Read on Twitter
Ok so guess what everyone, I did read that excess death paper from the CDC and it's not some extraordinary dismissal of Briand's article, which was posted and then retracted by @jhnewsletter. Briand's analysis is incomplete and flawed in some respects, but not in the way claimed.
I did email Briand to ask for her thoughts on the whole affair, and she just told me to redo her analysis to check if it was correct. This exercise enabled me to understand what exactly this analysis shows and does not show.
Briand's point was never that there were "no" excess deaths due to COVID-19. The two main issues she highlighted was that death from other causes was declining as deaths from covid-19 were increasing, and that COVID-19 deaths followed close to the same proportions they usually
follow, e.g. that older people are dying in a higher proportion during the epidemic. Briand gets into hot water when she tries to claim that this is basically no big deal -- that old + sick people have always died, and covid-19 didn't change this.
She uses this to make a claim that these deaths would have happened any way, and as such it doesn't make sense to see covid-19 as generating excess deaths.
I think this interpretation is wrong, but not because of the CDC's analysis. To understand why, let's look at the
I think this interpretation is wrong, but not because of the CDC's analysis. To understand why, let's look at the
CDC's paper and what it actually says.
-It says that they have found, that there are some 300,000 excess deaths between Jan 26 and Oct 3. These are "excess" over the amount that you'd expect based on trends over the last few years -- but notably, their model *excludes* trends in
-It says that they have found, that there are some 300,000 excess deaths between Jan 26 and Oct 3. These are "excess" over the amount that you'd expect based on trends over the last few years -- but notably, their model *excludes* trends in
ageing and population growth, which would reduce the excess deaths (due to the fact that a growing and ageing population would see more and more deaths every year).
Regardless, let's grant that 300,000 is correct. The CDC then goes on to say that they calculate that 66% of
Regardless, let's grant that 300,000 is correct. The CDC then goes on to say that they calculate that 66% of
these deaths can be linked to covid-19, and the other around 100,000 cannot be determined.
Contrary to what people were saying, therefore, Briand WAS using the correct (or close to correct) number of deaths linked to COVID-19. Neither here nor the source where Briand drew her
Contrary to what people were saying, therefore, Briand WAS using the correct (or close to correct) number of deaths linked to COVID-19. Neither here nor the source where Briand drew her
numbers claim a different amount of deaths *linked* to covid-19. The missing piece of the puzzle is this 100,000 people. Are these actually missed covid deaths, or are they caused by something else? Perhaps some adverse effects of the lockdowns - such as reduced access to health
care or suicide? These are open questions.
But the CDC article certainly does not negate the elements highlighted by Briand's analysis. Indeed, these elements are not have been confirmed by prior pieces of research by the CDC itself!
Here they are:
But the CDC article certainly does not negate the elements highlighted by Briand's analysis. Indeed, these elements are not have been confirmed by prior pieces of research by the CDC itself!
Here they are:
-Some 94% of people (as per the CDC) that have died due to COVID-19 had a co-morbidity (as showed in a different way by declining rates of other causes of deaths in Briand's analysis)
-COVID-19 is several times more deadly for the older population. The median age of death is 78
-COVID-19 is several times more deadly for the older population. The median age of death is 78
-The IFR of covid-19 is looking like it is not going to be an order of magnitude worse than influenza, as was originally claimed. Fatality ratio estimates now range from 0.02% to 0.86%, with a median of 0.26%, similar to that for seasonal flu ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3)
OK so the question is how do we meld the fact that we are seeing excess deaths with these numbers.
I do have a background in mathematics, and despite not having worked in that field, I'm tempted to do the modelling myself. Nonetheless, I believe that we can make the case on a
I do have a background in mathematics, and despite not having worked in that field, I'm tempted to do the modelling myself. Nonetheless, I believe that we can make the case on a
logical level. Essentially, those who are dying with covid-19 likely had a few more years of life left -- let's say on average 2. The life expectancy of someone in the US is 79, so this isn't a crazy assumption. So what we are observing with the excess deaths is like
*expected* deaths over the 2-3 years being compressed into the course of a few months. So I while we are seeing excess deaths this year, I expect next year we'd seeing *lower than normal* deaths because those that would have died next years died during the pandemic instead.
I've read some papers that calculated the average loss in life years per person in the United States as around 0.8 years, so around 10 months.
Briand got into hot water because she made a *political* statement that this "wasn't a big deal" essentially because that's just how
Briand got into hot water because she made a *political* statement that this "wasn't a big deal" essentially because that's just how
life and death go. This is an opinion, which I (personally) do not agree with. I do not think people's lives should be cut off short.
But the way that Briand was dismissed is very indicative of the way that science has been instrumentalized as a political weapon.
But the way that Briand was dismissed is very indicative of the way that science has been instrumentalized as a political weapon.
Everyone wants to pretend that dealing with COVID-19 is all about finding the best scientific approach and that those that disagree with the current approach are "anti-science". This is false. Both sides are deeply political and are obfuscating the political content of their
positions by instrumentalizing "the science" -- including Briand, in fact!
I'm going to write an article on this, but I'll end by saying that *so many* entrenched principles of science -- debate, decisions made on the basis of the best available evidence, null hypothesis -- have
I'm going to write an article on this, but I'll end by saying that *so many* entrenched principles of science -- debate, decisions made on the basis of the best available evidence, null hypothesis -- have
thrown out the window in a way that I have never observed in my life. The way in which we dealt with this pandemic has been historically unprecedented.
I'm not 100% sure what the "best" approach would have been, but my idea of what would have worked is likely unfeasible under
I'm not 100% sure what the "best" approach would have been, but my idea of what would have worked is likely unfeasible under
capitalism.
But let's get real - capitalists are using this crisis to wage class war. The proletariat needs to do the same, and use this crisis to win shorter hours, more benefits, more power, higher staffing.
But let's get real - capitalists are using this crisis to wage class war. The proletariat needs to do the same, and use this crisis to win shorter hours, more benefits, more power, higher staffing.
Sorry for the typos, good God I did try to re-read these ones. Anyways look out for my article, it will be typo-free and much clearer.
