3 ms·

This was the number thay should have been used all along in the western world. The excessive deaths were very high in Q2/Q3 2020 that warranted stringent lockdo

This was the number thay should have been used all along in the western world. The excessive deaths were very high in Q2/Q3 2020 that warranted stringent lockdown. However starting Q4, the excess deaths have started to reduce and has significantly minimzed across the world in second half of 2021. Its most likely because of vaccines but the acquired immunity due to infections are also likely a cause. There is no need for any restrictions from a public health standpoint as excess deaths are now significantly lower likely with the expected error. EDIT: the post was primarily about western countries with reliable data and vaccination records

jeffbee 5y ago
Are you referring to any particular jurisdiction? In the U.S.A. for example Q3 2021 excess deaths were as bad as Q2-Q3 2020. 40% excess deaths is something like 3000 people every day.
- wanderingmind 5y ago
  Most countries in western Europe and many states seem to have less than 10 ℅ excess deaths in 2021. There is also likely to be an error that is not quoted here. Typically such comparisons must be made on 10 year average data and the changes within those years will provide the error which is likely to have variation of 5-10 ℅
  - IkmoIkmo 5y ago
    > Most countries in western Europe and many states seem to have less than 10 ℅ excess deaths in 2021 That may well be true, but it cannot in and of itself be a reason to decide to relax measures. It's like saying the number of traffic accidents are low, thus we can abolish drivers licenses, speed limits, age limits on driving, alcohol limits on driving, seatbelts etc. No: the measures (e.g. seatbelts) cause the good results (low traffic deaths). Simply looking at the good results can never in and of itself be a reason to remove the measures. You'd want to evidence that the desirable results will remain without the measures, before removing the measures. e.g. if there's evidence that removing speeding limits does not impact traffic accidents/deaths, then you can remove the limit.

jeffbee 5y ago

Are you referring to any particular jurisdiction? In the U.S.A. for example Q3 2021 excess deaths were as bad as Q2-Q3 2020. 40% excess deaths is something like 3000 people every day.

wanderingmind 5y ago
Most countries in western Europe and many states seem to have less than 10 ℅ excess deaths in 2021. There is also likely to be an error that is not quoted here. Typically such comparisons must be made on 10 year average data and the changes within those years will provide the error which is likely to have variation of 5-10 ℅
- IkmoIkmo 5y ago
  > Most countries in western Europe and many states seem to have less than 10 ℅ excess deaths in 2021 That may well be true, but it cannot in and of itself be a reason to decide to relax measures. It's like saying the number of traffic accidents are low, thus we can abolish drivers licenses, speed limits, age limits on driving, alcohol limits on driving, seatbelts etc. No: the measures (e.g. seatbelts) cause the good results (low traffic deaths). Simply looking at the good results can never in and of itself be a reason to remove the measures. You'd want to evidence that the desirable results will remain without the measures, before removing the measures. e.g. if there's evidence that removing speeding limits does not impact traffic accidents/deaths, then you can remove the limit.