CDC Releases Detailed National Excess Death Data

[ffr]

Source: TPM

The CDC published a new tool on its website that calculates excess deaths in the United States from January 2017 to the present day, providing a baseline of the average U.S. mortality rate compared with what’s been observed.

The data reveals that, for the week ending April 11, the United States saw 79,761 deaths — a 36.8 percent increase over the norm. In the same week, New York City recorded 7,029 deaths — a whopping 526.5 percent increase from the city’s weekly norm.
<snip>

The data shows deaths both of people who tested positive for COVID and of those who likely would not have died, but for the pandemic. That total could include people who died of COVID but were never diagnosed, or those who put off needed doctor’s appointments or had to wait too long for overtaxed ambulances.

<snip>
Before now, most excess death reporting relied on piecemeal releases by local authorities. New York City, for example, released data last month suggesting that, including COVID-related deaths, there had been around 13,500 excess deaths in the five boroughs as the pandemic peaked.

Read more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/cdc-releases-detailed-national-excess-death-data

---

[Iliyah]

1. Other countries are trying to keep deaths very low or not at all . . .

The USA run by republicans don't care even if it goes higher than 3,000 a day. WTF.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

18. While we have the joy have having the most total deaths,

some other countries have a shockingly higher rate of deaths. That includes first world countries with supposedly good health care systems, like Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland. And what in the world in going on in Belgium? They're reporting 684 deaths per 1 million population. Maybe they're just doing the best and most accurate reporting of all.

Other countries are probably not reporting with any real accuracy. Or the pandemic is just getting started there. Keep your eye on Brazil and India.

If you haven't already been able to bookmark this page, you might want to. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

[mpcamb]

45. And lying about the numbers to keep criticism muted.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

46. Who, or what countries are you referring to about lying

about the numbers?

It's come out that Florida seems to be deliberately misleading, but most states are probably being as honest as they can be under the circumstances. Plus, it takes time, a few weeks to a few months for the information and numbers to jell.

As it is, 100 years after the 1918 flu, experts are still disagreeing over just how many died.

[mpcamb]

47. If you're not testing dead people (and they're not!) you're getting low numbers.

...and that's not an accident.
These career liars want smaller numbers to oblige their re-openings.
Screw the dead;
screw the living;
screw those hanging by a thread.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

48. Still not sure which country or countries you are referencing, but

in case it's the U.S. I read an article yesterday about the CDC updating the number of excess deaths in March and the first part of April. It pointed out that not all excess deaths would be from the Corona Virus, but a good number could be. It also explained a bit about how these numbers are calculated and why there's a delay in compiling them.

And just think, if states re-open because of fraudulent low Covid-19 death or infection numbers, the second wave will be extremely impressive. (A little sarcasm there)

[Stallion]

2. Someone at CDC Better Get His or Her Resume Updated

[Igel]

3. It sounds, from the OP, like this is new today.

It was around last week, maybe earlier.

"I didn't see it" =/= "it didn't exist."

[LisaL]

4. It is new today.

What was released last week were not official numbers from cdc.

[BComplex]

8. That was my first thought. Trump is going to be furious!

Yay!!!!
But I feel for the CDC hero who made this public.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Right? I wasn't expecting this data for a couple more months.

It really tells the tale, we are under-counting the deaths, as expected.

Expect rage tweets and angry press interviews today.

[CaptYossarian]

16. What doesn't cause a rage tweet?

You'd expect a "billionaire" who never worked a day in his life to be happier.

[ahoysrcsm]

50. Well, he is suffering from SPS. n/t

[CaptYossarian]

51. Please, don't let that be Stiff Person Syndrome.

Melania hates him and Hannity is locked in a studio.

[ahoysrcsm]

52. Small... Something... Something...

Just ask Stormy...

[CaptYossarian]

53. We were thinking the same anatomical...shortcoming.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. That's 21,456 excess deaths in the week; for comparison, England and Wales had 7,996 excess deaths

in the week ending April 10th (ie one day earlier). E&W has a population of of 56.1 million, so the USA is about 5.8 times the population. So the USA's excess death rate is about half that of E&W; E&W will have a slightly older population, though (median age 40, compared to USA's 38).

Or look at it at the percentage of excess deaths; E&W's was 76%, compare with the US's 36.8%,

[Buckeye_Democrat]

13. I was ready to post the same.

From the Worldometer death chart (without seeing the actual numbers), it appears there was about 1750 confirmed Covid-19 deaths per day that week on average. That would be about 12,250 for that week.

So they might have been catching less than 60% of all Covid-19 related deaths.

[NewJeffCT]

6. In looking at the graphic

what happened in late 2017/early 2018 to account for excess mortality at that time?

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Flu - about 61,000

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fflu%2Fabout%2Fdisease%2Fus_flu-related_deaths.htm

[Squinch]

14. And yet the excess deaths during that time were only about 15,000.

The CDC flu numbers are absurd.

[NewJeffCT]

17. If Flu is already built into the model

on an annual basis, only a tougher than normal strain of flu would trigger excess deaths.

[Squinch]

30. Here's a very interesting article from Scientific American. There's a problem with the CDC numbers.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. Not absurd when you remember that flu strikes every year & part of the baseline compared against

The winter 2018 season was the worst in a long time.

