Please consider Coronavirus Deaths Were Likely Missed in Michigan
An exclusive Wall Street Journal analysis of death certificates indicates that Michigan could have undercounted hundreds of fatalities connected to Covid-19 during a period in March and April when deaths had surged above normal levels.
In Macomb County, made up of Detroit-area suburbs, Medical Examiner Daniel Spitz said 842 overall deaths were reported to his office in April this year, up about 370 from April last year.
“These increases in numbers were not because we had a lot of homicides, a lot of suicides, a lot of drug overdoses,” Dr. Spitz said. “What’s the difference between April ’19 and April ’20? Covid-19 is the obvious choice.”
Public-health experts say it is common to undercount deaths from new maladies, and that testing deficits made it particularly easy to miss deaths from people infected by the coronavirus.
Deaths in three counties in that area were up 80% in the five-week period, compared with recent averages. But about a third of certificates from that increase—more than 900 cases—don’t list Covid-19 as an underlying or related cause of death.
Michigan Covid-19 Deaths by County
More than 13,000 people died in the state from March 15 through April 18, compared with an average of about 9,300 deaths yearly during the same five-week period over the previous six years, according to the state’s death-certificate data.
Undercounts Beyond Dispute
Deaths caused by Covid-19 are significantly undercounted. Put a probability of that at about 99% or higher.
Yet, this post and every similar post of this nature is guaranteed to spawn inane comments on how people did not die from Covid-19 but rather with Covid-19.
Those making such claims may as well attribute every death due to failure to keep breathing.
Lockdown Overkill
There is reasonable debate regarding whether the lockdowns went too far, but we do not know what would have happened had there not been lockdowns.
Covid-19 Deaths Through May 20
Through May 20, there have been 94,936 US deaths attributed to Covid-19.
In addition, there is a significant but unknown number of deaths that should have been attributed to Covid-19 but weren’t.
What we do not know is how many more would have died had there not been lockdowns.
Many of those those arguing against the lockdowns claim that social distancing does not work. Regard anyone making such a claim as a crackpot.
For the rest, I wonder how many additional deaths it would have taken to convince you the lockdowns were advisable?
How many additional deaths would it take to convince you the lockdowns were advisable?https://t.co/eJCxA7GS2K
None? A Million?
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) May 21, 2020
100,000? 200,000? 1,000,000? Everyone on the planet?
Mish
This is certainly the opposite effect in New Jersey and the county I live in. The numbers are the complete opposite as if someone is getting a kickback oŕ something. So many people in the African American community who had preexisting conditions have gone to the hospital for other illnesses and instantly testing positive suddenly positive then dead .
My mother was one of them on April 6th when her lung çancer returned and mastesized to both lungs , in the center, and two areas of the spine as well and in the bone on the right side of her neck. Long before the pandemic outbreak. She had fluid drained from around her lung and was prepping for chemo. Ìn and out the hospital 3 times with oxygen, breathing and fluid issues. No known heart conditions. Well she went over last time for fluid to drain fluid from her lung area, for the second time, not unusual and in 24hŕs she was dead. I was told she had a heart attack and on a ventilator. How, Why, When,What 😳 I was asked when to pull the plug since she did not want resuscitation . Her death certificate said covid 19. How, Why. No fever, no other symptoms but a heart attack just like that
I do see a lot of as you say “crackpots” commenting in your column. President Trump called for these lockdowns and told Georgia they were opening too soon. I agree with President Trump when he said we would have deaths in excess of 100k and all the Republican and Democrat State governors took his advice. REMINDER: WE HAVE TAPE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP WARNING ABOUT DEATH SPIKES AND CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION. Many Republican voters clearly disagree with President Trump. Most Republican governors would not have shut down if President Trump had not put out the dire warnings Of up to 240k deaths, even with lockdowns. Trump now claims credit for saving many lives as he should. I think Trump made horrible mistakes early on but I give credit where it’s due. He did save a lot of lives by sharing the true count of deaths to come. Do Republicans now attack him because he was correct? He wants openings now. That’s fine. We bent the curve as he told us to. Now we get to see how the opening goes. I hope it goes well for all of us.
As Mark Twain once said “Don’t argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference”.
Hi Mish, I agree with you that COVID-19 deaths are undercounted – especially for deaths with cause listed as influenza or pneumonia. However I think it’s quite possible that those Alzheimer’s, CV and diabetes deaths are actually due to Alzheimer’s, strokes/embolisms and diabetes rather than COVID. Ask any specialist physician outside of New York or Boston and they will tell you that hospitals are empty right now. So while some people are dying due to the virus there are a large number that are dying due to disruption of the normal care pathways. Mental health is the one I worry about in particular. So what will it take to convince me that the lockdowns were a good idea? I’d like to see what the extra disabilty-adjusted life years lost is by category is when this is all said and done. A COVID death costs society 5-10 DALYs by recent estimates and a drug overdose costs 35. I think it’s not controversial that the COVID body count would be higher without social distancing, but to me it’s still an open question about whether the lockdowns/shelter in place orders are actually saving lives or merely redistributing the deaths among different categories and people.
Check out the total mortality data from CDC
You can download spreadsheets for National and State level data
Just remember to read the warnings they give you when you go to that site. Data for the last two weeks is incomplete, and data for prior periods is continually revised. Any data from a year ago will be stable, but data more recent than that is subject to revision. Still, you can see the massive boom in “pneumonia” deaths in 2020, at a time when regular flu deaths normally decline. I think it’s almost certain that those were Covid19 deaths that were counted as pneumonia.
Unquestionably under and mis-counting. Keep reminding ourselves that after the Wuhan Military Games in October 2019 a number of athletes returned to their home countries with flu like symptoms. At least 5 to the US. Sweden and France also admit some. Unless you suspect something – how many doctors will waste time and money making any tests to prove or disprove pneumonia and ‘winter flu’?
I love this statement! [lol]
“Shutting down entire states, including vast uninfected rural swaths, is the economic equivalent of burning witches or sacrificing virgins to appease angry viral gods.”
