3 ms·

Playing devil's advocate, how are we sure excess deaths are due to covid and not the lockdowns instead? (Suicides, cancelled surgeries, etc.)

by natrik 6y ago

pinkfoot 6y ago
Ok, playing systems-engineer here: we'd call those secondary COVID-19 deaths caused by the either de facto or de jure lock-downs. Why, oh why, are some people so obsessed with lowering the number of COVID-19 related deaths at every possible opportunity? Its weird.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Why, oh why, are some people so obsessed with lowering the number of COVID-19 related deaths at every possible opportunity? Its weird. Maybe they want to minimize the amount of secondary COVID-19 deaths?
  - pinkfoot 6y ago
    Fair enough, but WHY? Here is a less contentious example: 1. consider a severe, long drought 2. this will damage the livelihoods of many in the hinterland - farmers and those in the small town that service them 3. many may be driven to suicide. Would you not agree that such excess suicides are 'caused by the drought'?
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Yes, but it's not quite the same, because the suicides etc for COVID-19 are not directly caused by the virus, but by our reaction to it, and some believe it's an over-reaction. I'm not an expert on the actual, real dangers, e.g. how many and who will die, so that's not what I'm concerned with. If they're terribly high, doing what ever is necessary to stop it is right, I consider that obvious. "Flattening the curve" makes generally sense to me, in a "let's make sure our hospital system doesn't collapse" kind of way. I live in a county of a bit over 300.000 people in Germany. We have 10 known active cases in the county. We're still in a very constrained soft-lock-down, i.e. schools not running normally, half the offices not open, mandatory masks, public services on emergency-only-level etc. We're still taking damage economically, obviously. Lots of people are scared to death in a very real way, and are still afraid to leave their houses. Is it still the right call to remain in this state today? Will it be when we have 0 active cases, but there are counties nearby that still have more than 0? By saying "well, everything that happens happens because of COVID-19", we're removing our agency from the equation.
samsari 6y ago
Not all countries have lockdowns to the same degree, yet they all have discrepancies between excess deaths and official covid deaths. Clearly, not all excess deaths are covid deaths though, a minority of them are certainly related but not directly caused by it.

Playing devil's advocate, how are we sure excess deaths are due to covid and not the lockdowns instead? (Suicides, cancelled surgeries, etc.)

by natrik 6y ago

Playing devil's advocate, how are we sure excess deaths are due to covid and not the lockdowns instead? (Suicides, cancelled surgeries, etc.)

pinkfoot 6y ago

Ok, playing systems-engineer here: we'd call those secondary COVID-19 deaths caused by the either de facto or de jure lock-downs. Why, oh why, are some people so obsessed with lowering the number of COVID-19 related deaths at every possible opportunity? Its weird.

luckylion 6y ago
> Why, oh why, are some people so obsessed with lowering the number of COVID-19 related deaths at every possible opportunity? Its weird. Maybe they want to minimize the amount of secondary COVID-19 deaths?
- pinkfoot 6y ago
  Fair enough, but WHY? Here is a less contentious example: 1. consider a severe, long drought 2. this will damage the livelihoods of many in the hinterland - farmers and those in the small town that service them 3. many may be driven to suicide. Would you not agree that such excess suicides are 'caused by the drought'?
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Yes, but it's not quite the same, because the suicides etc for COVID-19 are not directly caused by the virus, but by our reaction to it, and some believe it's an over-reaction. I'm not an expert on the actual, real dangers, e.g. how many and who will die, so that's not what I'm concerned with. If they're terribly high, doing what ever is necessary to stop it is right, I consider that obvious. "Flattening the curve" makes generally sense to me, in a "let's make sure our hospital system doesn't collapse" kind of way. I live in a county of a bit over 300.000 people in Germany. We have 10 known active cases in the county. We're still in a very constrained soft-lock-down, i.e. schools not running normally, half the offices not open, mandatory masks, public services on emergency-only-level etc. We're still taking damage economically, obviously. Lots of people are scared to death in a very real way, and are still afraid to leave their houses. Is it still the right call to remain in this state today? Will it be when we have 0 active cases, but there are counties nearby that still have more than 0? By saying "well, everything that happens happens because of COVID-19", we're removing our agency from the equation.

samsari 6y ago

Not all countries have lockdowns to the same degree, yet they all have discrepancies between excess deaths and official covid deaths. Clearly, not all excess deaths are covid deaths though, a minority of them are certainly related but not directly caused by it.