Excess Mortality, Thread

Excess Mortality, Thread:

I have just discovered a major error in the #CoVid data of the NCHS Mortality surveillance data. This is all based on the official NCHSData49.csv as downloaded from here (original downloaded 12/15):

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2019-2020/data/NCHSData49.csv

The data begins in week 40 of 2013 and ends week 49 of 2020. The data looks basically like this:

Yr | Wk | All Deaths | Pneumonia | Influenza | COVID | PIC*

*PIC = Pneumonia, Influenza, or COVID deaths (sum of) 

The first COVID death listed was 2020 Week 6. Pneumonia death (P) = 3799. Influenza death (I) = 520. COVID death (C) = 1. PIC = 4320.

Math check: 3799+520+1=4320 ✅

The math adds up fine until 2020 Week 8. P=3699. I=566. C=4. PIC=4268.

Math check: 3699+566+4=4269 ❌

Here's this problem: Deaths are being classified as PIC deaths, as well as P/I/C deaths. So, in 2020 Week 8, someone was classified as a PIC death AND a P or I death, also.

Someone was counted twice.

But, it gets worse. As the COVID deaths accelerate, the double-counting does, too.

2020 Week 9 - 5 fewer PIC than P+I+C

2020 Week 10 - 19 fewer PIC than P+I+C

2020 Week 11 - 29 fewer PIC than P+I+C

2020 Week 12 - 257 fewer PIC than P+I+C

By 2020 Week 13, the NCHS was double counting 1479 excess deaths.

The following weeks vary from a low of 1548 excess deaths to a high of 7550.

By my calculations, there were 121,888 deaths double counted as COVID and as either Pneumonia or Influenza.

So, what do we do with this knowledge?

My assumption here is that few (if any at all) of these deaths were both COVID and Influenza. Likely, these deaths were COVID / Pneumonia. It would seem reasonable that a death could be from Pneumonia caused by COVID.

Or, perhaps some people died of Pneumonia AND had also tested positive for COVID, thereby were counted as both (even if the cause was the Pneumonia, alone).

So we have two likely scenarios, either (or both) could be true.

One, we have 121,888 fewer Pneumonia deaths.

Two, we have 121,888 fewer COVID deaths.

Possibly, we have a split of both fewer Pneumonia and COVID, but without individual case details, that may never be known.

However, I have discovered a strange anomaly elsewhere. In trying to verify numbers, I found the "NCHS Mortality Report for the Week Ending December 5, 2020 (Week 49) Data as of December 10, 2020"

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/12112020/csv/nchs-mortality-report.csv

In this chart, they list Total Deaths, Influenza deaths, COVID deaths, and PIC deaths. These numbers all align with the previous chart. But Pneumonia deaths are not listed.

So I check my history to find the original link to the COVID data. It isn't there.

What do we do with this information?

Well, in reviewing the data, the 2020 Week 39 can be safely compared with the Week 39 data from prior years. Since COVID data for those years will be zero, we can make an apples-to-apples comparison of Pneumonia and Influenza.

Week 39 data:

2014 - P=3017; I=6

2015 - P=3057; I=6

2016 - P=2986; I=11

2017 - P=2888; I=19

2018 - P=2814; I=14

2019 - P=2780; I=16

2020 - P=4715; I=3

We can also compare the Week 40 through Week 39 totals of each "Season":

2013-'14 - P=182,691; I=4485

2014-'15 - P=193,237; I=8197

2015-'16 - P=178,002; I=3448

2016-'17 - P=179,621; I=6954

2017-'18 - P=180,137; I=15,620

2018-'19 - P=168,608; I=7175

2019-'20 - P=263,791; I=9415

It appears evident (to me) that we have found our error. Of the 121,888 duplicated deaths, it would seem reasonable that these were additional Pneumonia deaths who ALSO had COVID.

It would appear that we have excess Pneumonia deaths over the standard yearly average.

And it would be reasonable to assume that these additional Pneumonia deaths, who also had COVID, were likely COVID-induced-Pneumonia, rather than stand-alone Pneumonia cases which incidentally had COVID. Nothing else explains the excess mortality of Pneumonia cases.

Additional conclusions from the data -Overall mortality:

Comparing yearly mortality from ALL CAUSES, including PIC, there does seem to be a spike. But is the spike great enough to account for the COVID deaths, which should likely be in excess of the average?

Total "Season" Deaths:

2013-'14 - 2,580,853

2014-'15 - 2,750,884

2015-'16 - 2,697,072

2016-'17 - 2,790,278

2017-'18 - 2,835,734

2018-'19 - 2,831,233

2019-'20 - 3,142,232; COVID=203,899

Average deaths 2013-2019 "Seasons" = 2,747,674

2020 "Season" deaths less COVID = 2,938,333

It seems reasonable to assume that overall mortality is in a reasonable range for the year if you exclude the excess deaths caused by COVID.

What can we say about the effect COVID has had on Influenza deaths?

Some might say the Influenza deaths are down due to COVID.

Some would assume this is due to the mask wearing, social distancing, and hand washing.

Others would assume this is due to nefarious counting.

Well, if you compare the total "Season" cases of Influenza between 2019 Week 40 and 2020 Week 39, you would see we're actually up a little from the average of 7646 (2013-2019) to 9415 for the 2019-2020 "Season".

What I would like to see is if there is any rise in excess death from suicide and homicide to see if it correlates to the COVID lockdowns. And also if those excess deaths would offset the COVID deaths in any fashion.

