Corona Virus Mortality Risk for Diabetes and High Blood Pressure

(bulkbiker) #41

Maybe depends on your criteria?

Reducing mortality without increasing quality of life is pretty pointless IMO.

(bulkbiker) #42

That would depend on the accuracy of recording what people die from rather than “with”
With the laxity of reporting that is being encouraged at the moment we’ll likely never know for sure.
Testing isn’t adequate and I’m guessing that few post mortems will be carried out when there is a convenient “COVID” cause of death to be employed.Which takes us back to the importance of accuracy.
Unfortunately, for those who have created the hysteria around this mildly fatal disease, such accuracy in reporting would not be convenient.

(Consensus is Politics) #43

Kudos to @OldDoug for catching my mistake. But it wasn’t so much as a decimal error as actually a misinterpretation of one slide in the data shown.

One slide showed NYC % tested being 43%. I took that as being 43% of NYC population. But what it actually is, is 43% of the total test performed. So now the secret is out. Bob is NOT a statistician… But is he good enough to play one on TV?

My apologies everyone. But one thing is true… we still don’t have the numbers of total tests performed. That is a number that is one of the most important numbers in all of this, IMHO.

I’ll sideline myself for a bit. Self distancing one might say :cowboy_hat_face:

But I refuse to :mask:

Keto Vitae!

(Leroy) #44

Suicides are one thing that will probably increase. It may be counter-intuitive, but crime as whole usually goes down when the economy is slow. People think like “guy is out of work, can’t feed his family, steals a loaf of bread…” but weird as it may seem, hard times produce less crime, often a lot less; (1/3 less as the US tried to get out of the 1930s Depression, as example).

(Doug) #45

Well, we were talking about the number of deaths.

That’s pretty tangential - I mean, so what are we to do, whack a bunch of people if it makes somebody else’s day? :smile:

More seriously, per your link, yes - there are consequences to poverty. But it’s not like lifting a stay-at-home order banishes poverty. The markets and people’s behavior changed fast, regardless of what gov’ts did or did not do - the overwhelming majority of the economic effect we’re seeing was going to happen anyway.

In the ‘Great Recession’ kids faced an increased chance of physical and psychological aggression, but a decreased chance of physical and supervisory/exposure neglect.

It’s not like the Great Recession destructively and permanently scarred a generation which was then beyond hope or anything - and the same was true in the Depression of the 1930s (and that was without all the social ‘safety-net’ things we have today).

(Doug) #46

Yeah, no argument there.

But this is often grossly exaggerated, i.e. there is a lot of myth involved - a good bit of it stemming from the Great Depression of the 1930s (people think of “jumping out of windows,” for example). The suicide rate in the U.S. averaged 13.6 per 100,000 people in the 25 years prior to 1929.

1929 = 13.9 (the rate for the year actually went down after the stock market crash)
1930 = 15.6
1931 = 16.8
1932 = 17.4

1932 had the highest rate, and this was without all the social programs that the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt, etc. later brought in. This was before the social ‘safety-net’ programs - Social Security, unemployment, welfare, etc. Lately, the U.S. rate has been pretty steady at 14.2.

(Doug) #47

It’s not “hysteria.” It’s a very infectious virus that’s killing a lot of people, and for which some people have a lot of vulnerability to. That governments take some action against it is hardly delirious or unreasonable.


England and Wales - deaths were tracking very close to historical norms prior to Covid-19. For the period of 7 March to 10 April, there were 16,700 more deaths than normal. Reported Covid-19 deaths were 10,335. That leaves 6365 deaths unaccounted for.

We know that in times of lower economic activity, total deaths tend to go down. That includes cases where individuals “die sooner than expected,” and people being murdered because the Mister and Missus are at home with each other, and suicides, etc. So all those cases don’t even begin to bridge the gap in deaths we have.

Sure, there will be some such cases. But is there a rational argument that they represent, in this instance, any significant portion of the uncounted deaths? If there is, I would like to see it.

Meanwhile - we have the fact that deaths outside of hospitals were almost uniformly not being counted, and that these heavily involved respiratory failure. A large portion of those dead people were old, and died at home or in care facilities outside hospitals. The U.K. Office for National Statistics, in looking at all the deaths occurring, suggested that many Covid-19 deaths were occurring outside hospitals, and thus did not appear in the National Health Service numbers - which, at least at that time, were the official count.

The same thing is happening many places around the world. Taking out normal, expected deaths and even allowing for something like the peak of a very bad flu season, the evidence is immensely strong that Covid-19 deaths are being undercounted. Paris went over twice the number of expected deaths per day (even compared to severe flu, etc.). New York City went to six times the amount.

(bulkbiker) #48

So far this year COVID has been reported to have killed about 220,000 people.

Every single day more than 150,000 die globally… every single day… without remark

So we have had 1.3 days worth of deaths from the virus.

We are on day 118 of this year so 17,700,000 people would have died anyway.

Covid has increased deaths by 1.2 % (assuming that all the extra deaths are even due to COVID).

Yes it is a hysterical reaction.

(Peter) #49

“People die anyway, so who cares what they die of or if it’s sooner than you would expect? They gonna die, homie.”

(Doug) #50

There’s never been any hysteria. In the beginning nobody knew how lethal or contagious this virus was. Some countries acted strongly and quickly, but this was not a hysterical reaction, this was just clamping down hard - and those few countries have a very low number of deaths - (South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong) 268 deaths among 88+ million people.

Everybody else acted less vehemently, more cautiously, slower, etc. The only real “hysteria” is on the part of those who erroneously attribute much of the economic slowdown to gov’t action, rather than the markets themselves and the change in people’s behavior that is due to the virus rather than gov’t decree.

