I saw Hanlon, and again a pretty good paper (http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/215598/1/215598.pdf http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/215598/1/215598.pdf), but far off. First, it

I saw Hanlon, and again a pretty good paper (http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/215598/1/215598.pdf http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/215598/1/215598.pdf), but far off. First, it came out in April, when CFR in the USA was 6.2%, not 1.9%. So that alone would be enough to drive YLL of fatalities down close to my number. > "used to construct a plausible scenario for the prevalence of combinations of LTCs among people who died from COVID-19 for the modelling presented here." Second, the dataset used at the time to generate their synthetic data was weak. You can see it immediately in their bar charts, where they have mostly healthy 50-69 y.o. dying in their synthetic data, skewing their YLL to the right. > Your own link states that healthspan is not quantifiable, so your claim that it is 3.5y doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I provided a link to a "conservative" description of healthspan, but in the field people are more optimistic about it. Very good questions you brought up though, thanks!