13 ms·

Excess All-Cause Mortality in the US and 18 Comparison Countries

76 points by luu 6y ago

darawk 6y ago
They mention it, but a big factor driving this is almost certainly obesity. I'd really like to see this done with proper controls for obesity, age demographics, smoking, etc. I think there'd be interesting stuff to learn from that. It's shocking how difficult it is to do these studies correctly. E.g. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3674138 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3674138
- lliamander 6y ago
  It's a big factor in general when looking at any health outcome differences between US and other developed countries. Though I also wonder what early pandemic policies related to nursing homes had on these excess fatalities.
- arethuza 6y ago
  I found this sobering statement at the end of a BBC article on the difficulties of comparing countries: "But until this outbreak is over it won't be possible to know for sure which countries have dealt with the virus better. 'That's when we can really learn the lessons for next time,' says Prof Oke." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52311014 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52311014
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  Australia has similar obesity rates to USA, and dramatically lower COVID mortality.
  - threatripper 6y ago
    Australia counts 0.1% of the population as infected while the US counts 2.4% of the population as infected. Where in the study did they control for that when looking at the mortality (which is counted per population and not per infected)? EDIT: My point is that the epidemic is not over yet and countries with a low immunity could be hit harder later on. It's just too early to compare mortality numbers.
    - phreeza 6y ago
      Why would you want to do that? At the end of the day, successful pandemic response is a question of how well you prevent deaths overall, not how likely infected people are to die.
      - threatripper 6y ago
        > At the end of the day Yes. Once the epidemic is over. It's not over yet. Having low numbers now could mean that the following outbreaks are more severe. Having lockdowns now could mean that there is no more money for a second, third or fourth lockdown to keep the following outbreaks under control. It could be but it does not have to be. We have to wait until the pandemic is finally under control to really count numbers.
        phreeza 6y ago
        I agree, but controlling for reported incidence as suggested by OP does not help with this.
      - KMag 6y ago
        Well, if you believe that government interventions are useless in influencing infection rates, then it would make sense to compare case fatality rates instead of total excess mortality. Though, I'm not sure that was the GP's intention.
        phreeza 6y ago
        Not sure I follow, why would comparing CFRs make more sense? A lot depends on testing in that case.
        KMag 6y ago
        Well, it replaces one set of variables (those influencing infection rates) with another set of variables (those influencing percentage of infections detected as cases). If you believe that policy has no effect on infection rates, and you believe you can better control for the latter set of variables, then CFRs make a better metric for judging policy effectiveness. I should point out this is all predicated on a statement I believe to be false. (I suspect policy does meaningfully affect infection rates.)
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Similar obesity rates, similar AS obese people though? E.g if obesity is > 30 BMI, Australia might have similar percentage to the US, but US might still have much mor people > 35 BMI than Australia which could have mostly 30-35 BMI people.
- pjc50 6y ago
  There was a paper (which I of course can't find now) that claimed that you also needed to control for the extent to which obese people were given worse treatment or de-prioritised by medical professionals. It's not a blindable variable.
pattusk 6y ago
> The US has experienced more deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than any other country and has one of the highest cumulative per capita death rates. Why would you start both the article and the abstract by saying that the US has experienced more death than any other country when the US also has (by far) the largest population of all countries surveyed? Reporting the per capita figure would be enough to make the point that the US did not handle the pandemic well. This way it just sounds like unwarranted self-flagellation.
- sagarm 6y ago
  It's worth mentioning both. The United States is, after all, not the most populous country in the world.
  - pattusk 6y ago
    yes but it's not like they surveyed every country in the world though. I would expect China or India to have a higher number of deaths overall if the data were available. It just does not seem like a meaningful statistic given the sample they are studying.
    - evgen 6y ago
      > I would expect China or India to have a higher number of deaths overall if the data were available. You would be incorrect. Perhaps the reason this death rate was mentioned is because the US is an outlier in both absolute numbers as well as per capita deaths.
      - pattusk 6y ago