If you want to talk about raw numbers, there are “only” about 26,000 deaths per day due to cancer. How many does it take before you think it’s “bad”?

(bulkbiker) #51

People die all the time of “things”

That everyone in the world is following a specific set of people who maybe die from one particular thing is a bit odd don’t you think?

If you don’t think locking everyone up in their homes is a bit hysterical then please queue up for the kool-aid and the mandated vaccine when it comes…

(bulkbiker) #52

Indeed who actually cares… only the near and dear of the people who die really care.

The rest is just social conditioning.

(Windmill Tilter) #53

I started this thread a long while ago, so I though I’d check in.

We’ve had some great news here in NY, the epicenter of the global pandemic. Gov Cuomo has implemented random antibody testing statewide with around 3000 random tests weekly. The last two results in NYC were 21% & 25% of all people randomly testing positive. What makes that incredibly good news is that the mortality rate is dramatically lower than expected. NYC has around 8,000,000 people, and around 17,000 people have died in NYC. If the random testing results are correct, that would put the over-all mortality rate under 1%.

In even better news, we now know that this poses almost no threat to the healthy, regardless of age.
So far in NYC, of the 11,820 cases for which we have good data, there have been 68 deaths without underlying conditions regardless of age. If we assume that 2,000,000 New Yorkers have been infected, that puts the death rate for otherwise healthy people at .000034. That’s positively microscopic. Note that a 65 year old without underlying conditions has 1/100th the risk of a 45 year old with them.

Unfortunately, it turns out that being unhealthy just became extremely dangerous. The sum of our dietary and exercise choices during our lifetimes just became critically important. People who have kept themselves healthy have no real risk. People who have made bad choices (like me!) and wound up obese with the inevitable T2 diabetes, high blood pressure etc have a serious problem. People who are at risk due to underlying conditions will probably need to self-isolate for next year or two.

This would be a damn good time to get down to a healthy weight. I won’t candy-coat it; being fat will kill you right now.

(Peter) #54

Nobody is locked in anywhere, speaking of hysterical reactions. Mr Apparent Antivaxxer (or impersonating one).

(bulkbiker) #55

You obviously don’t live in the UK then…

I’ll ignore the pathetic attempt at “anti-vaxer” … please be at the front of the queue I’m happy for you to be a guinea pig…

(Windmill Tilter) #56

As far as lock-downs go, here is my 2 cents. I think it was prudent to do them in late March when we had very little information, and the virus was growing at an alarming rate. It made sense to hit the pause button until we had better data and could formulate a plan.

Now that we know the mortality rate for healthy people of any age is .000034, the lock-downs make zero sense. Although I initially thought herd immunity was a very stupid idea, I’ve come around to the perspective that it’s our best hope at this point. The odds of a working vaccine being broadly distributed in the next 12 months rounds to zero. In fact, it’s more likely we never get an effective vaccine given that no vaccine has ever been achieved for a coronavirus despite a decade of trying (H1N1, SARS, MERS). Hydroxychloroquine and z-pack probably help, but it’s not a panacea. We’ve been using it extensively in New York, and the results have been mixed.

To achieve herd immunity, we’ve got to get somewhere around 60% of the population immune. As it turns out, this virus poses virtually no risk to 60% of the population. It makes a ton of sense to get those folks infected as fast as possible. The sick need to self-islolate, and we need to focus our finite resources on protecting them and supporting them. That will be logistically challenging, so the rest of us need to try to catch CV19 as fast as humanly possible. It makes zero sense to drag this thing out. Help is not coming. The CDC, WHO, and FDA are all criminally incompetent.

The consequences of a depression would dwarf the comparatively minor loss of the sickest 1% of the US population, both in terms of loss of life, suffering, and economic devastation. The safest course for us is to isolate the at-risk as much as humanly possible, and increase the immunity rate for everybody else as fast as humanly possible.

That’s my 2 cents based on what I know at the moment. I’ve got an open mind though.

Here is my source for the demographic mortality data chart above. It’s a great site packed with info:

(Ethan) #57

They asserted that masks dont work as a way to keep them as PPE for the healthcare workers. Idiots didn’t think that you could just use anything to cover your face.

(Ethan) #58

But only 10% of the population is that healthy

(Windmill Tilter) #59

The median age in the US is 38. Therefore greater than 50% of Americans are 44 or youger. The virus poses very little risk to these folks regardless of underlying conditions. Generalizing the 25% infection rate in NYC = 2,000,000 infected. Of those we expect 50% were under the age of 40. Therefore mortality with or without underlying conditions is 391/1,000,000, which is .000391. That’s a tiny risk on par with the flu. So we’re already at 50% for whom it safe. Additionally, there is a significant proportion of folks under the age of 60 who are fit as fiddles, and have no underlying conditions, and for whom the virus poses very little risk. That get’s us to 60% of the US population pretty quick.

(Ethan) #60

How about this math instead:

Roughly 13% of NY State showed antibodies in the recent tests of the sample of 3,000. 13 % of NY State population is roughly $2.7million. So we estimate that 2.7m were infected in NY State. We know that the deaths at that time were listed at 20,000 for the state, but there was an expectation that this was an undercount. I will ignore the undercount here to get a minimum death rate. 20,000 deaths in 2.7m infected is a case fatality rate of 0.7%. If the state of NY is representative of the USA, then we can expect a case fatality rate of 0.7%. If 70% of the 330 million people in USA will get infected, that is about 1.6m deaths–not on par with flu.

I haven’t validated your math yet, but if it is valid, the flaw is that we would need to isolate those who are vulnerable, since they apparently have a VERY HIGH mortality rate.