COVID-19 deaths and pre-existing conditions. What Illinois’ data says about who’s at risk. – Part 2 – Wirepoints
May 14, 2020
Ted Dabrowski and John Klingner
Wirepoints recently analyzed data from Cook County’s Medical Examiner and found that 92 percent of Cook County COVID-19 victims had pre-existing conditions. Those that died had comorbidities including diabetes, obesity, hypertension and heart disease.
Many Americans have pre-existing conditions. Data from the CDC says that 45 percent of people have hypertension. Another 43 percent are obese. And another 10 percent have diabetes.
(Read part 1 of Wirepoints’ look at pre-existing conditions: Wirepoints analysis reveals 92 percent of Cook County COVID-19 victims had pre-existing conditions)
Everybody undercounts, biggest reason is those in power don’t want to look bad. Especially China…but the US numbers are low especially early on. This is shaping up to be a rerun of the 2018-19 Spanish flu epidemic where a big later stage wave killed ten times as many as the first wave. I’m afraid we are not testing enough to be able to shut down again before hospitals get overwhelmed. We’ll see…the next 6 weeks are critical…
More “nothing to back it up” bullshit. Please come back in 6 weeks and admit you were totally wrong you brainwashed fool.
I’m afraid we are not testing enough to be able to shut down again before hospitals get overwhelmed. What does that even mean.
Not taking part in opinion on this because any argument becomes circular. More tests more fatalities due to virus but lower IFR due to counted background infections for example… there are too many facets to try to include to get an answer that is real to anything. Lockdowns help reduce fatalities in short term, no doubt, but justifying them in broader terms meets arguments that just cannot be equated, the more so because of lack of various information.
In Italy social security thinks undercount
but in the bigger picture it is not an answer but a detail.
The virus is no good, immunity might not be long, no point in catching it, I think most people understand that, and for those who don’t that is a choice but just respect others who don’t share that opinion if you want them to respect your choice also.
Also serology tests in UK gave 5% infection rate for the population, but 17% in London. Will have to wait for critique on that.
I noted testing of samples of dead folk in Italy and France indicating infections back to December and maybe before. So a little more under-counting there, but you would think that indicates there is a pretty wide spread already in some locations.
It’s hard to say, in theory if you have the virus arrive in december, and say transmission is to five people per person every five days (complete guess), after 50 days you are into millions I think from one initial infection ! So the possibility exists of a larger background of earlier fatalities, but I think if that number were very large it would have been noticed. So exactly what was going on before the epidemic was known to take off is still something of a mystery without much information available ?
My father had a stroke and dies three weeks later. Two days before he died he had a heart attack. Both acute…I get it. I would say of stroke, some would argue heart attack. Death Cert said Ischemic Stroke.
If somebody dies from Corona, in most cases they had an underlying issue….not all cases, but most. Death Certs vary, I understand why.
If the nation was drowning in debt before Corona….is Corona causing the death of the nation? I would say it’s debt, some would argue otherwise. My guess the death cert will say “natural causes”.
Wrong question. The question is how many life-years you can actually prevent long-term by crushing the curve short-term? And the corollary, how many extra life-years lost over 30 years caused by skidding into the ditch?
A reasonable question. But needs to calculate the risk using the information on the virus that was available early on. Early Chinese figures indicated 5% death rates. looked like it had an RO of 2-3 etc.
There was far better data early on from the diamond princess. A boat full of old people where even there the death rate in a confined petri dish was less than 2 per cent. The death rate was never believed to be anywhere near 5% by sane individuals.
I can answer your question of “What we do not know is how many more would have died had there not been lockdowns.” The simple answer is zero. The whole reason for the lockdowns in the first place was to “Flatten the curve”. The concept of flattening the curve is to spread out the people who would need medical care so as to not overload the medical system at a given point in time. In short, we are spreading out the same number of deaths but over a longer time period. If this virus is going to get you, being locked down for 3, 4, 5, 6 or a year will not change that fact that you will die from it eventually. Mother nature always finds a way.
There are only three ways to change the outcome with the Corona Virus:
1)100% lockdown until the virus dies off. That means nobody around the world can EVER leave their homes. That means you can’t go out to buy food. You must be able to self-sustain for the duration. I have heard these figures go anywhere from 4-8 months but nobody can be sure because we just don’t know. But not one person can leave and have any form of contact with another and accidentally pass along the virus to another. The virus will die out. This virus started out with only one host and spread like it did so nobody can leave the house. Lastly, ask yourself how many people will die from accidents etc. because the paramedics can’t leave their homes either or any other type of situation where you need someone else’s help. This is perfectly evident today in that if you need the police or a paramedic they can carry the virus and pass it along and have done so. Absolutely no contact.
2)A vaccine is developed that will keep you immune from COVID-19 (may require booster shots), but everyone must have had this shot or it will still be passed around. This could take years to develop and many more to inoculate the entire world. Think of measles and how long it took to eradicate it. They started in the late 50s and not until 2000 did they finally say that measles was gone from the planet. I am not holding my breath that a vaccine will be available soon and even if so, without a risk of severe complications.
3)let everyone out into the world and let it spread like wildfire. Eventually, just about everyone will get it and become immune. Yes, I understand that immunity may not last long and you can get reinfected etc. The key point is that when herd immunity kicks in it will start to die out and not spread as easily. Yes, still keep working on a vaccine in the meantime. Yes, we must keep those most at risk such as the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions separated and isolated just as we do with the flu today. When you had the flu in the past did you give grandma a big sloppy kiss. No, because she is not as strong and we used common sense. For a couple of months it will be hell but it will be over quickly once immunity kicks in and can’t spread as fast. It will soon become just like the Spanish Virus did in 1919.
It’s a well documented fact that covid deaths are undercounted everywhere. All valid studies show similar unexplained spikes in flu and pneumonia deaths around the world so it obviously covid. It’s good to hear that the Wall Street Journal is speaking the truth. It’s a conservative source that is super pro-Trump. I don’t think they publish lies, they just color everything Red.