        I'll probably get downvoted for this, but anyways: Maybe I should have added reliable to data. I'm highly skeptical of the ~4000 deaths figure reported as the death count for China and I have the sense that the authors of the study were too or they would have included it in their study. As for India, when you factor in rural areas, I don't think the reporting and data would be as reliable as for the US. [1] To go back to my original point, I'm not arguing that the US successfully handled COVID. Nor am I trying to demonize China or India. I'm just saying that the author's decision of foregrounding absolute death toll over per capita is poor and misleading given the sample they used. It could be seen as bad faith on the part of the authors when the per capita number can support their argument just as well. [1] https://www.sbs.com.au/news/india-s-coronavirus-cases-pass-7-million-but-death-rate-remains-mysteriously-low https://www.sbs.com.au/news/india-s-coronavirus-cases-pass-7...
roenxi 6y ago
What really interests me is that, looking at an all-cause mortality graph [0] the coronavirus is clearly detectable but ultimately the numbers are pretty much business as usual. Although there are more deaths than is routine, going purely by deaths the situation is mostly normal. It'll be fun when the dust settles to going back to look at alternative approaches to estimate how effective the lockdowns were. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm - "Weekly number of deaths (from all causes)"
- fuckyah 6y ago
  Lockdowns cause 26% excess deaths. Influenza vaccine only adverts 16% of deaths... do you see what’s going on?
- HatchedLake721 6y ago
  Aren’t the numbers “business as usual” because of the actions governments took worldwide? I’m not sure about others, but Italy peaked to extreme when there were not enough beds and ventilators in some places, which is what every country is trying to avoid.
- arethuza 6y ago
  They are definitely noticeable in the UK graphs: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19in10charts/2020-09-24 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
- cheschire 6y ago
  The peak period of 35.6 - 40.4 percent excess is not "business as usual". Even the September 19 period which looks relatively low shows a 4.2 to 8 percent excess.
- luu 6y ago
  > the numbers are pretty much business as usual . . . going purely by deaths the situation is mostly normal The article notes that, through July 25, there were 235,610 excess U.S. deaths. The link you gave shows that excess deaths started March 28th, for a period of ~119 days. Wikipedia says that the U.S. had 291,557 combat deaths during WWII, which was over a ~1366 day period of U.S. combat involvement if we count the period from Pearl Harbor until the end of the war. The U.S. is about 2.46 more populous now, so adjusting for that, the ratio of the rate of excess death over the period studied vs. U.S. combat deaths in WWII is (235610 / (119 * 2.46)) / (291557 / 1366) = 3.77. Since you're calling 3.77x the population-adjusted rate of WWII combat deaths "mostly normal", I would be curious to know what rate of death you would consider abnormal. On a non-population-adjusted basis, which is arguably the correct measure if we want to think about waging a war that's the equivalent of WWII, the death rate over the period studied would've been equivalent to the U.S. combat deaths from waging 9.28 simultaneous WWIIs. Personally, I wouldn't consider simultaneously engaging in nine wars the size of WWII to be business as usual.
matsemann 6y ago
Euromomo lets one easily compare the mortality for various European countries: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps . I think this is much easier to grasp than the tables in the linked paper. The very first graph shows that it's not "just another flu". Abnormally many deaths, even with the strict measures. Mainly for those aged 45 and older (but also not just "old people" dying, lots in the group 45-64). Further down "Z-scores by country" also shows a pretty normal curve for Norway and Denmark but many excessive deaths for Sweden, meaning the notion of "sweden just reports covid deaths differently" that was common a few months back isn't an explanation.
- rimliu 6y ago
  When talking about the Sweden don't look just at the current year. Take a lookt at the previous and compare it to the neighbours.
  - matsemann 6y ago
    And then see what? https://i.imgur.com/4wNdK1M.png https://i.imgur.com/4wNdK1M.png
    - Smutte 6y ago
      https://imgur.com/a/sHq3gjp https://imgur.com/a/sHq3gjp There you go. Data from official government agency. "Preliminary" and not full year since we're only in October 2020 now. https://scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befolkning/befolkningens-sammansattning/befolkningsstatistik/pong/tabell-och-diagram/preliminar-statistik-over-doda/ https://scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befolkni...
      - matsemann 6y ago
        > There you go What am I looking at? What are you trying to show? Just posting a random graph is not really helpful.
m0zg 6y ago
