February?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40186508)

no. not if you are one of hundreds of millions of americans who (1) rely on the NYT for news or (2) rely on infowars for news or (3) are in a political bubble where statistics are cherry-picked to prove that we either are living in a fascist superstate or should be locked in our homes until we're all dead from non-COVID causes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40188964)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSVX3M0yCQWOpGcVPPEGHMEJZ2sW_GqZrFIo2swUdl1ywLkmCzjl9rlq-FYklLMXhXJUfb3Pt9g2zAh/pubhtml

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40186233)

But thank you for your work on this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40189710)

takeaways -

per capita to date, we would normally see one death out of every 341.48 people nationwide. this year, we have seen one death out of every 349.13 people. so it's slightly LESS common to die this year nationwide than any other year.

per capita to date, we would normally see one death out of every 298.81 michiganders. this year, we have seen one death out of every 282.16. so it's slightly more common to die as a michigan resident this year than in any other year.

as i suspected, CO and FL's rates of excess mortality are mostly explained by their increased population. here is the same comparison as above in CO and FL:

- CO would expect 1 death per 429.79 people, this year has had 1 death per 399.50 people

- FL would expect 1 death per 305.35 people, this year has had 1 death per 305.16 people (so basically identical mortality over average)

but now look at NYC... would normally expect 1 death per 426.64 people, but have seen to date 1 death out of every 251.96 people!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40189175)

Experts attributed this year’s increase almost entirely to the impact of COVID-19.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40187756)

FL is the best i can do for conservative southern states. until then i can only do a retrospective

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40188970)

https://www.bloombergquint.com/coronavirus-outbreak/new-york-city-had-24-172-excess-deaths-as-outbreak-accelerated

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40189684)

answer: i dunno, but it has to be the model. look at their definition of how they claim they arrived at "excess all-cause deaths":

"Total excess all-cause deaths were calculated as observed deaths minus expected deaths as determined by a seasonal regression model using mortality data from the period January 1, 2015-May 2, 2020."

we'd need to look at their model for clues. but we can't see it. you CAN see how mine works because the spreadsheet is transparent. hmm.

https://www.bloombergquint.com/coronavirus-outbreak/new-york-city-had-24-172-excess-deaths-as-outbreak-accelerated

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40189872)

"there were a total of 32,107 deaths, 24,172 more that the city would have expected." um, what?

their data on total deaths - 32,107

my data on total deaths - 31,895

okay that seems pretty close. so where's the problem?

their claim about "expected deaths" to this point - 7,935 (which i arrive at by subtracting the claimed excess from the total)

actual data on expected deaths to this point by prior years:

2015 - 20,133

2016 - 19,438

2017 - 19,431

2018 - 20,167

2019 - 19,285

what in the ACTUAL hell? this was either a really, really sloppy error or intentionally misrepresenting prior year mortality to make the excess number higher.

EDIT: and look, i found out why -

"From March 11 to May 2, there were a total of 32,107 deaths, 24,172 more that the city would have expected in that time based on past trends, according to a report from New York’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene that was published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

WRONG. that's the total from January 1 to May 2, not from March 11 to May 2. meanwhile, the total of the expected deaths between march 11 and may 2? 8,349.

so what's the answer? they compared the actual deaths from january 1 to may 2 against the expected deaths between march 11 and may 2. lol.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40189898)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40190102)

32,000 total deaths. 12,000 excess. At least 12,000 are attributable to COVID. That's a lot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40190355)

plus, the actual number is WORSE than you say - my CDC-backed calcs say we have excess mortality of 13347 new york city residents. holy shit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40190420)

- begin treating different areas of the country differently (and acknowledging that they probably deserve different treatment);

- begin treating people over the age of 65 as presumptive COVID cases today and building up a social safety net sufficient to actually, you know, stop them from dying by the dozen of thousands; and

- lessen restrictions on younger individuals, who have extremely remote risk of dying from the virus but whose economic activity has been seriously hampered by sheltering restrictions.

one way or another, though, bloomberg articles like this one aren't helping. just my two cents

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40190474)

:(

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4520509&forum_id=2Elisa#40207797)