To be honest we don’t and will never know what the truth is with the numbers. It is often said that people don’t die of the flu but from the complications as a result from it. So the question becomes how do you define a COVID-19 death? There are many articles out there about fudging the numbers because the hospitals make more money for a COVID-19 related death from Medicare. Or if you get into an auto accident and are rushed to the hospital, then tested positive for COVID and die a day later you are considered a COVID-19 death.
No matter how you, the hospital or the undertaker looks at it, does it really mater how you classify the death as most likely it’s up to and defined by whoever is making out the death certificate and their personal opinion. In the end I feel like you are complaining about what the definition of a COVID death is. All we are doing is reclassifying the deaths and nothing will actually happen to the total number of actual deaths.
Let’s assume that something nefarious is going on in Michigan with the counting of COVID-19 deaths. What should we do about this now that you have brought it to light? More lockdowns because the definition has changed? More social distancing? I believe that this definition change will not change the final total number of deaths per day or week etc.
It is only a fact in YOUR mind.
Mish- I used to really enjoy your columns but you seem to have gone off the deep end. Your analysis and observations used to be spot on, but now it seems like you have a preconceived idea that you are looking for ways to justify rather than using the same logical reasoning you used to apply to economics and politics.
You highlight that deaths from various causes in general have increased and immediately leap to the conclusion that Covid-19 deaths are under-counted. Didn’t you skip a few steps between observation and conclusion. I used to apply statistical methods to improving semiconductor manufacturing processes and if I used that same sloppy reasoning – I would have been out of a job very quickly.
What else has changed since Covid-19 that might account for those extra deaths? How about the lockdowns themselves. It is well know that stress is one of the biggest factors in disease. Think of the additional stress caused by the lockdowns. Suddenly lots of people are out of a job. All the places you used to eat at or shop at are closed or under very tight restrictions. Social time with your friends is eliminated or greatly reduced. your normal routines are severely disrupted. If you live in a nursing home, suddenly the few things you looked forward to (family visits and the daily bingo) are no longer there. My point is that the act of the lockdowns themselves has created a significant amount of stress in every day lives that could very well act as a trigger for increased deaths. Of course I don’t know if that’s true or not and I really have no way to test that theory, but it’s just as valid as leaping to the conclusion that Covid-19 was the direct cause of all those extra deaths.
The article states: “What’s the difference between April ’19 and April ’20?” The lockdowns themselves also seem to be an obvious choice. To me it looks like the lockdown response to Covid-19 might also have played a significant factor in those increased deaths.
The science is not that complicated. You take the numbers from the past few years and subtract them from this year and look at the difference. Then you ask yourself what has changed. If you think all these people died of stress, you need to talk to some hospital emergency room doctors so you can begin to get a half a clue.
Anecdotal reports from medical workers isn’t the “data” and “science” you purport to worship.
Ever consider how many people missed chemo treatments recently? Cardiologist appointments? How many people in nursing homes died because they weren’t sufficiently cared for? I could go on. You say it’s just taking one number and subtracting the other, which isn’t the whole picture.
And that’s exactly what I’m talking about people like you trying to justify predetermined conclusions. And it’s really annoying to get a condescending response instead of a well reasoned argument. I’m open-minded. How about having an intelligent conversation to help illustrate a point rather than slinging insults about getting half a clue.
I never said they all died from stress. For example, stress is a major trigger for the category listed as cerberovascular diseases. Again, you also ask “what has changed”. Well, the lockdowns are new and they cause stress. And seeing that a large percentage of deaths have occurred in nursing homes, one might argue that “will to live” plays a big part in longevity in that situation. My father-in-law is currently in a nursing home and has often remarked that he often feels like he’s just waiting to die. Since the lockdowns he’s had no visits at all from family members. Where’s his “will to live”.
Any attempt at specifically counting death from any one cause is doomed to end up with an undercount. Unless you actually autopsy every person who died, you have no chance of catching every case. That isn’t just with regard to Covid19; that is how it works for every disease. The CDC recognizes this, and when they count flu deaths every year, they take the final count and multiply it by a factor in an effort to estimate the actual deaths. For the flu, they usually multiply the counted deaths by about 6.
Because of the scrutiny on Covid, the counts for Covid are much closer, and there is no way they need to multiply by 6. My guess is that they are still about 20% low, though.
Lockdowns don’t cause flu and pneumonia – quite the opposite. Flu and pneumonia deaths should have declined but they spiked. You are clearly a very smart person so if you remove a political overlay you will see that the people who are the experts in public health are focused on getting the best numbers they can because it helps all of us.
You’re begging the question. Have suicides increased? Have deaths from cancer, etc. increased due to lack of care? Have traffic deaths DECREASED due to lack of auto/truck travel? You simply make the claim (which I agree is very probable) that the large number of excess deaths over the last few months can’t all be blamed on Covid19—but many, probably most, can be likely be blamed on Covid19, and you’ve thrown no light, or information, in that direction. The trouble with the constant partisan/sectarian bickering we call “politics” in the US is that people have become blind to any real complexity and the desire to really search for accuracy because it requires work, and it also requires a willingness to drop partisan assumptions.
Thoughts that the young are not much affected by SARS-CoV-2 look wrong
No, the amount of young affected is still very minimal.
The amount of young affected is indeed low. Those under 17 account for only 1.7% of cases. In New York, that would be about 6000 children. However, among those who do have symptoms, parents and doctors should watch for Kawasaki Disease like symptoms. About 100 children in New York have presented with Kawasaki-like disease, or about 1/60 of those who tested positive. Thus, it is uncommon, but not rare. The reason that parents and doctors need to be watching for these symptoms is that if untreated, Kawasaki can create lifelong heart problems and other damage. If they are treated early, the prognosis is much better.
So, most children who are exposed will either not catch it, or have no symptoms. A small number will have sufficient symptoms to be tested, and will test positive. Of those, about 1/60 may exhibit Kawasaki-like symptoms, and when that happens, those should get attention immediately.