It's dumb to do this analysis now, when we're in the _middle_ of the epidemic. According to most experts, we're looking at the end of 2021 for the whole thing to play itself out. Take a look at the steep incline the curves have taken on in the countries which previously were "better" than the US and Sweden. In the US deaths are declining (in spite of slight rise in cases), in Sweden hardly anyone is dying at all. Take a look at countries that were "worse" too - Italy for example. Exponential growth in cases. Deaths will lag, as they usually do. My prediction is that unless a miracle happens and an amazing vaccine (or a therapeutic) is developed, Swedish strategy will "win" this one. The curves aren't looking good at all for other European countries heading into winter, and their economies are decimated, so they can't tolerate full shutdown anymore. It's a virus. It's endemic. _Everyone_ will get it eventually, if not now, then a month or two from now. There's really no way around this simple fact.
- phreeza 6y ago
  Treatments are already much better than they were in the early phase of the pandemic, and they are unlikely to get worse over time. Also mortality is likely to rise with hospital load. So it follows that stretching your infections over a longer time is beneficial.
- iso1210 6y ago
  Cases started growing in Sweden on Sep15, that's not long enough for them to reach the most vulnerable, to catch it, to go to hospital, and to die Sweden's GDP in Q2 was down 8%. Germany's was down 10%.
- threatripper 6y ago
  > It's dumb to do this analysis now, when we're in the _middle_ of the epidemic. Correct. Mortality doesn't say very much now. The true IFR would be a better indicator but since testing availability is very inconsistent it is hard to compare the number of infected across countries or time. The mortality numbers are also inconsistent in many places (which is why we looked at all-cause mortality in the first place). > It's a virus. It's endemic. _Everyone_ will get it eventually, if not now, then a month or two from now. There's really no way around this simple fact. This is plainly wrong. Vaccines have decreased the severity of many viral diseases and in some cases even eradicated the virus completely. Even without a vaccine, some countries have driven down the infection numbers almost to zero. Even the countries that could not eradicate it will only see 10-80% of the population infected in the long run. > Swedish strategy will "win" this one. For one, it is too early to declare a winner. We have to wait. The Swedish strategy may work very well in Sweden. But that doesn't mean that it would have worked in countries with a different social structure, population density or climate.
threatripper 6y ago
This study only looks at all-cause mortality - which is reasonable once the epidemic is over. Is it over? I don't think so. Cases are rising quickly in Europe now that winter is coming. We should refrain from issuing judgement on the matter and comparing strategies of different countries until at least next spring when cases go down again in all countries. There may be some surprises coming in winter.
- hef19898 6y ago
  I guess reopening the whole EU over summer to save what was left of the tourism industry didn't necessarily help. Not saying that I am against having loosened restrictions, but maybe we loosened things a tad too much. Because after the summer vacations were over, everyone went back to normal. People returned to offices, children to school. At schools, measures were in place for the first two weeks. Since then, business as usual to a large extent. I have the impression that we got complacent, this thing isn't over yet unfortunately.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    The original goal was to lower the curve so that hospitals wouldn't be overloaded. To that end, the lockdowns have served their purpose.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      They served that purpose very well, if you ask me. The goal now would be to minimize the impact on the economy as much as possible while minimizing the impact on people's everyday lives. I am afraid that we traded our summer vacation against new lockdowns, so. Schools where I live already switch certain events to virtual, most likely cancel certain classes. And they are approaching the point where they are forced to close again. And we are only a couple of months into the new school year. Doesn't bode well.
coldtea 6y ago
>While the US had a lower COVID-19 mortality rate than high-mortality countries during the early spring, after May 10, all 6 high-mortality countries had fewer deaths per 100 000 than the US. I'm not sure why the factor this in at all. Why not compare each country to its OWN baseline mortality -- as opposed to confusingly compare between high and low mortality countries?
- tpoacher 6y ago
  It makes sense to do so politically. :p
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- mlang23 6y ago
  Because it is obviously a competition between countries. "We managed to get through with less casualties then country X, so we are superior."
  - KMag 6y ago
    > with less[er] casualties than country X Is that a subtle joke about mean body mass in the US, or a grammatical error? http://ddg.gg/?q=count+vs+mass+noun http://ddg.gg/?q=count+vs+mass+noun
    - mlang23 6y ago
      Thanks for pointing me to english grammar lessons I couldn't care less about. Or is it lesser, whatever. No, I wasn't trying to do a subtle joke about obese americans. But now that you inspire me, I will consider it in the future.
- hef19898 6y ago
  Because this tells you something about the effectiveness of countermeasures. Which is something we need to learn as much about as possible.
known 6y ago
GDP of India is $2.9 trillion; But Modi regime gave just $21 as Pandemic relief to the Poor https://archive.vn/aOe2F https://archive.vn/aOe2F

