3 ms·

I agree the report makes its point poorly and phrases statistics carelessly, but you made a similar mistake: they explicitly state it exceeds COVID deaths over

by mlyle 5y ago

I agree the report makes its point poorly and phrases statistics carelessly, but you made a similar mistake: they explicitly state it exceeds COVID deaths over ages 18-45. All these media reports were all influenced by this underlying factsheet from FAF. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S0szR2Ua9v0Sr91YhDD7gPrXsDkHxDvP/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S0szR2Ua9v0Sr91YhDD7gPrXsDk... Broadly, it appears true: fentanyl deaths look like they outweigh all those things in the younger population. And it doesn't look implausible that synthetic opioids could have killed a total of 64k across the entire population in 2021. (I think they were comparing trailing-twelve-month data from two dates in each case..) edit, 3mins: I was distracted and my previous version of this reply was word salad.

woodruffw 5y ago
Thanks for linking the factsheet. These deaths are a useless tragedy, and it frustrates me to see them framed against another useless tragedy. The CDC's death count with age breakdowns[1] shows that over twice as many people aged 18-64 died of COVID-19 than drug overdoes, combined across 2020 and 2021. That flips when you limit it to just 18-45, which is the statistic FAF is using. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se...
- mlyle 5y ago
  > and it frustrates me to see them framed against another useless tragedy. You know, people need an anchor point for comparison very often. "Holy shit COVID and car crashes are bad, and among younger adults -- believe it or not-- fentanyl is even worse".
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    I think it's valuable to have a reference point, and I've done that myself in my comments. The frustration comes not from the comparison or reference, but as a framing designed to excuse irresponsible behavior during the ongoing pandemic.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Anchoring like that is a problem when it's used to dismiss something: "Eh, more people die from fentanyl, so X isn't so bad". Which disregards that X may be a new source of increased deaths, not to mention that when X == COVID, the methods needed to mitigate the risk are antithetical to a mindset of "it's no big deal" because that mindset pushes back against taking even some minimal precuations. So, anchoring can help people understand the magnitude of something, but at the same time convey a misunderstanding, or short-circuit reasoning as well. This is precisely why it is a common sales tactic: Go into a jewelry store asking for a nice watch as a present, and you may be shown a $3k watch. Way over your budget, so when you ask to be shown a something else a $700 watch seems like a much better deal, even if it might still be a bit more than you wanted to spend. Maybe the third watch will be an ugly one for $400 to help convince you that you need to spend more, putting both an upper & lower bound on the purchase.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      > Which disregards that X may be a new source of increased deaths, not to mention that when X == COVID, the methods needed to mitigate the risk are antithetical to a mindset of "it's no big deal" because that mindset pushes back against taking even some minimal precuations. I don't think anyone has said, "fentanyl is worse for 18-44, therefore COVID is no big deal". I think the message taken was "two sources of premature death shot way up, passing traffic accidents and suicide, which we all know are really bad in that age group". And maybe "wow, fentanyl is even bigger than COVID as a cause of death among young adults". It doesn't make me take traffic safety less seriously, either. Look, I ain't got time each year to compute loss-of-life expectancy numbers, and decide how preventable each and every cause is, and then come up with an analytical ranking of each cause and its "importance" (I did this at one point, but I'm not going to repeat it to understand trends). I don't work in public health, either. Approximation based on reasonable anchor points and understood risks is just fine.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        I don't think anyone has said, "fentanyl is worse for 18-44, therefore COVID is no big deal". My intent was to make a general statement about anchoring as a technique. But in any case, you're incorrect: my own father has made this sort of remark about opioids, and I've seen it pop up in message boards, and with other (not necessarily opioid) comparisons by folks who resist masks/social distancing/vaccination.
- evv555 5y ago
  >it frustrates me to see them framed against another useless tragedy. The framing is relevant since the increase is arguably a product of the lockdown/social isolation. Generally it's not Boomers or the upperclass who are having to deal with opiate addiction. Is it a coincidence that their needs once again supersede the needs of others? Maybe

by mlyle 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

Thanks for linking the factsheet. These deaths are a useless tragedy, and it frustrates me to see them framed against another useless tragedy. The CDC's death count with age breakdowns[1] shows that over twice as many people aged 18-64 died of COVID-19 than drug overdoes, combined across 2020 and 2021. That flips when you limit it to just 18-45, which is the statistic FAF is using. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se...

mlyle 5y ago
> and it frustrates me to see them framed against another useless tragedy. You know, people need an anchor point for comparison very often. "Holy shit COVID and car crashes are bad, and among younger adults -- believe it or not-- fentanyl is even worse".
- woodruffw 5y ago
  I think it's valuable to have a reference point, and I've done that myself in my comments. The frustration comes not from the comparison or reference, but as a framing designed to excuse irresponsible behavior during the ongoing pandemic.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Anchoring like that is a problem when it's used to dismiss something: "Eh, more people die from fentanyl, so X isn't so bad". Which disregards that X may be a new source of increased deaths, not to mention that when X == COVID, the methods needed to mitigate the risk are antithetical to a mindset of "it's no big deal" because that mindset pushes back against taking even some minimal precuations. So, anchoring can help people understand the magnitude of something, but at the same time convey a misunderstanding, or short-circuit reasoning as well. This is precisely why it is a common sales tactic: Go into a jewelry store asking for a nice watch as a present, and you may be shown a $3k watch. Way over your budget, so when you ask to be shown a something else a $700 watch seems like a much better deal, even if it might still be a bit more than you wanted to spend. Maybe the third watch will be an ugly one for $400 to help convince you that you need to spend more, putting both an upper & lower bound on the purchase.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    > Which disregards that X may be a new source of increased deaths, not to mention that when X == COVID, the methods needed to mitigate the risk are antithetical to a mindset of "it's no big deal" because that mindset pushes back against taking even some minimal precuations. I don't think anyone has said, "fentanyl is worse for 18-44, therefore COVID is no big deal". I think the message taken was "two sources of premature death shot way up, passing traffic accidents and suicide, which we all know are really bad in that age group". And maybe "wow, fentanyl is even bigger than COVID as a cause of death among young adults". It doesn't make me take traffic safety less seriously, either. Look, I ain't got time each year to compute loss-of-life expectancy numbers, and decide how preventable each and every cause is, and then come up with an analytical ranking of each cause and its "importance" (I did this at one point, but I'm not going to repeat it to understand trends). I don't work in public health, either. Approximation based on reasonable anchor points and understood risks is just fine.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      I don't think anyone has said, "fentanyl is worse for 18-44, therefore COVID is no big deal". My intent was to make a general statement about anchoring as a technique. But in any case, you're incorrect: my own father has made this sort of remark about opioids, and I've seen it pop up in message boards, and with other (not necessarily opioid) comparisons by folks who resist masks/social distancing/vaccination.
evv555 5y ago
>it frustrates me to see them framed against another useless tragedy. The framing is relevant since the increase is arguably a product of the lockdown/social isolation. Generally it's not Boomers or the upperclass who are having to deal with opiate addiction. Is it a coincidence that their needs once again supersede the needs of others? Maybe