Statistics are always tricky beasts, and the ones flying around viz. CV19 are no exception, especially given how some show clear over-counting and others show clear under-counting. I don’t believe any of them because I don’t believe the source data has consistent enough standards and definitions.
One set of data out of Italy – with the same caveats of course – is telling, imo, namely the percentage of people dying with C19 and also WITHOUT co-morbidities. Now one can argue that without the covid those with one co-morbidity might have made it, I suppose, but that means the word ‘morbidity’ is being discounted (though again: who gets to define these things in the first place?). But generally speaking, if these numbers are generally correct – as I suspect is the case given the very high average age of those dying the past few months in Italy – it means that the sort of conclusions Mish is pushing are mathematically absurd.
If it is more or less accurate that only 3.9% of those dying of CV have NO co-morbidities, then it is highly unlikely that CV is contributing much more than 10-20% of extra deaths this year, indeed one might argue it has lowered death rates because of reduction of car crashes, workplace accidents, iatrogenic cock-ups in hospitals and clinics and so forth.
Now: if this 3,9% number was more like 20-30%, which is what you would suspect from all the press on this, then Mish would have a much stronger point. But given the virus inability to strike down more than 1 in 25 who are not already very ill, I don’t think this qualifies as a pandemic at all, any more than a typical flu which also goes around the world in 80 days infecting tens of millions, killing of about 0.1-2% (1-2,000 per million), which is thus far more than what CV has done.
As to statistics, look at this doozy: yesterday Sweden’s death per million count doubled. Of course this has nothing to do with all the press recently praising or vilifying them. Still, that’s a huge statistical sea-change. I haven’t read a single story noticing this:
Went from 4.46 to 8.71. That sort of leap indicates that the numbers are being tweaked or from very questionable sources or something. I feel that most of the figures being bandied about are no less suspect. But even if they are right, 8.71 deaths per million is under 0.01% (1000), the typical flu level. Basic Math. (Unless I am misinterpreting the 8.71 nr somehow, but if so it’s probably 871 not 8,710).
One thing is clear: the lockdown has been an economic disaster and the number of deaths and illnesses doesn’t come close to justifying it. It’s very hard to admit when you have made a mistake. Trump for sure will never admit it and keeps touting the entirely ridiculous 2,000,000 death figure he was briefed by his corrupt Big Pharma shills using the same study that spooked Boris into the same sort of draconian economy-killing blunder (though he might be trolling every time he does it!). They blew it. And they blew it by listening overmuch to Garbage-In-Garbage-Out spreadsheet models which can tell you anything you want if you know how to tweak them, leave out the right variables, exponentially exaggerate other ones until you get the hockey stick or rocket to moon shape that you want.
“indeed one might argue it has lowered death rates because of reduction of car crashes …”
Huh? Total deaths per week is up. Or you are questioning that?
Do you have those numbers? If so, please send link.
I saw something a few weeks back comparing current numbers to past several years, week by week (and they were down by about 15%), but couldn’t locate it later.
Also, the data used was from before covid achieved lift-off in April, though according to many it peaked around April 15th ish.
I do not. Besides of the articles above, there was the NY Times article: link to nytimes.com
Not sure what to make of it, because I agree that a lot of numbers are not as easy to interpret as we would like.
Thank you. Here, I have to reveal a prejudice. I used to be a subscriber but about ten years or so ago, the paper lurched left and extremist just as I was getting to an age where phony progressive social justice type stuff began to induce nausea. I cannot read anything they write any more and so I won’t read this either…
Well, being Sleepless in Seattle tonight, I relented and took a look. Good graphics. in there, a link to Economist (who I also used to subscribe to but no longer since they went far too partisan viz globalist-nationalist contretemps) and it looks pretty clear that the average death rates have indeed spiked up – considerably so. If these figures are right, then clearly my position that the death rates are, if anything, lower than usual, is Big-Time wrong. I would prefer less dubious sources, though, especially given this is such a huge, geopolitical hot potato in time of cold / soft /asymmetric war, and especially given that only a month back I saw very different figures. But it’s been an eventful month on the virus front and maybe that’s why the results are so different.
That said: the table I posted elsewhere showing that only 4% of deaths in Italy were from Covid without co-morbidities makes it hard to believe that the typical death rate doubled last month. And given pneumonia is still taking away far more than covid, according to many other reports I’ve seen, and those figures are normal, how can the far lesser covid numbers create such huge differences compared to the average deaths? As is well said: “Lies, damned lies and statistics!”
The argument about whether or not the lockdowns have worked, saved lives etc., is unresolvable since there are no real control groups, albeit one could feel that maybe Sweden, SK, Taiwan, Singapore etc. have something to teach (well, Sweden was doing well until their national deaths-per-million number strangely doubled today from the day before which is impossible of course). But there are so many variables in every situation that it’s kinda-sorta unfathomable. I remain convinced that the reaction to lockdown was overblown, and pushed in order to inflict damage for political reasons, medical mumbo-jumbo about safety etc. being the convenient pretext. But that’s just one man’s opinion. Certainly, China did everything right to contain it domestically whilst ensuring it spread all around the world leading into their busiest-day-of-the-year-worlwide traffic-wise, New Year. Italy – their new Belt & Road ally, instigated a strict lock-down after absorbing tens of thousands of Chinese going to and from Wuhan in January. And so the lock-down method – never tried before in human history, was well established and everyone followed suit. Now China only locked down less than a tenth of its country, but everyone else has been locking down everywhere. I live in an area with 10 cases in three months and zero deaths but it’s been totally shut down and god knows what sort of suffering and damage this has caused and how many will return to normal next month when it opens again. The lock-down here was certainly overblown. Anyway…
This might be helpful:
How Many People Die Each Day?
May 15, 2020
As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on, the media continues to rattle off statistics at full force.
However, without a frame of reference, numbers such as the death toll can be difficult to interpret. Mortalities attributed to the virus, for example, are often measured in the thousands of people per day globally—but is this number a little or a lot, relative to typical causes of death?