76 points by luu 6y ago

They mention it, but a big factor driving this is almost certainly obesity. I'd really like to see this done with proper controls for obesity, age demographics, smoking, etc. I think there'd be interesting stuff to learn from that. It's shocking how difficult it is to do these studies correctly. E.g. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3674138 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3674138

lliamander 6y ago
It's a big factor in general when looking at any health outcome differences between US and other developed countries. Though I also wonder what early pandemic policies related to nursing homes had on these excess fatalities.
arethuza 6y ago
I found this sobering statement at the end of a BBC article on the difficulties of comparing countries: "But until this outbreak is over it won't be possible to know for sure which countries have dealt with the virus better. 'That's when we can really learn the lessons for next time,' says Prof Oke." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52311014 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52311014
wombatmobile 6y ago
Australia has similar obesity rates to USA, and dramatically lower COVID mortality.
- threatripper 6y ago
  Australia counts 0.1% of the population as infected while the US counts 2.4% of the population as infected. Where in the study did they control for that when looking at the mortality (which is counted per population and not per infected)? EDIT: My point is that the epidemic is not over yet and countries with a low immunity could be hit harder later on. It's just too early to compare mortality numbers.
  - phreeza 6y ago
    Why would you want to do that? At the end of the day, successful pandemic response is a question of how well you prevent deaths overall, not how likely infected people are to die.
    - threatripper 6y ago
      > At the end of the day Yes. Once the epidemic is over. It's not over yet. Having low numbers now could mean that the following outbreaks are more severe. Having lockdowns now could mean that there is no more money for a second, third or fourth lockdown to keep the following outbreaks under control. It could be but it does not have to be. We have to wait until the pandemic is finally under control to really count numbers.
      - phreeza 6y ago
        I agree, but controlling for reported incidence as suggested by OP does not help with this.
    - KMag 6y ago
      Well, if you believe that government interventions are useless in influencing infection rates, then it would make sense to compare case fatality rates instead of total excess mortality. Though, I'm not sure that was the GP's intention.
      - phreeza 6y ago
        Not sure I follow, why would comparing CFRs make more sense? A lot depends on testing in that case.
        KMag 6y ago
        Well, it replaces one set of variables (those influencing infection rates) with another set of variables (those influencing percentage of infections detected as cases). If you believe that policy has no effect on infection rates, and you believe you can better control for the latter set of variables, then CFRs make a better metric for judging policy effectiveness. I should point out this is all predicated on a statement I believe to be false. (I suspect policy does meaningfully affect infection rates.)
- coldtea 6y ago
  Similar obesity rates, similar AS obese people though? E.g if obesity is > 30 BMI, Australia might have similar percentage to the US, but US might still have much mor people > 35 BMI than Australia which could have mostly 30-35 BMI people.
pjc50 6y ago
There was a paper (which I of course can't find now) that claimed that you also needed to control for the extent to which obese people were given worse treatment or de-prioritised by medical professionals. It's not a blindable variable.

pattusk 6y ago

> The US has experienced more deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than any other country and has one of the highest cumulative per capita death rates. Why would you start both the article and the abstract by saying that the US has experienced more death than any other country when the US also has (by far) the largest population of all countries surveyed? Reporting the per capita figure would be enough to make the point that the US did not handle the pandemic well. This way it just sounds like unwarranted self-flagellation.

sagarm 6y ago
It's worth mentioning both. The United States is, after all, not the most populous country in the world.
- pattusk 6y ago
  yes but it's not like they surveyed every country in the world though. I would expect China or India to have a higher number of deaths overall if the data were available. It just does not seem like a meaningful statistic given the sample they are studying.
  - evgen 6y ago
    > I would expect China or India to have a higher number of deaths overall if the data were available. You would be incorrect. Perhaps the reason this death rate was mentioned is because the US is an outlier in both absolute numbers as well as per capita deaths.
    - pattusk 6y ago
      I'll probably get downvoted for this, but anyways: Maybe I should have added reliable to data. I'm highly skeptical of the ~4000 deaths figure reported as the death count for China and I have the sense that the authors of the study were too or they would have included it in their study. As for India, when you factor in rural areas, I don't think the reporting and data would be as reliable as for the US. [1] To go back to my original point, I'm not arguing that the US successfully handled COVID. Nor am I trying to demonize China or India. I'm just saying that the author's decision of foregrounding absolute death toll over per capita is poor and misleading given the sample they used. It could be seen as bad faith on the part of the authors when the per capita number can support their argument just as well. [1] https://www.sbs.com.au/news/india-s-coronavirus-cases-pass-7-million-but-death-rate-remains-mysteriously-low https://www.sbs.com.au/news/india-s-coronavirus-cases-pass-7...

