The national daily death rate has been trending down since the peak on April 21. If we're going to compare absolute values across all time like this, then we might as well include the 90 billion or so people that have died at some point in human history for comparison (about 100 billion people total, with around 7 billion currently living[1]).
A better comparison would be the yearly death toll due to flu for the US, noting that the current COVID-19 death toll is over a 2-3 month period. Preliminary estimates for the 2019-2020 US flu season [1] put the number of deaths for a 6 month period (Oct 2019-Apr 2020) at 24k-62k, so the COVID-19 attributed deaths are 2x-4x that of flu over half the time (3 months vs 6 months).
The context you seem to be missing is that, unlike death itself, COVID-19 has been with the human race for only a few months.
Its introduction into our population was an event that we observed more or less directly. We can learn from that, and (motivated by that event's total cost) we can try to do better next time (and something similar will almost certainly happen again). Can't quite say the same about death itself.
"Sure Covid19 has killed 100,000 people, but really that's no big deal--when you compare Covid19 to death itself you can see that death kills way more people."
Nah, my point is that everyone dies no matter what, and most people die of disease in one form or another. These headlines are sensationalist, especially since they miss the point that most of the deaths are from people who are already sick to begin with (i.e., heart disease or obesity comorbidity rate is very high). Plus, in the US alone, around 100k people die every single month just from heart disease and cancer[1].
Yes, the virus has a high rate of transmission, thus we see a spike in deaths, but once it runs its course things will probably normalize and we can get on with our lives. Most people's immune system responds well to the virus.
So the NYTimes and friends publish meaningless statistics because it looks worse than it actually is and it helps them sell more ads and subscriptions by getting more clicks. If they reported the data within the context of reality, it wouldn't be as scary. I think the news is the main reason for the mass hysteria about this virus, meanwhile people continue to smoke cigarettes, drive cars, pollute, avoid exercise, and engage in a bunch of other activities that are far more likely to shorten their lifespan.
Anyway, I'm fine with burning karma because I think there's more harm from the economic effects of force people to stay home, which hurts the most vulnerable people the most. Rich people will be fine. I'll keep repeating myself because I'd rather try and convince people to get on with their lives than contribute to the sensationalist mania.
> Nah, my point is that everyone dies no matter what
Yes, obviously everyone dies no matter what. The question is, do they die after a long life, surrounded by friends and family, or do they die decades earlier surrounded by strangers in hazmat suits?
But, you knew that.
> These headlines are sensationalist, especially since they miss the point that most of the deaths are from people who are already sick to begin with (i.e., heart disease or obesity comorbidity rate is very high).
Yes, but despite these pre-existing conditions, many of those people would have gone on to live for decades. You can't just pretend that's no big deal.
> Plus, in the US alone, around 100k people die every single month just from heart disease and cancer[1].
Sure, and that's absolutely something I would like to see change, but there's not much I can do about it. If that number were growing exponentially and I could do something to stop it, I would.
> Yes, the virus has a high rate of transmission, thus we see a spike in deaths, but once it runs its course things will probably normalize and we can get on with our lives.
Small detail worth mentioning--if it just "runs its course" completely unchecked, hundreds of thousands of people die. But hey, don't let mass death get in the way of your getting on with your life.
> Anyway, I'm fine with burning karma because I think there's more harm from the economic effects of force people to stay home, which hurts the most vulnerable people the most. Rich people will be fine.
We have better options than "let the old and immunocompromised die" and "fuck the poor". This is a false dichotomy you're presenting here.
I would care more if we actually counted properly. "Died with covid" is not the same as "died from covid". There are massive incentives for hospitals and local governments to overstate the numbers.
Good thing everybody who's going to get this has already gotten it, and all death has stopped, right. /s
I mean seriously it's been like 2.5 months.
We have 2 million confirmed cases nation-wide and that is WITH social distancing. We've never social distanced for the common flu, and the average death is like 40k/year.