But, I do not have those numbers. Yet.

source:

https://twitter.com/rvolt24/status/1343975559668367360

Excess Mortality, Thread:
I have just discovered a major error in the #CoVid data of the NCHS Mortality surveillance data. This is all based on the official NCHSData49.csv as downloaded from here (original downloaded 12/15):https://t.co/VkzgNfDZO6

— Señor Hilaria (@rvolt24) December 29, 2020

Walk me through this “Safety Third” thing - re-blog

Ok, I’m going to need you to walk me through this whole “Safety Third” thing one more time. How can safety be anything other than first? Are you seriously suggesting that saving the economy is more important than saving lives? Now, more than ever, safety must be first, whatever the cost! Roger Martin

Hi Roger

What I suggested in my post last week, was that Safety is not a thing to be “ranked,” but rather, a state of mind, to be applied as needed to a myriad of situations in varying amounts. But if we were to rank it, it would rarely be “first.” Were safety truly “first,” no level of risk would ever be encouraged or permitted, and no work would ever get done. Or play, for that matter.

Obviously, this does not mean that Safety isn’t a critical part of living. It is. And there are times, like right now, when extraordinary circumstances compel us to temporarily elevate safety above everything else – even our individual liberty. Which is why I’m hunkered down in my bunker, waiting for the all clear. But the notion of telling people that safety is always first, no matter the cost, is not only untrue, it’s counter-intuitive.

On Dirty Jobs, I was struck by the number of safety professionals who repeatedly insisted that nothing was more important to them, than my personal safety. “Your safety,” they said, over and over again, “is our top priority.”

I usually heard these words moments before I was invited to walk up the cable of a suspension bridge, or field test a stainless-steel shark suit, or climb into a bosuns chair to wash windows at the top of a high-rise. I still hear them today from pilots who invite me to strap myself in as they attempt to defy gravity in a pressurized aluminum tube that travels through the air at 600mph. And now Roger, I’m hearing them from you. You’re telling me safety must always be first, no matter the cost.

Here’s an honest question – would you be OK if the government reduced the posted speed limits by 50%, required all motorists to wear helmets, and outlawed all left turns? If not, why not? Doing so would save almost 40,000 lives a year.

The reason most people would not agree to those new protocols, is because we’ve already come to terms with the human cost of driving the way we want to drive. We believe, collectively, that 40,000 annual deaths are an acceptable price to pay. It’s a steep price, but we pay it, year after year after year. Sure, we’ve made things much [s]afer with safety belts, air bags, ABS brakes, and so forth. But we haven’t done ALL we can to eliminate traffic fatalities. Nor will we. Because when it comes to driving, safety isn’t first.

I’m not trying to be provocative, or insensitive. As I wrote on my first day of quarantine, I have two parents in the at-risk category, and I’m terribly worried about their well-being. But assigning a cost to preserving human life is hardly a new calculus, or a sign of misanthropy. We humans are constantly deciding which calamity to worry about, which disaster to panic over, and which tragedy to outright ignore. Just yesterday, 24,000 people died of starvation. The same will happen tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and the day after that. Over nine million a year die of hunger related illnesses. Why is this not a global emergency? Why doesn’t cable news report these tragic deaths every minute of every day, like they do with this virus?

Over the last few weeks, we’ve been inundated with facts, but very little context or perspective. And that lack of context is prompting more and more people to ask the same question I posed here last week – what if the cost of the cure is greater than the cost of the disease? It’s not an unreasonable question, or a heartless one, but people don’t like to hear it. Last night on Tucker Carlson, a former Lt. Governor from Texas named Dan Patrick learned that the hard way.

“Let’s get back to work,” said Patrick, who emphasized that he is a grandparent. “Those of us who are 70-plus, we’ll take care of ourselves, but don’t sacrifice the country. Don’t do that. Don’t ruin this great American dream.”

The backlash has been brutal.

“This crisis is really laying bare the extent to which we are ruled by completely craven psychopaths,” tweeted Micah Uetricht, managing editor at Jacobin magazine.

Democratic Texas state Rep. Donna Howard, a grandparent herself, told Dallas Morning News that “the idea that the only option is for us to sacrifice ourselves is really incredulous to me.”

Texas state Rep. Gene Wu also ripped Patrick’s remarks in a tweet late Monday. “This statement is repulsive and unfortunately reflective of the attitude many Texas Republicans have regarding people and money.”

What do you guys think? Is it repulsive to suggest that a country’s economy might be more important than saving the lives of thousands of its citizens?

In the comments below, I’ll likely be criticized for comparing this virus to other deadly diseases and hazardous pursuits, but that’s not what I’ve done. I’m simply wondering why the safety of our fellow man is such a fungible thing? It’s a sincere query. No one today is suggesting we should change the way we drive in order to save 40,000 lives, even though we easily could. But many seem to believe our entire economy should be sacrificed in order to save as many lives as possible. People who, like you, seem to believe that safety is always the most important thing.

Anyway, to answer your question, Safety Third was my slightly subversive attempt to start an honest conversation around occupational safety back in 2009, and to acknowledge the unintended consequences of exaggerating the importance of safety on the job. For what it’s worth, it worked. Attached is a short video that spells it out for you.

And here’s one of a hundred articles written by various safety professionals who actually agrees with me. https://bit.ly/2vL04O0

And here’s another one, just so you know I’m not alone… https://bit.ly/2Ue99bF

Be careful out there…

Mike

 

---

Walk me through this “Safety Third” thing - by Mike Rowe, March 24, 2020