roenxi 6y ago

What really interests me is that, looking at an all-cause mortality graph [0] the coronavirus is clearly detectable but ultimately the numbers are pretty much business as usual. Although there are more deaths than is routine, going purely by deaths the situation is mostly normal. It'll be fun when the dust settles to going back to look at alternative approaches to estimate how effective the lockdowns were. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm - "Weekly number of deaths (from all causes)"

fuckyah 6y ago
Lockdowns cause 26% excess deaths. Influenza vaccine only adverts 16% of deaths... do you see what’s going on?
HatchedLake721 6y ago
Aren’t the numbers “business as usual” because of the actions governments took worldwide? I’m not sure about others, but Italy peaked to extreme when there were not enough beds and ventilators in some places, which is what every country is trying to avoid.
arethuza 6y ago
They are definitely noticeable in the UK graphs: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19in10charts/2020-09-24 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
cheschire 6y ago
The peak period of 35.6 - 40.4 percent excess is not "business as usual". Even the September 19 period which looks relatively low shows a 4.2 to 8 percent excess.
luu 6y ago
> the numbers are pretty much business as usual . . . going purely by deaths the situation is mostly normal The article notes that, through July 25, there were 235,610 excess U.S. deaths. The link you gave shows that excess deaths started March 28th, for a period of ~119 days. Wikipedia says that the U.S. had 291,557 combat deaths during WWII, which was over a ~1366 day period of U.S. combat involvement if we count the period from Pearl Harbor until the end of the war. The U.S. is about 2.46 more populous now, so adjusting for that, the ratio of the rate of excess death over the period studied vs. U.S. combat deaths in WWII is (235610 / (119 * 2.46)) / (291557 / 1366) = 3.77. Since you're calling 3.77x the population-adjusted rate of WWII combat deaths "mostly normal", I would be curious to know what rate of death you would consider abnormal. On a non-population-adjusted basis, which is arguably the correct measure if we want to think about waging a war that's the equivalent of WWII, the death rate over the period studied would've been equivalent to the U.S. combat deaths from waging 9.28 simultaneous WWIIs. Personally, I wouldn't consider simultaneously engaging in nine wars the size of WWII to be business as usual.

matsemann 6y ago

Euromomo lets one easily compare the mortality for various European countries: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps . I think this is much easier to grasp than the tables in the linked paper. The very first graph shows that it's not "just another flu". Abnormally many deaths, even with the strict measures. Mainly for those aged 45 and older (but also not just "old people" dying, lots in the group 45-64). Further down "Z-scores by country" also shows a pretty normal curve for Norway and Denmark but many excessive deaths for Sweden, meaning the notion of "sweden just reports covid deaths differently" that was common a few months back isn't an explanation.

rimliu 6y ago
When talking about the Sweden don't look just at the current year. Take a lookt at the previous and compare it to the neighbours.
- matsemann 6y ago
  And then see what? https://i.imgur.com/4wNdK1M.png https://i.imgur.com/4wNdK1M.png
  - Smutte 6y ago
    https://imgur.com/a/sHq3gjp https://imgur.com/a/sHq3gjp There you go. Data from official government agency. "Preliminary" and not full year since we're only in October 2020 now. https://scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befolkning/befolkningens-sammansattning/befolkningsstatistik/pong/tabell-och-diagram/preliminar-statistik-over-doda/ https://scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befolkni...
    - matsemann 6y ago
      > There you go What am I looking at? What are you trying to show? Just posting a random graph is not really helpful.

m0zg 6y ago

It's dumb to do this analysis now, when we're in the _middle_ of the epidemic. According to most experts, we're looking at the end of 2021 for the whole thing to play itself out. Take a look at the steep incline the curves have taken on in the countries which previously were "better" than the US and Sweden. In the US deaths are declining (in spite of slight rise in cases), in Sweden hardly anyone is dying at all. Take a look at countries that were "worse" too - Italy for example. Exponential growth in cases. Deaths will lag, as they usually do. My prediction is that unless a miracle happens and an amazing vaccine (or a therapeutic) is developed, Swedish strategy will "win" this one. The curves aren't looking good at all for other European countries heading into winter, and their economies are decimated, so they can't tolerate full shutdown anymore. It's a virus. It's endemic. _Everyone_ will get it eventually, if not now, then a month or two from now. There's really no way around this simple fact.

