From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Here is the data from FT on many countries including the US.
I read that article when it initially came out...the jist of the article is that covid deaths could be under reported by as much as 60%.
I have serious questions about the validity of the numbers and presentation.
The horizontal plotting points are unclear. The x plane varies by country. We are comparing some short interval (week) to a four year average (what kind of average?), but at no point are we shown what the range of a standard deviation is for that average.
The small print below each graph is not enlightening.
Now don't get me wrong, I would be fairly surprised to see a lower death count, especially in the years comprising the average. Go back to 2008-2009, well, not so much. However, the excess deaths could as easily be coming from other sources.
Here is another very problematical analysis of numbers but with far different conclusions. It is by a Chartered Financial Advisor.
From what he says this is predictive, not analytical. He says "by our estimates there will be ..."
My point being don't trust numbers when you can't understand how they are derived.
The flu chart you posted earlier made me just wonder if Coronavirus was in NY a lot earlier than know, especially considering the subsequent outbreak.
We know all of this recently though is with distancing measures and closures in place, and they reduced the flu to nothing and have brought numbers of Covid cases down significantly in the NYC Met area.
The numbers of deaths are not accurate now, and probably will take a long time to figure out, but that isn't really that consequential either. We know this is some bad stuff, and unchecked it'll cause a lot more damage.
Now, we've got to figure out how best to open and get some jobs back to people.
Here is what the CDC tells us about a H1N1 virus of 2009 (10 years later):
In the spring of 2009, a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus emerged. It was detected first in the United States and spread quickly across the United States and the world. This new H1N1 virus contained a unique combination of influenza genes not previously identified in animals or people. This virus was designated as influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus. From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated that there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (8,868-18,306) in the United States due to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.* external icon
In addition the CDC estimates that from 2009 to 2018 H1N1 caused 75,000 deaths and 1,000,000 hospitalizations.
My point being if we can't have hard and fast numbers for a disease 10 years in the past, how in the world are we getting hard and fast numbers now?
In fact the influenza deaths each year is a math formula estimate.
My cynical view is that the economic lockdown is so ruinous, that our governments will make sure the numbers reported are bad enough to justify it.
I tend to think all governments are interested enough in having functioning economies they're going to do whatever they can to get things moving quickly without impaling the country with another spike of Covid.
About numbers though, this is bigger than seasonal or even H1N1 flu, and there is enough pressure that numbers will come out fairly quickly and with some accuracy. Too much focus on it not to.
As an example, the completely ridiculous claim by Matt Hancock, our health secretary, that his testing goal of 100k a day was met as of May 1 has now been (not surprisingly) reconsidered by the government after journalists found out many of the tests claimed were mail order and others were simply given to care homes without proper instruction on how to administer them.
However much people dislike headlines and negative reporting, journalism is calling governments to account all over the world right now, and that is very necessary through this kind of a crisis.
< Message edited by obvert -- 5/4/2020 7:22:52 AM >
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill