4 ms·

You are extrapolating linear relationship between unemployment and deaths way outside the range of historical data on which it was estimated. Surely we would se

by pps43 6y ago

You are extrapolating linear relationship between unemployment and deaths way outside the range of historical data on which it was estimated. Surely we would see some of the ~777k deaths already. The fact that we don't suggests that the relationship does not really hold when pushed so far out.

naasking 6y ago
> Surely we would see some of the ~777k deaths already. The fact that we don't Where are you getting this data to conclude we haven't seen a such a spike?
- pps43 6y ago
  CDC publishes weekly number of deaths from all causes: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
  - naasking 6y ago
    Great. Since the whole country is not in lockdown, let's examine a region which has been highly impacted: * Select "Excess deaths with and without COVID-19" for the dashboard * Enter "New York City" as the location (New York state as a whole shows a similar trend) New York state was locked down March 20th. Notice the marked increase in non-COVID-19 related deaths starting March 21st, increasing steadily into April (almost 200% higher than predicted number of deaths). The tooltips also say that this data is still incomplete, so these numbers could climb. Now maybe it's unrelated, or maybe it's COVID-19 related that was incorrectly assigned, but you seem fairly confident that it's unrelated to the other factors the OP mentioned. I don't see how you can reach that conclusion given the data available at this time.
    - pps43 6y ago
      Look at non-COVID-19 related deaths in a location with lockdown in effect, but with few COVID-19 deaths. Those should not be people who died from COVID-19 without a test, but if lockdown drives deaths up, there should be enough of them to be visible. If you do it in New York, chances are you would be attributing COVID-19-related but unconfirmed deaths to lockdown.

by pps43 6y ago

naasking 6y ago

> Surely we would see some of the ~777k deaths already. The fact that we don't Where are you getting this data to conclude we haven't seen a such a spike?

pps43 6y ago
CDC publishes weekly number of deaths from all causes: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
- naasking 6y ago
  Great. Since the whole country is not in lockdown, let's examine a region which has been highly impacted: * Select "Excess deaths with and without COVID-19" for the dashboard * Enter "New York City" as the location (New York state as a whole shows a similar trend) New York state was locked down March 20th. Notice the marked increase in non-COVID-19 related deaths starting March 21st, increasing steadily into April (almost 200% higher than predicted number of deaths). The tooltips also say that this data is still incomplete, so these numbers could climb. Now maybe it's unrelated, or maybe it's COVID-19 related that was incorrectly assigned, but you seem fairly confident that it's unrelated to the other factors the OP mentioned. I don't see how you can reach that conclusion given the data available at this time.
  - pps43 6y ago
    Look at non-COVID-19 related deaths in a location with lockdown in effect, but with few COVID-19 deaths. Those should not be people who died from COVID-19 without a test, but if lockdown drives deaths up, there should be enough of them to be visible. If you do it in New York, chances are you would be attributing COVID-19-related but unconfirmed deaths to lockdown.