phreeza 6y ago
Treatments are already much better than they were in the early phase of the pandemic, and they are unlikely to get worse over time. Also mortality is likely to rise with hospital load. So it follows that stretching your infections over a longer time is beneficial.
iso1210 6y ago
Cases started growing in Sweden on Sep15, that's not long enough for them to reach the most vulnerable, to catch it, to go to hospital, and to die Sweden's GDP in Q2 was down 8%. Germany's was down 10%.
threatripper 6y ago
> It's dumb to do this analysis now, when we're in the _middle_ of the epidemic. Correct. Mortality doesn't say very much now. The true IFR would be a better indicator but since testing availability is very inconsistent it is hard to compare the number of infected across countries or time. The mortality numbers are also inconsistent in many places (which is why we looked at all-cause mortality in the first place). > It's a virus. It's endemic. _Everyone_ will get it eventually, if not now, then a month or two from now. There's really no way around this simple fact. This is plainly wrong. Vaccines have decreased the severity of many viral diseases and in some cases even eradicated the virus completely. Even without a vaccine, some countries have driven down the infection numbers almost to zero. Even the countries that could not eradicate it will only see 10-80% of the population infected in the long run. > Swedish strategy will "win" this one. For one, it is too early to declare a winner. We have to wait. The Swedish strategy may work very well in Sweden. But that doesn't mean that it would have worked in countries with a different social structure, population density or climate.

threatripper 6y ago

This study only looks at all-cause mortality - which is reasonable once the epidemic is over. Is it over? I don't think so. Cases are rising quickly in Europe now that winter is coming. We should refrain from issuing judgement on the matter and comparing strategies of different countries until at least next spring when cases go down again in all countries. There may be some surprises coming in winter.

hef19898 6y ago
I guess reopening the whole EU over summer to save what was left of the tourism industry didn't necessarily help. Not saying that I am against having loosened restrictions, but maybe we loosened things a tad too much. Because after the summer vacations were over, everyone went back to normal. People returned to offices, children to school. At schools, measures were in place for the first two weeks. Since then, business as usual to a large extent. I have the impression that we got complacent, this thing isn't over yet unfortunately.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  The original goal was to lower the curve so that hospitals wouldn't be overloaded. To that end, the lockdowns have served their purpose.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    They served that purpose very well, if you ask me. The goal now would be to minimize the impact on the economy as much as possible while minimizing the impact on people's everyday lives. I am afraid that we traded our summer vacation against new lockdowns, so. Schools where I live already switch certain events to virtual, most likely cancel certain classes. And they are approaching the point where they are forced to close again. And we are only a couple of months into the new school year. Doesn't bode well.

coldtea 6y ago

>While the US had a lower COVID-19 mortality rate than high-mortality countries during the early spring, after May 10, all 6 high-mortality countries had fewer deaths per 100 000 than the US. I'm not sure why the factor this in at all. Why not compare each country to its OWN baseline mortality -- as opposed to confusingly compare between high and low mortality countries?

tpoacher 6y ago
It makes sense to do so politically. :p
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mlang23 6y ago
Because it is obviously a competition between countries. "We managed to get through with less casualties then country X, so we are superior."
- KMag 6y ago
  > with less[er] casualties than country X Is that a subtle joke about mean body mass in the US, or a grammatical error? http://ddg.gg/?q=count+vs+mass+noun http://ddg.gg/?q=count+vs+mass+noun
  - mlang23 6y ago
    Thanks for pointing me to english grammar lessons I couldn't care less about. Or is it lesser, whatever. No, I wasn't trying to do a subtle joke about obese americans. But now that you inspire me, I will consider it in the future.
hef19898 6y ago
Because this tells you something about the effectiveness of countermeasures. Which is something we need to learn as much about as possible.

known 6y ago

GDP of India is $2.9 trillion; But Modi regime gave just $21 as Pandemic relief to the Poor https://archive.vn/aOe2F https://archive.vn/aOe2F