Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,909 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
CDC is showing 24,555 US COVID-19 deaths up to April 24. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm)

WorldOMeters (which I never heard of before COVID) is showing 51,139 up to now (April 24). (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/)

Anybody know what the discrepancy is?

Furthermore CDC is showing a total of 5,138 COVID deaths for people under 65.

Is it making sense to put a huge chunk of the productive population out of work for a virus killing 0.0019% of them? (Per CDC numbers: 5,138 deaths divided by 274.7 million people under 65). That's 19 people per million.

Would a more targeted strategy make more sense, given the targeted nature of the deaths?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
CDC is showing 24,555 US COVID-19 deaths up to April 24. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm)

WorldOMeters (which I never heard of before COVID) is showing 51,139 up to now (April 24). (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/)

Anybody know what the discrepancy is?

Furthermore CDC is showing a total of 5,138 COVID deaths for people under 65.

Is it making sense to put a huge chunk of the productive population out of work for a virus killing 0.0019% of them? (Per CDC numbers: 5,138 deaths divided by 274.7 million people under 65). That's 19 people per million.

Would a more targeted strategy make more sense, given the targeted nature of the deaths?
If you read the CDC link that you cited, you will see that the CDC relies on death certificate data submitted to the National Center for Health Statistics that then gets processed, coded, and tabulated at usual governmental bureaucratic speed.

"It is important to note that it can take several weeks for death records to be submitted to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), processed, coded, and tabulated."

"COVID-19 death counts shown here may differ from other published sources, as data currently are lagged by an average of 1–2 weeks."

The Indiana State Department of Health maintains a dashboard for covid-19 cases and deaths that is updated daily. The actual date that death occurred is shown along with the date reported. Most deaths that are reported to the ISDH occurred within 1-2 days of the date reported. A very few might have occurred up to a week earlier, but not many. That data is much more up to date than what the CDC reports.

I have compared the daily case and death numbers reported on the Worldometer site for the State of Indiana with those reported on the ISDH site and they correspond almost precisely on a daily basis. Sometimes there is a discrepancy of 1-3 in the number of reported deaths on a given day and that difference is made up within the following day or two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,909 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
To put another way (since as mentioned, the absolute numbers are low, so let's focus on relative numbers):

COVID deaths under 65/yo: 0.0019%
COVID deaths over 65/yo: 0.037% (roughly 20x higher than under 65) (Per CDC numbers: 19,417 deaths divided by 52.4 million people 65 or over)

Is there a better way to approach this, given that huge difference between what are generally considered retired-aged people and those who are working or will have the potential to work in the future?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
To put another way (since as mentioned, the absolute numbers are low, so let's focus on relative numbers):

COVID deaths under 65/yo: 0.0019%
COVID deaths over 65/yo: 0.037% (roughly 20x higher than under 65) (Per CDC numbers: 19,417 deaths divided by 52.4 million people 65 or over)

Is there a better way to approach this, given that huge difference between what are generally considered retired-aged people and those who are working or will have the potential to work in the future?
I'm not sure where you are coming up with those percentage numbers. Are you trying to guesstimate per capita deaths per age group or what?

The data on the CDC is very outdated as mentioned, but it shows an age distribution for deaths that may approximate the national averages. Of the 24,555 deaths attributed to covid-19, 5138 occurred in people less than 65 years of age. That is 21% (5138/24555 = .209) of the total

The number of covid-19 deaths currently reported on the much more up to date worldometer site for the US is up to 51,453. If that same age distribution for deaths holds across the US, that would mean that 10,805 deaths have occurred thus far in people under the age of 65.

Of course, none of that tells us what will happen down the road. We don't know what the real per capita incidence of covid19 infection is so we don't know what the true probability of dying will be for those who become infected, although clearly it will be much higher in the elderly. But the young are certainly not getting off scot-free. And we have no way of accurately predicting how many people will get infected in the future.
 

·
Wolverine
Joined
·
9,887 Posts
Age-adjusted death rates for all causes and the 10 leading causes of death in 2018: United States, 2017 and 2018:

upload_2020-4-24_16-11-42.gif


CoViD19 deaths in ~ 7weeks in 2020 =15 deaths per 100,000 (50,000 deaths, 330 M population).

So we’ve already outstripped an entire year of infectious deaths from flu/pneumonia. No, this has not been quite the nightmare initial predictions portrayed, thankfully. It’s not over yet, will likely go on for quite some time and remains highly contagious.

With what we know so far, is it reasonable to start opening up the country? Probably. What it reasonable with what was known to clamp down to mitigate this? More than likely and at least in part why the current numbers aren’t worse. Relatively few areas ended up with over taxed hospitals, though that was and remains a real threat.

I cannot be quite as flippant as you appear to be in these threads regarding age and comorbidities. If those things don’t matter we can save trillions of healthcare dollars by denying care. Almost half of the US population has at least one chronic illness and plenty of elderly these days lead active fulfilling lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
Protecting the elderly and letting others go about their business might sound good but it is not all that easy to do in practice. If you look at the age breakdown for confirmed cases in my state 2/3 of all reported cases are in individuals under the age of 60. That is because the elderly in this country have already been sequestered and sheltered to some extent up until now.

Since the case fatality rates are so much lower for those under 60, these age groups contribute to far fewer deaths proportionate to their numbers, but they also are responsible for a far greater spread of disease. And therein lies the problem.

The majority of those over the age of 70 in this country probably require some degree of assistance from younger people in activities of daily living. That is certainly true for those over the age of 80. Many oldsters are living in assisted living centers or nursing homes. Others may be taken care of by younger family members in private homes. But all of those younger folks on staff at nursing facilities or assisted living centers, and most in private homes are not sequestered in place like the folks they are tending to. Most have jobs, need to go grocery shopping, may have kids of school age, etc. The average old person is not in school, has left the workplace, isn't hanging out in sports bars at night, etc. But the people taking care of them, or those peoples' kids are doing those types of things. So it is really not possible within our current structure of care for the elderly to shelter them and let everyone else go about their business without an increased risk of transmitting the virus to the older people.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top