6 ms·

You are comparing those numbers directly, but that's not how you compare those numbers. First the population size, as per the article, was half what it is now.

You are comparing those numbers directly, but that's not how you compare those numbers. First the population size, as per the article, was half what it is now. So you can either double the asian flu deaths or half the covid deaths to account for this. That still leaves a huge gap, but this is where demographic analysis comes in. Usually you see this as age adjusted deaths. In this case, the population of the US has been aging for a long time so you would expect more deaths from covid than the Asian flu for an equally deadly virus. The other demographic change that is important, especially when talking about covid is rates of obesity, which is something else that has grown over time in the US population. That's a really long winded way to say you can't just compare raw numbers. The article doesn't give an explanation of how they came to their conclusion, but if you take population size, age distribution, and obesity rates into account, I could see the adjusted numbers being close.

Thoeu388 3y ago
[flagged]
simonster 3y ago
Yes, there are more obese and elderly people now than there were in 1957. No, we can't "adjust" death numbers to place less weight on the deaths of those obese and elderly people in this context. Perhaps it would make some sense to do so if our goal was to measure virulence of the virus, but policy decisions have to take into account the composition of the population as it is today.
somewhat_drunk 3y ago
>if you take population size, age distribution, and obesity rates into account, I could see the adjusted numbers being close. Those are confounding factors, but I think it's quite a stretch to believe they would provide a 5x adjustment (after accounting for 2x population), especially if you also adjust for the drastically improved quality of and access to healthcare, which would skew the adjustment in the other direction.
- heyjamesknight 3y ago
  Obesity rate is 4X what it was back then. So 2X for population, 4X for obesity, and then however you want to calculate the additional increase for an aging population. 10X ain't that crazy.
  - xadhominemx 3y ago
    Why does it matter? When crafting the policy response, what matters is how many people will actually die, not some theoretical obesity-adjusted cfr
    - eggy 3y ago
      I would agree, but we're talking about 35 to 40% prevalence of obesity and all the attendant diseases caused by it in the US. If the next wave of the flu or pneumonia would kill those same people who were pushed over the edge by COVID, would you be for lock downs and business closings in these cases too? Because that's what happens whenever a person with that many comorbidities gets an infection like the flu or pneumonia and they are over 80, just like COVID. Diagnoses of obesity changed during this period too due to fat-shaming blow back. A lot of excuses are made for these actions saying any criticism is in hindsight, but there were scientists being censored and suppressed who were raising very good points with early data and reference to past social measures during pandemics too. The memory-holing of natural immunity in those who already had COVID, was almost criminal by the CDC and others. SARS-CoV-1 immunity studies were being conducted on survivors of it from 2003 for over 18 years and they still showed antibodies or immunity traits from natural infection. Even though, SARS-CoV-2 is pretty much believed to have been enhanced in the WIV at this point with an accidental lab leak causing it to spread worldwide, why wouldn't it have similar correlations with it's sibling virus re: natural immunity? Having contracted COVID in my mid-fifties and it being no more than the flu for me, I decided not to get vaccinated when it was becoming scary that I may lose my job for this stance and being stigmatized by all of my fellow workers. I did not argue against the vaccination in the vulnerable and those who didn't ever have COVID, but I had it, and I went with the overwhelming precedent of natural immunity as something that had always been recognized by the CDC and others (funny how the definition of natural immunity was edited over time on the CDC website to fit the narrative and push for vaccination). Glad I stuck to my guns and not to the mob's. One of the loudest voices at work rushed for all of his boosters and had COVID twice and was ill enough to take off work for a week for each incident not just because of quarantine rules, since he was working from home. Sadly, my nephew in his early twenties at the time received the vax and was rushed to the emergency room by ambulance with myocarditis, and to this day has follow-up appointments to track his cardiac health. He is a runner, athlete, with no previous medical conditions. Statistically, he was not even in any significant risk category.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
I think this depends on the disease. Some diseases impact the young more than the old. The calculus required to compare age adjusted deaths by the demographic curve of mortality by pathogen is probably complex. But I would also note that when you are dying or your loved ones die waving age or obesity adjustments to claim it’s not that bad doesn’t work very well. 1.1m deaths is still 10x more, and even on a per capita, it’s still 5x greater net “mourning.” Whether the same pathogen would have been worse in one decade vs another I think is sort of irrelevant. The public health goal is the reduce mortality over all. (N.b., I recognize you probably didn’t mean to minimize anyone’s loss - but I am trying to make the point that demographic analysis might or might not be explanatory of the severity of 2020, it doesn’t make 2020 any less severe)