Today’s graphic uses data from Our World in Data to provide context with the total number of worldwide daily deaths. It also outlines how many people who die each day from specific causes.
Thanks. I remember that one. The problem there is that all the other figures are daily averages from a full year’s data (presumably), whereas with covid they don’t have it yet, but it looks like it will come in around 1,000 (now at 2,000) or so, assuming the general drop-off continues which puts it WAY below pneumonia, for example.
Later: At first I missed the lower section since I thought this was a one-page graphic. Down below are comparative death rates charts which clearly show a significant spike in April-May well above the norm for that month. Which makes the tables I saw in April wrong – unless these numbers are cooked somehow too, which is quite possible these days.
I’m going to ask a scientist guy on Twitter I follow if he can find some figures, which he’s good at doing.
Meanwhile, here’s a JP Morgan report out recently raising the issue as to whether the lockdowns have done more harm than good. Looks that way to me.
Another article:
Johan Giesecke
Published:May 05,2020
Do Lockdowns Work? Mounting Evidence Says No
As far as deaths from automobile accidents, I saw a statistic a couple days ago that while miles drive are down 25%, people are driving more recklessly, so accidents per mile are up 15%, and deaths from accidents are only down 10%. Of course, some of the increase in accidents per mile could be caused by an increase in sudden strokes, hypoxia, and/or heart attacks, but we’ll never know.
I can believe that the honeymoon from motor vehicle accidents may be over now, because what I see is traffic mostly back, including all of the speeding. Even though there has been no relaxation of executive orders for my county. It’s almost as if governors have now shot their wad, and going forward US peeps are going to be less keen to conform. Imagine the outrage this Fall if there’s a “second wave” and states try to re-instate the same April measures.
Another hypothesis I have is that the more states treat people like sheeple, the more people will act like sheeple, and not rely on their own judgement … so that as edicts are relaxed, some will assume that the danger must be passed and it’s safe to take little-to-no precautions — otherwise Big Brother would still be telling them to hunker down.
RE: “If it is more or less accurate that only 3.9% of those dying of CV have NO co-morbidities, then it is highly unlikely that CV is contributing much more than 10-20% of extra deaths this year, indeed one might argue it has lowered death rates because of reduction of car crashes, workplace accidents, iatrogenic cock-ups in hospitals and clinics and so forth.”
LOL! Talk about illogic! The only one who might argue that must be you!
COVID-19 is most certainly contributing some amount to extra deaths this year … I won’t argue over percentage … but it has most certainly NOT “lowered death rates because of reduction of car crashes, workplace accidents, iatrogenic cock-ups in hospitals and clinics and so forth.”
The LOCKDOWN, the RESPONSE to COVID-19, NOT COVID-19 itself, has “lowered death rates because of reduction of car crashes, workplace accidents, iatrogenic cock-ups in hospitals and clinics and so forth.”
Now, if you want to assert that even with no official lockdown, the population’s own natural response to COVID-19 would have had the same effect and “lowered death rates because of reduction of car crashes, workplace accidents, iatrogenic cock-ups in hospitals and clinics and so forth.” then … thank you for agreeing that the official lockdown did not do any more than the population’s natural response would have done.
But even then it would not be COVID-19 that would have lowered any death rates … it would have been the RESPONSE to COVID-19.
COVID-19 itself could not possibly do anything more than increase death rates.
Well, according to some doctors, the death rate is indeed going way up, but that’s from the lockdown. For example in some areas there have been as many suicides in one month as there are all year.
I think my impression of lower death rates was from data published in the middle of April which is basically before most of the covid deaths had been counted. Up until then, this was a lower death rate than usual world-wide. Now it seems there has been a considerable spike in April-May, coming back down to par rapidly, which I was a bit slow to pick up on (because frankly I stopped following covid numbers a few weeks ago) but the longer-term effects of the lockdown have yet to be determined (if they ever will be).
But I don’t understand your objection to the 3.9% business. I thought I was being extremely generous adding 10-20% from covid alone, I could have simply said: therefore, only about 3.9% of extra deaths have been caused by covid. If covid has caused only 3.9% extra deaths, how and where do these extreme spikes come from?
Both data sets cannot be true: either the 3,9% figure from Italy is not representative of the rest of the world (though I recall seeing something very similar from a small study in California), or the huge spikes may be ‘hockey stick’ style manipulations. They both cannot be true it seems to me. But your name has ‘math’ in it, maybe you can clarify using math, not petty insult?!
I had no comment on what percentage of extra/excess deaths COVID-19 has added … although I certainly believe it has added to deaths. My entire objection was based on your attributing the saving of any lives to COVID-19. That assertion is patently ridiculous.
The COVID-19 illness can prevent no deaths … absolutely none … only RESPONSE to the disease, whether official lockdown or de facto lockdown by people themselves can do anything to prevent deaths from means other than COVID-19 (as well as from COVID-19 itself).
I’ll also add that lockdown has the possibility of adding to deaths from other causes. The entire discussion is about the right balance. I supported the initial draconian response because lack of preparedness and insufficient equipment and much delayed response left no other reasonable initial option. I oppose any plan to “open everything and let the chips fall where they may”. I support cautious, careful, vigilant targeted re-opening plans.
And for every comment regarding “We did nothing during the ______ outbreak/epidemic/pandemic of 19XX and lots of people died but that’s the breaks” my only response is thank God most of us are not still that stupid and callous.
Obviously I wasn’t saying that CV19 has saved lives. It’s just that up to a few weeks ago the death rates were down from average – at least in a few tables I saw back in April.
I’m retiring from this field at this point. There are simply too many contradictory figures flying around. Some doctors are convinced it’s a very serious thing, others are panicking at the damage being done by the lock-downs. It goes round and round. At this point, I think unless a good re-opening can be successfully pulled off within a couple of months that we are at risk of a serious depression, profound social and political change, and many orders of magnitude more casualties for far longer than this rather bad flu.
