https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/story/2020-04-30/coronavirus-california-death-toll-higher

Quote:

---

The new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show roughly 4,500 additional deaths from all causes have occurred in 2020 over what would be expected from historical averages, according to a Times analysis.

With the agency's coronavirus death total for the state at 1,017 as of Monday, the difference of about 3,500 suggests a broader implication on mortality attributable to the disease, experts say.

---

That's not good at all. Are these poor souls dying in their homes? What are they currently being attributed to?

Premium said:

---

Unless you count it being political and with power comes money, for the actual people in power

---

Eventually many of these deaths will be attributed to Covid-19, once the CDC has time to apply the same statistical methods they use to calculate flu deaths. It could take a few years, though. It's like determining dollars lost due to a natural disaster. There's no iron clad way; we'd like to be able to compare apples to apples.

Is California one of the states that only counts confirmed hospital COVID deaths, i.e. not nursing center deaths or other likely COVID deaths?

I, like everyone else, have no real way to gauge this with any precision. My only points of reference are the few times in the recent past where I have visited people in the hospital and they had to wait up to a full day (on a temporary stretcher/bed in an improvised space) to get to an inpatient bed because the place was full with really sick people. Maybe that was isolated, but it was reality.

If hospitals are in fact showing very low inpatient numbers, either people aren't getting very sick, or they aren't getting the treatment they did in a normal time and that would be consistent with a lot more people dying. In the cases I'm referring to, the patient would have definitely died without an intervention.

Just an impression informed by anecdote, not sure where any actual numbers fall out.

Proposition Joe said:

---

I think it's not necessarily bad to touch on the politics aspect on it as long as your opinion on it doesn't necessarily skew towards on side or the other. If you acknowledge that some states are being too restrictive because of politics, then one must also acknowledge that some states are being too open because of politics.

---

Well, better put, acknowledge that we all could be wrong one way or the other and be respectful to others regardless of where we fall on reopening. All the name calling and anger from some on one side or the other is the issue. We get it's an emotional issue. No doubt. But I can feel opening up fully is ok and another can feel staying in shelter is the way to go and we can still handle the debate with calm and treat each other with dignity. I'm honestly floored by how many on here, with this and any other issue, bring so much vitriol to a conversation. Laughing emoticons, snide comments and personal statements all of which do not need to happen. And which take away from the experience for most of us. Look no further than when a 17-18 year old decides to go somewhere other than A&M. I think a lot of immature individuals think these boards are their place to say whatever they want whenever. It just isn't. It should not be that hard to, "keep it classy".

Capitol Ag said:

---

BowSowy said:

---

Jesus Christ, leave this political conspiracy crap over on Forum 16.

---

Well, it's impossible to do that totally when a lot of these types of stories are being used by decision makers to decide whether to stay shut down or not. And that effects so many of us directly.

---

I think this is where I am at with information like this. I actually have no problem with the article. Simply, it's taking data and the researchers are basically assuming COVID is the reason for the increased deaths for the area. Given similar trends around the nation, I would think the assumption is closer to right than wrong.

However, there could be some causation is not correlation type of stuff going on. Without the investigation into those additional 3,500 deaths, we don't know how many were related to other medical conditions treatment was not sought out on, suicides, drug overdoses, etc. The article at least mentions that in their analysis.

I want decision makers to be wise in their decision making. I'm not sure taking the possibility of 3,500 deaths related to COVID necessary should change much of their decision making if hospitalization rates are currently trending down.

PJYoung said:

---

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/story/2020-04-30/coronavirus-california-death-toll-higher

Quote:

---

The new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show roughly 4,500 additional deaths from all causes have occurred in 2020 over what would be expected from historical averages, according to a Times analysis.

With the agency's coronavirus death total for the state at 1,017 as of Monday, the difference of about 3,500 suggests a broader implication on mortality attributable to the disease, experts say.

---

---

PJ, to me the point of these articles is to provide information. I think the article at acknowledges the fact they don't know for sure those extra deaths are COVID related, but highly suspect that to be the case. Given similar trends around the nation, I do lean more toward their suggestion that most of those deaths are related to COVID.

We take information, and we base decision making on information. So, my question, does or should this new information change decision making for Governor Newsome or any other Governor as it is historical data to this point?

I want decision makers to be wise in their decision making. I'm not sure taking the possibility of an additional 3,500 deaths related to COVID necessary should change much of their decision making based on the current situation if hospitalization rates are currently trending down. What do you think?