Thoeu388 3y ago

[flagged]

simonster 3y ago

Yes, there are more obese and elderly people now than there were in 1957. No, we can't "adjust" death numbers to place less weight on the deaths of those obese and elderly people in this context. Perhaps it would make some sense to do so if our goal was to measure virulence of the virus, but policy decisions have to take into account the composition of the population as it is today.

somewhat_drunk 3y ago

>if you take population size, age distribution, and obesity rates into account, I could see the adjusted numbers being close. Those are confounding factors, but I think it's quite a stretch to believe they would provide a 5x adjustment (after accounting for 2x population), especially if you also adjust for the drastically improved quality of and access to healthcare, which would skew the adjustment in the other direction.

heyjamesknight 3y ago
Obesity rate is 4X what it was back then. So 2X for population, 4X for obesity, and then however you want to calculate the additional increase for an aging population. 10X ain't that crazy.
- xadhominemx 3y ago
  Why does it matter? When crafting the policy response, what matters is how many people will actually die, not some theoretical obesity-adjusted cfr
  - eggy 3y ago
    I would agree, but we're talking about 35 to 40% prevalence of obesity and all the attendant diseases caused by it in the US. If the next wave of the flu or pneumonia would kill those same people who were pushed over the edge by COVID, would you be for lock downs and business closings in these cases too? Because that's what happens whenever a person with that many comorbidities gets an infection like the flu or pneumonia and they are over 80, just like COVID. Diagnoses of obesity changed during this period too due to fat-shaming blow back. A lot of excuses are made for these actions saying any criticism is in hindsight, but there were scientists being censored and suppressed who were raising very good points with early data and reference to past social measures during pandemics too. The memory-holing of natural immunity in those who already had COVID, was almost criminal by the CDC and others. SARS-CoV-1 immunity studies were being conducted on survivors of it from 2003 for over 18 years and they still showed antibodies or immunity traits from natural infection. Even though, SARS-CoV-2 is pretty much believed to have been enhanced in the WIV at this point with an accidental lab leak causing it to spread worldwide, why wouldn't it have similar correlations with it's sibling virus re: natural immunity? Having contracted COVID in my mid-fifties and it being no more than the flu for me, I decided not to get vaccinated when it was becoming scary that I may lose my job for this stance and being stigmatized by all of my fellow workers. I did not argue against the vaccination in the vulnerable and those who didn't ever have COVID, but I had it, and I went with the overwhelming precedent of natural immunity as something that had always been recognized by the CDC and others (funny how the definition of natural immunity was edited over time on the CDC website to fit the narrative and push for vaccination). Glad I stuck to my guns and not to the mob's. One of the loudest voices at work rushed for all of his boosters and had COVID twice and was ill enough to take off work for a week for each incident not just because of quarantine rules, since he was working from home. Sadly, my nephew in his early twenties at the time received the vax and was rushed to the emergency room by ambulance with myocarditis, and to this day has follow-up appointments to track his cardiac health. He is a runner, athlete, with no previous medical conditions. Statistically, he was not even in any significant risk category.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

I think this depends on the disease. Some diseases impact the young more than the old. The calculus required to compare age adjusted deaths by the demographic curve of mortality by pathogen is probably complex. But I would also note that when you are dying or your loved ones die waving age or obesity adjustments to claim it’s not that bad doesn’t work very well. 1.1m deaths is still 10x more, and even on a per capita, it’s still 5x greater net “mourning.” Whether the same pathogen would have been worse in one decade vs another I think is sort of irrelevant. The public health goal is the reduce mortality over all. (N.b., I recognize you probably didn’t mean to minimize anyone’s loss - but I am trying to make the point that demographic analysis might or might not be explanatory of the severity of 2020, it doesn’t make 2020 any less severe)