So if overall death rates are down, and COVID-19 is obviously not saving any lives, in fact COVID-19 could only possibly be adding to the overall death count, then something(s) other than COVID-19 is not only acting to counter the added deaths from COVID-19 but is also countering deaths that would normally have occurred without COVID-19. Simple arithmetic logic …
Now I wonder what other major influence(s) on overall death rate there could possibly be? Could it be the lockdowns? Could it be that people are no longer engaged as much in the sort of activities/behaviors that would, on average, lead to more deaths?
RE: “I think unless a good re-opening can be successfully pulled off within a couple of months that we are at risk of a serious depression, profound social and political change …”
Certainly that has a “ring of truth” … and I’ve agreed that we must pursue cautious, careful, vigilant targeted re-opening plans.
RE: ” … and many orders of magnitude more casualties for far longer than this rather bad flu.”
as does that … but I suggest you Google “overall death rate during the Great Depression” to learn some highly-counter-intuitive information. None of which guarantees similar results today, but it does go to show us that counter-intuitive results are possible.
Since I have come to believe that SARS-COV-2 is not a 100% naturally evolved virus, that genomic evidence argues for “successful” (if you call the past several months “success”?!) “enhancement of function research” in the Wuhan lab, and either accidental or deliberate release, I would have to agree with the core tenet of that article … That it was the arrogance of scientists always asking only whether they CAN do something, and never stopping to ask whether they SHOULD, that brought on this entire calamity … and those scientists would seem to include Fauci who apparently supported it policy-wise and financially. And unless humanity wakes up to the INSANITY that this form of “playing God” really is and STOPS … then sooner or later the worst imaginings of the human mind are going to take concrete form.
Well, I’ve conceded (with caveat regarding general distrust of ALL numbers out there around this) that death rates are not down. They were as of April, but now it’s about six weeks later, and lots has happened in that time in both Europe and US.
I agree with your last points esp. viz ‘playing God.’ There are two main axes in that arena which concern me:
Unless people believe Americans have a special predisposition to Covid deaths, they are certainly undercounted on a global scale. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if China had more deaths than every other country combined, and if that’s not true I expect they’re not off by much.
Other countries aren’t counting/testing their slums while others are trying to look strong for political purposes, mostly to propagandize their own people.
Since there is so much lying, we’ll have to wait for more clues like China’s shocking drop in cell phone users to get a clearer idea of what’s going on.
Is it possible that many of the dropped cell phones were from the economic shock of temporary phones that migrant workers get in their work region and dump when they return to their home region?
Oh, I’m sure a lot of it was economic shock. However, the loss of 21M Q1 cell phone accounts (Jan – Mar) is tough to explain away without some death. I’d also expect many migrant workers would still have mobiles even if/when they return to their home province. Maybe they would change accounts depending on the carriers in the area, but that 21M figure was a net loss and it was only through March!
What kills me in this whole argument is the notion that if we had not had forced quarantines, that the unemployment and economic collapse would not have happened. This is ridiculous, people would have still avoided restaurants and bars and stores anyway.. What would have changed would be the infection rate would have been much worse causing and even bigger panic and social breakdown.
We would also have had a legal nightmare as our “victim society” began suing each other over negligence for not taking precautions and shutting down businesses.
Now I hate government probably more than anyone here, but even I have to admit that in this case they did the right thing and shut everything down until we could get a handle on this thing…
To bolster your argument, go back to 1968 and analyse how things went without lockdown and an equally nasty virus.
The virus in 1968 was no where nearly as deadly as this virus. Hey why don’t you actually do some research instead of making uninformed arguments based on lack of knowledge?
What was the death total in 1968, eh?
Your propensity to insult does your arguments no credit.
Calm down, kiddo!
Hint:
“Hey why don’t you actually do some research instead of making uninformed arguments based on lack of knowledge?”
Good advice! Take it!
It is fallacious to compare total historical deaths of X with current deaths of covid19.
Covid isn’t done yet.
You were probably not alive in 1968, but I was. I do not even remember there being a virus. Now consider that we are only a couple of months into this pandemic, and the numbers are as bad as the entire 1968 incident, and we expect the numbers to at least double. If it re surges in the winter, it will be even worse. Now this is with extraordinary preventative measures, and vastly improved medical care. We have not seen a virus this deadly in 100 years. This virus is nasty, and unless you have some first hand experience with it you probably do not understand all the implications.
I was alive long before then and remember that year well.
We’ll know in a few months if this is as big as you say.
There would have been social distancing without government edicts for sure. (Count me in.) But I’m guessing that with more info and clear guidance, more lower-risk people wouldn’t have opted to completely hole up. And a LOT of people are low-risk, to BaronAsh’s point.
(Fun post on twitter about this – with which I agree. The entire lock-down business is riddled with inconsistencies. It’s not based on science or common sense but basically holds together if you accept the premise that it’s good to live in fear.Bad Juju!)
Very excellent! Is there a text version of this and direct URL?
No it was an image in a tweet.
Low-risk people could become extremely high-risk to other people they might come in contact with without even knowing it …
Michigan Unemployment rate is above 22% per the Detroit News. Meanwhile a study from 1982 said that each 1% increase in unemployment kills 37,000 people nationwide, as unemployment creates stress, stress creates health issues and suicides.
Unemployment suicides in the US are more due to our “strong” safety net
Commentary aside on our social safety net, is it not a legitimate point that (A) stress causes massive health issues, (B) there is a stress overload across society right now, and that means (C) stress is killing many people, which can account for some of the jump in more deaths.
If stress is killing people regardless of pandemic or not, why not eliminate it in full?
You say unemployment is causing stress, then why not ensure that there won’t be any unemployment ever again?
Do you disagree with my assertion that stress can kill people and that there is a lot of stress right now?
<<<“If stress is killing people regardless of pandemic or not, why not eliminate it in full?”>>>
I don’t think you can ever eliminate all stress and eliminating all stress wouldn’t even be desirable. Well, you can’t have job interviews anymore, that would be “stress.” Well, Peter was really stressed out when the cop pulled him over and gave him a ticket for speeding; we better eliminate tickets. Etc..
