5 ms·
I think it's important to note that while the cumulative excess mortality is indeed increasing (it could hardly do otherwise since it's defined as a monotonical
by tgflynn 7y ago
I think it's important to note that while the cumulative excess mortality is indeed increasing (it could hardly do otherwise since it's defined as a monotonically non-decreasing function) the weekly excess mortality count sharply decreased in the most recent week (week 16).
That said the decline is so large from the previous week (9289 vs 20975) that I suspect there may be some error in the graph or the data.
EDIT: My claim that cumulative excess mortality is defined to be monotonically non-decreasing is not correct, as the below comment points out.
- isoprophlex 7y agoIs that true? Excess mortality in the 0-4 yr cohort for example shows some negative number of excess deaths...
- tgflynn 7y agoI was only looking at the graphs for all ages. EDIT: Ah OK, I see what you're saying. Yes, my statement that the cumulative graph is defined to be monotonically non-decreasing was indeed incorrect because it assumes that excess mortality itself is non-negative, which is not the case (total mortality would be non-negative though). Still for the cumulative graph to decrease the weekly excess mortality would have to go into negative territory, which is far from the case for the "all ages" group.
- gpderetta 7y agoas I reported else thread, I have been following these reports for a few weeks now, and there is often a sharp drop at the end which goes away on the next report. I think it is an artifact of their modelling for delayed registration that forces a regression to the mean.
- tgflynn 7y agoThanks, I suspected it was some sort of artifact.