4 ms·

If those people would have survived without COVID-19, does the distinction really matter ? In any case I am convinced that the number of victims is probably mu

If those people would have survived without COVID-19, does the distinction really matter ? In any case I am convinced that the number of victims is probably much higher. There was an article where number of deaths was compared with previous years in towns around Bergamo. I cannot find the link now, so the numbers my be a bit wrong, but for example I remember that in a town of ~11k inhabitants, they had 150 deaths this March compared to the usual 20-30 of the previous years. This means that COVID-19 could have caused about 100 deaths while the official numbers say little more than 20. EDIT: Found the article [1]: "We checked the average of the previous years, in the January-March timeframe. In Nembro it should have been - in normal conditions - about 35 deaths. This years the municipality registered 158 deaths. 123 more than the average. Not 31 more, as it should have been according to the official numbers." [1] https://www.tpi.it/cronaca/studio-nembro-numero-morti-superiore-4-volte-ufficiale-20200326573609/ https://www.tpi.it/cronaca/studio-nembro-numero-morti-superi...

thu2111 7y ago
If those people would have survived without COVID-19, does the distinction really matter ? Yes, it matters. No stat records whether they would or wouldn't have survived without COVID-19. That's the problem with them: they just record the presence of the virus, not whether it caused death (which is at any rate a rather nuanced judgement, presumably). The idea this virus is hyper-dangerous is coming from comparisons between these figures and other viruses which aren't recorded in the same way. Incomparable statistics being compared can lead to completely false conclusions. they had 150 deaths this March compared to the usual 20-30 of the previous years But they had far fewer deaths in December compared to the December of previous years: http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/caldo/SISMG_sintesi_ULTIMO.pdf http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/caldo/SISMG_sintesi_ULTIMO.... You would expect deaths to be higher in March than in prior years even if the virus was exactly as dangerous as flu, but pushed forwards by some months, because lots of people survived the winter who in prior years would not have done. So excess deaths will appear higher for now, but if you look at the areas under the graph, it looks a bit like it's just the normal winter surge delayed (so far ... it'll probably end up a fair bit higher, but we don't know that). It seems to me that literally every number being used to support the notion that this is a very dangerous disease is statistically invalid in some way.

thu2111 7y ago

If those people would have survived without COVID-19, does the distinction really matter ? Yes, it matters. No stat records whether they would or wouldn't have survived without COVID-19. That's the problem with them: they just record the presence of the virus, not whether it caused death (which is at any rate a rather nuanced judgement, presumably). The idea this virus is hyper-dangerous is coming from comparisons between these figures and other viruses which aren't recorded in the same way. Incomparable statistics being compared can lead to completely false conclusions. they had 150 deaths this March compared to the usual 20-30 of the previous years But they had far fewer deaths in December compared to the December of previous years: http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/caldo/SISMG_sintesi_ULTIMO.pdf http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/caldo/SISMG_sintesi_ULTIMO.... You would expect deaths to be higher in March than in prior years even if the virus was exactly as dangerous as flu, but pushed forwards by some months, because lots of people survived the winter who in prior years would not have done. So excess deaths will appear higher for now, but if you look at the areas under the graph, it looks a bit like it's just the normal winter surge delayed (so far ... it'll probably end up a fair bit higher, but we don't know that). It seems to me that literally every number being used to support the notion that this is a very dangerous disease is statistically invalid in some way.