I am merely pointing out that there is massive stress worldwide right now and that can cause deaths and other health issues. Am I wrong?
We HAVE to have unemployment. How else are we going to frighten the indebted middle class into performing for optimal profit? They might start trying to use some of that American Freedom if we don’t keep them in their cubicles, and that would be chaos! So much profit would be lost!
Tell how we do that. Ask the jobs fairy?
Long term stress is bad. Would like to see the research that says there is any significant health impact within a few weeks. Other than suicide.
Americans already had long-term stress at among the highest rates in the world.
Now throw in pandemic worries, job worries, financial worries, not being able to take comfort in normal human socialization stress, stress of not being able to buy sanitizer, etc… All at once.
Stress overload on an already stressed out society.
More over, stress weakens the immune system to any attack.
Mish, I am not saying that you are wrong, but isn’t it basically a scientific fact that (A) stress causes many health problems and deaths, particularly heart issues as one example and (B) death rates go up dramatically during times of mass unemployment from things like stress, suicide, etc…
The fact that deaths are now up doesn’t mean that Covid-19 directly killed all of the difference from past years. Stress is eating away at people too. Money worries, job worries, pandemic worries, arguments with kids refusing to do any school work during the closure, etc – ALL stress.
I had to tell my brother to stop texting me or that I would block him, because he continually texted me how America was “cruel,” Trump voters are evil, and Europe is so much better, how he will move to Canada if Trump wins again and etc… It stressed me out and made me miserable I had to tell him to STFU as nicely as I could.
Careful – you’ll be accused of claiming it was “spontaneous human combustion” that killed them.
I mean, it had to be Covid-19…what else could it be?
Too much stress resulting in spontaneous human combustion, perhaps?
Here is one under count.
Karl Denninger: “This is further supported by the fact that both RA and Lupus patients, who take HCQ on a routine maintenance (long-term) basis and have for years, are not represented in Covid-19 cases at anywhere near their representation in the population. Further, since both of these diseases are serious autoimmune disorders and we know immune disorders are a risk factor for death by Covid-19 these individuals should by dying at a great accelerated rate — but they are not.”
What is your point? HCQ works? Or doesn’t work and the deaths are way less than estimated?
Denninger’s point was that Hydroxychloroquine does work as the number of RA and Lupus patients, (who were already taking the drug) have not dying at anywhere near the rate they otherwise would be.
Thus this group is under counted in death statistics, as the drug is saving their lives.
Or since short term trials have shown it doesn’t work, it indicates contribution of COVID to their death is under reported. Could be short term use doesn’t work, have to have been taking if for 12 months or more prior to infection to be beneficial. Could mean whatever you want it to.
No studies have shown that HCQ doesn’t work, with the exception of studies where it was given to the patients after they were hospitalized. We already know that once the virus has replicated sufficiently to be put into the hospital, no antiviral is going to help. Thus, studies where patients in the ICU were given HCQ are only going to tell us what we already knew, that it won’t help at that stage of the infection. Worse, by that point, Covid19 will have damaged their hearts. HCQ is known to be hard on hearts, but rarely causes a heart attack in healthy people. Giving it to patients with advanced Covid19 was ill-advised, and actually increased the death rate.
An antiviral is designed to stop or slow the replication. Thus, to be effective, it needs to be given in the first week the patient is sick, during most of which the patient is asymptomatic. Lupus and arthritis patients conveniently happen to be taking HCQ all the time, so they are taking during that critical 5-7 day period when it helps. Thus, you would expect them to have milder cases, and less cases than other people, and they do.
Similarly, the police in Mumbai, India, gave HCQ to their police force over the age of 40. Out of 10,000 policemen, 4500 took it, and 5500 refused. None of the 4500 on HCQ have died, or been hospitalized. Of the 5500 who refused, 9 have died.
O’Neill, a cardiologist in Detroit, has prescribed the drug to multiple patients and “saw improvement in all of them,” Attkisson reported.
This is all premature.
I am waiting for the large meta data studies that will be published in 5 years.
We can make informed decisions then.
It might be a bit late for informed decisions in 5 years time though.
Mish – too much focus on deaths. How many have been hospitalized? How many more would have been (if even possible). Almost half were not ‘old’. Many of those who did not die in the hospital remain in poor shape even weeks after discharge. We have no idea what (if any) short/long term damage was done to those who were positive but deemed not sick enough to be hospitalized.
That is much more of the problem with this virus.
Death unfortunately is not the worse outcome. Being paralyzed from a stroke or having extreme lung damage would be terrible.
The concentration is on deaths but in comparison deaths are cheap for the system while a life long stroke patient can cost millions of dollars.
The true cost will be much higher than the death rate suggest.
I agree. It seems from all the studies that about 1/3 of the hospitalized people who recover have lasting damage to lungs, heart, and blood vessels, and are unable to perform all the things they could before the illness. That was true of SARS and MERS as well. Even as far as ten years after they recovered, they had higher than expected death rates.
1/3 of all hospitalized people [who recovered]. Cite to back up your number?
There are lots of articles out there about the lasting damage caused by SARS, and even more speculating about the potential long term harms from Covid19. About 40% of patients in the ICU have complete renal failure, and need dialysis. Some of those will recover, some won’t. Many patients see a 10-20% reduction in liver function. That is unlikely to recover. Many have fibrosis in the lungs or heart. Both of those tend to be long lasting or permanent. We will have much more information on this a year from now. I did a quick search, and turned up a few articles for you:
I’ll go with a million. A little less than 1%. The lockdowns and related $Trillion$ of additional debt might be the end of us and certainly are ushering in a new totalitarian regime. But this is not binary. The lockdowns slowed some things down re transmission, but were not 100% effective. Also, voluntary lockdown might have been enough. BTW, there is no way that we would have ever gotten to 1 million w/o the lockdowns.