These numbers are straight from the CDC database for all deaths in the US for all reasons. Just for reference the weekly low for 2017 - 2020 was 49,500 and the high was 67,500. There have been fewer total deaths in 2020 since the first of the year through April 15th (where the data stops) than the average of the same time period in 2017 to 2019. There have also been fewer deaths in 2020 from the middle of March to the middle of April. More deaths in the first week of April and about the same for the 2nd week in April. Not trying to make any political statement just showing the factual data (assuming the CDC has the correct data - not sure why they wouldn't). It is certainly possible that the number of COVID deaths is being under reported, but I think it is difficult to infer that from overall mortality data. Unfortunately, a lot of people die in this country for a lot of different reasons and the numbers vary from year to year, month to month, and week to week.

Total US Deaths (All Causes)

1-1-20 to 4-15-20 848,042
1-1 to 4-15 - Avg 2017 - 2019 874,582

3-15-20 to 4-15-20 333,288
3-15 to 4-15 - Avg 2017 - 2019 337,924

4-1-2020 to 4-8-2020 60,195
4-8 to 4-15 - Avg 2017 - 2019 55,683

4-8-2020 to 4-15-2020 55,773
4-8 to 4-15 - Avg 2017 -2019 55,190

So I have a serious question for the experts. If someone dies at home of some illness but does so because they did not want to see their doctor for fear catching COVID-19 why wouldn't that death be attributed to COVID?

Had the virus not existed that person would likely still be alive so shouldn't the real cause of death be COVID? Just curious what others thought.

Did we ever see all the states?

terradactylexpress said:

---

Did we ever see all the states?

---

Don't know, I'm just looking at the graphs posted that listed excess mortality for the US total and a few hotspots. It's entirely possible that the data are not reconciled and thus it's a poor graphic.

If it's consistent data, the headline is entirely misleading.

momlaw said:

---

I do not have preconceived answer.

Does any entity benefit financially if a death is determined Covid 19 rather than other?
If so, who?

---

It is total deaths above averages not percentage attributed to COVID.

The NYT article unfortunately comes alongside persistent attacks against Trump. So the article gets read with the implicit surrounding bias.

What is interesting is the reporting on deaths above baseline. What is intriguing is the effort to assign all of them to covid-19. What is laughable is the high-handed tone of the article which is in effect an appeal to expertise fallacy (the tone and to some extent the categorization.)

With that said: the NYT helpfully reported on the less than random antibody testing that led to an estimate of 21% of residents of NYC being exposed and developing sufficient antibodies to be positive. Assuming it's not a test with around 90% sensitivity which means the false positives among the 21% could swamp the true positives and inflate the number.

To a great extent we are flying IFR with instrumentation being developed and installed while in flight. So overall more data and some analysis is helpful. One must sort carefully and keep in mind sources.

What I disagree with is automatically relegating these topics to 16 which the mods so far have been careful about. Reveille's posts are from a collection of sources as much as from his clinical experience and the science is playing catch up with the efforts by the front-line doctors to innovate in the face of frankly horrific death counts. Predicting more from numbers neither makes their job easier nor worse imho.

Beat40 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/story/2020-04-30/coronavirus-california-death-toll-higher

Quote:

---

The new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show roughly 4,500 additional deaths from all causes have occurred in 2020 over what would be expected from historical averages, according to a Times analysis.

With the agency's coronavirus death total for the state at 1,017 as of Monday, the difference of about 3,500 suggests a broader implication on mortality attributable to the disease, experts say.

---

---

PJ, to me the point of these articles is to provide information. I think the article at acknowledges the fact they don't know for sure those extra deaths are COVID related, but highly suspect that to be the case. Given similar trends around the nation, I do lean more toward their suggestion that most of those deaths are related to COVID.

We take information, and we base decision making on information. So, my question, does or should this new information change decision making for Governor Newsome or any other Governor as it is historical data to this point?

I want decision makers to be wise in their decision making. I'm not sure taking the possibility of an additional 3,500 deaths related to COVID necessary should change much of their decision making based on the current situation if hospitalization rates are currently trending down. What do you think?

---

I agree 100% - the key is watching hospitalization capacity and except for New York state we have been golden in that regard. I think that should be what is watched, not daily infection #s.

Quote:

---

I agree 100% - the key is watching hospitalization capacity and except for New York state we have been golden in that regard. I think that should be what is watched, not daily infection #s.

---

They both have to be watched. Hospitalizations are important and should be watched, but they occur further down the timeline and push policy making towards the reactive side of the spectrum.