If you extrapolate that for every 3 million cases reported/tested positive you get 100k deaths, then when we get to 30 million cases that's 1 million deaths. 60 million cases and it's 2 million deaths.
The second wave of the spanish flu was WAY deadlier and terrible than the first wave. I don't doubt the same will happen this time around.
That's like saying in June, eh we've only had 1 hurricane, the hurricane season for 2020 was great, we only had 1 hurricane...with 3-4 months left in hurricane season.
We've literally got like 2-3 years left in coronavirus 'season' (until there's better treatments/vaccines/plans in place).
And yet fewer deaths than Europe. Just Italy, Spain, France, and the UK already have 125,000 reported fatalities. This is not a singularly American phenomenon, as implied by these numbers. South America may soon reach these numbers as well.
15 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 52.7 ms ] thread[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_...
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-e...
Its introduction into our population was an event that we observed more or less directly. We can learn from that, and (motivated by that event's total cost) we can try to do better next time (and something similar will almost certainly happen again). Can't quite say the same about death itself.
"Sure Covid19 has killed 100,000 people, but really that's no big deal--when you compare Covid19 to death itself you can see that death kills way more people."
Yes, the virus has a high rate of transmission, thus we see a spike in deaths, but once it runs its course things will probably normalize and we can get on with our lives. Most people's immune system responds well to the virus.
So the NYTimes and friends publish meaningless statistics because it looks worse than it actually is and it helps them sell more ads and subscriptions by getting more clicks. If they reported the data within the context of reality, it wouldn't be as scary. I think the news is the main reason for the mass hysteria about this virus, meanwhile people continue to smoke cigarettes, drive cars, pollute, avoid exercise, and engage in a bunch of other activities that are far more likely to shorten their lifespan.
Anyway, I'm fine with burning karma because I think there's more harm from the economic effects of force people to stay home, which hurts the most vulnerable people the most. Rich people will be fine. I'll keep repeating myself because I'd rather try and convince people to get on with their lives than contribute to the sensationalist mania.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Yes, obviously everyone dies no matter what. The question is, do they die after a long life, surrounded by friends and family, or do they die decades earlier surrounded by strangers in hazmat suits?
But, you knew that.
> These headlines are sensationalist, especially since they miss the point that most of the deaths are from people who are already sick to begin with (i.e., heart disease or obesity comorbidity rate is very high).
Yes, but despite these pre-existing conditions, many of those people would have gone on to live for decades. You can't just pretend that's no big deal.
> Plus, in the US alone, around 100k people die every single month just from heart disease and cancer[1].
Sure, and that's absolutely something I would like to see change, but there's not much I can do about it. If that number were growing exponentially and I could do something to stop it, I would.
> Yes, the virus has a high rate of transmission, thus we see a spike in deaths, but once it runs its course things will probably normalize and we can get on with our lives.
Small detail worth mentioning--if it just "runs its course" completely unchecked, hundreds of thousands of people die. But hey, don't let mass death get in the way of your getting on with your life.
> Anyway, I'm fine with burning karma because I think there's more harm from the economic effects of force people to stay home, which hurts the most vulnerable people the most. Rich people will be fine.
We have better options than "let the old and immunocompromised die" and "fuck the poor". This is a false dichotomy you're presenting here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/world/europe/coronavirus-...
I mean seriously it's been like 2.5 months.
We have 2 million confirmed cases nation-wide and that is WITH social distancing. We've never social distanced for the common flu, and the average death is like 40k/year.
If you extrapolate that for every 3 million cases reported/tested positive you get 100k deaths, then when we get to 30 million cases that's 1 million deaths. 60 million cases and it's 2 million deaths.
The second wave of the spanish flu was WAY deadlier and terrible than the first wave. I don't doubt the same will happen this time around.
That's like saying in June, eh we've only had 1 hurricane, the hurricane season for 2020 was great, we only had 1 hurricane...with 3-4 months left in hurricane season.
We've literally got like 2-3 years left in coronavirus 'season' (until there's better treatments/vaccines/plans in place).
https://healthmetrics.heart.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/C...