Trump himself proclaimed we could have had 2.5MM deaths if he didn’t save so many people. If 1,000,000 more dead would make it worth it, let’s look at that for a minute. The US government, in calculating whether to enact new regulations, uses a cost of $10MM per human life to do the CBA. If it saves more than the cost in the value of lives, it’s enacted. In this case, it would be worth spending $10TT on stimulus and other measures to help us get through isolation while saving 1MM lives. Trump has plainly disagreed with your claim that 1MM would not die, and have said he may have saved 2MM lives. That would be worth a full year of GDP spent on saving the lives, using the government’s measure.
So are you saying Trump was lying that he saved over a million Americans? There is no way to prove your claims. Or is there?
Trump is lying. He is parroting the now known to be BULLSHIT initial models. No Trump fan here, just someone using his eyes, ears and brain.
I agree. He knows it’s BS but he went along with shutting down for whatever reason.
He also said two things early on which have turned out to be right, though the media and nation continue to reject them:
It will blow through probably by end of April. He might have been closer to right if there had been no shutdown but in any case he was off by only a few weeks. Infection rate curves are going down almost everywhere. It’s a demonstrated characteristic of viruses, widely observed but not yet precisely explained. It is unknown at this point if the lock-downs helped, but given the curve shapes being essentially typical, quite likely they made little or no difference.
HCQ + is a great prophylactic and early treatment. It is. One has to question the motives of those who have successfully demonized this simple truth. Do they want the pandemic to be worse and more people to die? Or are they so blinded by TDS that they simply believe that anything Orange Man Bad says is a lie so it’s their duty to warn the world to prevent further death? Either way, they are not ‘following the science’ as they claim to be doing. It was known back in 2005 that HCQ was one of the best things for CV infections and has been well documented already.
But those two things mean to my mind that he knew that this thing wasn’t nearly as bad as it’s been made out to be so he went along with it and is using the emergency powers situation to do some things important to him like deregulation and breaking down the global China-centric supply chain. If this is true, I find it a terrible way to run the country, but the country has been in a state of constant panic and hysteria since his election – and often many times before that – so perhaps he made a calculated decision about how best to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Otherwise, he’s just another fool who decided to trust the globalist liars from WHO and Big Pharma shills like Fauci. I find it hard to believe that he would do so, however. Fauci’s track record – plus that Ferguson guy in the UK – is too well-known and bad for a President not to have known to mistrust him after even a simple one-page summary.
DC is a pit of snakes, lizards, crocodiles and other slime. There’s no accounting for what comes out of it.
We forget the recession was baked in. QE4 started in September and was accelerating.
One must subtract the recession vs the cost of the lockdown recession. That’s impossible but food for though.
As for if it was worth it? We will know a year from now.
Will Americans Trade-In Their Urban Lifestyles For Rural Ones In The Wake Of COVID-19?
This idea is always bandied about, but where would Americans work in the rural areas? Until that question gets answered, cities will still draw people. The Fed is set up to pump money to big banks and corps, and they tend to be in more heavily populated areas.
If we do see a collapse in the coming years, rural living could make a big comeback, but it won’t be what anyone had in mind.
I live 20 minutes outside of a large city in the Midwest. Thankfully my county leaders are not batshit crazy like the city leadership, but every year my taxes go up, and they waste more money.
If I’m able to work from home permanently there is a 100% chance I will move to the next county out. I’ll be 50 minutes from downtown instead of 20. Big deal. The only thing that ever stopped me was the commute time. Take that out and it’s a no-brained. Property taxes cut in half on a bigger house and lot for the same price.
No.
The under-count is a phenomena that has been verified in the entire world.
But, but….much hand-waving ensures without accompanying facts.
It’s true, number of excess deaths around the world typically runs up to 50%
If 10,000 deaths confirmed, actual number of EXCESS deaths is 15,000.
Did those extra 5,000 people, above and beyond normal deaths plus CV deaths, die specifically from CV or because of health condition aggravated by CV, or lack of access to health care facilities because of the pandemic, who knows.
But more people than reported as dying from CV are dying.
But believe what you want, it doesn’t matter to the virus.
Besides, it’ll go away by itself in a couple of days…
“lack of access to health care facilities because of the pandemic”
Bingo. It is known that people have been avoiding hospitals for fear of coronavirus.
A health condition aggravated by COVID is a COVID death! If a bomber destroys a hospice center killing 10 did they die of cancer or blunt force trauma and fire?
Mish isn’t going to give up on trying to convince everyone that deaths are under-counted when the reality is that deaths are likely over-counted! This will become evident once the manufactured virus crisis passes and all CV19 notated deaths are reviewed. At that point, deaths will be taken out of the CV19 column and apportioned to other columns. The constant MSM fear flaming is making people irrational.
Deaths vs. Economic Pain: Cable News’ Imbalanced Picture
ANALYSIS
By Kalev Leetaru
May 20, 2020
“At that point, deaths will be taken out of the CV19 column and apportioned to other columns.”
Totally idiotic
They update unemployment counts monthly, no? You always write a blog post analyzing that update and commenting.
So why would you post an idiotic comment like “Totally idiotic”? Do you not believe that these numbers will be reviewed and revised one way or the other? It is my contention that the revision will be downward.
Hmm… Wall Street Journal vs. a random hysterical website. Who to believe?
The answer to that is easy and it’s not the WSJ. RCP has been around for a while and has some good articles. Read the article and try to understand the data, instead of making the source a strawman.
I looked at the source, and a couple articles. It’s coo coo for cocoapuffs. If you have the wherewithal to question the WSJ (fine and dandy), how can you count these shrieking tree monkeys as a credible source of anything?
So it doesn’t confirm what you want to hear in your echo chamber?
“Wall Street Journal vs. a random hysterical website. Who to believe?”
Neither. Either assertions are proven, or they’re just just clueless people spouting off about things well beyond their meager comprehension. Hero worship, while no doubt convenient and comfortable for those the regime designate heroes, is best left for those who still believe in governments and Spidermen.
If the number of deaths that should have been counted is unknown, how do you know it’s significant