If a flu season shows up with (say) 15K extra deaths, that is on an average base of (say) 40,000 deaths. That's why there is a seasonal variation in the weekly death figures.

Guess who's watch it fell on.

[Squinch]

31. Here's a very interesting article from Scientific American. There's a problem with the CDC numbers.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. But we are not comparing covid numbers to flu numbers. That's not what these CDC numbers are

The CDC numbers in the OP are Excess Deaths, deaths compared against averages over a number of years, where they are week number averages. That is, some Week #6 are averaged, and then some Week #7 are averaged and so forth to generate a number for each week number. Then Week #7 average is compared to Week #7 of 2020 to see whether there are excess deaths in Week #7 compared to the average.

This is very different from what the SciAm article is about, because there is influenza every year. The article is comparing the two diseases by estimation (estimating Covid and estimating flu), which is NOT what the OP article is about.

There is NOT a problem with the CDC numbers. I don't think there is one that you are thinking about but I can't read your mind and you have not explained what you are thinking so that leaves us with nothing to discuss until you actually explain what you are thinking.

[Squinch]

37. Read the rest of the article. There is a problem with the CDC flu numbers.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

39. I read the damn article, duh. That's how I know the SciAm article is about FLU NUMBERS, as I said

That's not what the CDC numbers in the OP are about.

You read the damn article.

[Squinch]

41. A. Calm yourself. B. You entered a sub-thread conversation about CDC flu numbers between

me and muriel volestrangler. If you don't want to talk about it, don't enter the conversation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. The peak weeks marked in the TPM graph were about 17,000

but those are only the weeks where the deaths were above the "threshold for excess" - which, you'll notice, is always above the actual figure in a "normal" year. That's the threshold above which they say "this is definitely not just random variation", not the average. And in a low year, flu still kills about 15,000.

So, no, they're not "absurd". They are what happened. You could look up the doctors who gave the causes of deaths that year and complain to them all that you find their diagnosis "absurd", I suppose.

[Squinch]

32. Here's a very interesting article from Scientific American. There's a problem with the CDC numbers.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

PS: They are really NOT what happened. They are a wild guess. As the article explains, and then sources the disclaimer in the CDC report, the CDC estimates of flu deaths are NOT based on doctors reporting flu as the cause of death. Flu deaths are not reported in most states. The CDC numbers are based on a count of all deaths of respiratory causes, like pneumonia, COPD and asthma. Then the CDC "applies an algorithm." And they add in all the deaths from pneumonia into their count.

Note the experience of the doctors in the article when they ask each other if they ever had a patient die of flu. And then ask each other whether they ever had patients die of traffic accidents or opioid overdose, causes which we do count and which have fewer deaths each year than the CDC's reported flu numbers.

There's a BIG problem with the CDC flu numbers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. I do apologise. I assumed the figures given by the end of the season were based on what happened

because that could be collated.

[Squinch]

34. I think we ALL thought that. I was flabbergasted by what this article reveals.

We've been had. I'd love to know why, though I have my suspicions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. FWIW, the European 'seasonal deaths attributed to flu' also come from a model

called FluMOMO. For a bad season like 2014/15, the cumulative excess deaths for all causes for the monitored European region reached about 208 per 100,000 of those over 65.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388126/

That rate would be something like 100,000 total deaths for the US over 65 population of 49 million. And the model attributed an estimate of 185 per 100,000 to flu; which would be about 90,000 deaths for a US over 65 population (though the min and max for that estimate was 82 and 311, so it is surprisingly vague).

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. The OP and the article are about two different things.

The article compares estimates of two diseases.

The OP compares actual deaths from all causes on a weekly basis with expected deaths from all causes on a weekly basis.

Very different.

There may be a problem with the CDC flu numbers, but the OP and this thread are not about flu numbers.

[Squinch]

40. The explanation for the extra deaths in a past year brought up the subject of

reported flu numbers to actual flu numbers in a side conversation between me and muriel volestrangler. You entered that side conversation.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. You posted about EXCESS DEATHS and THEN you said the CDC numbers were wrong

... pointing to an article about flu where you buttress it with a link with no explanation. Then you don't read my post to see that I'm saying they are about two different things. That would have been your opportunity to correct me then and there. But no, you doubled down.

If I'm at fault for responding to exactly what your wrote without reading every other post in the thread, then I apologize.


And yet the excess deaths during that time were only about 15,000.
Squinch 2:06 PM #14
. Not absurd when you remember that flu strikes every year & part of the baseline compared against
Bernardo de La Paz 2:39 PM #19
. . Here's a very interesting article from Scientific American. There's a problem with the CDC numbers.
Squinch 4:57 PM #31
. . . But we are not comparing covid numbers to flu numbers. That's not what these CDC numbers are
Bernardo de La Paz 5:29 PM #35
. . . . Read the rest of the article. There is a problem with the CDC flu numbers.
Squinch 5:32 PM #37
. . . . . I read the damn article, duh. That's how I know the SciAm article is about FLU NUMBERS, as I said
Bernardo de La Paz 5:33 PM #39

[Squinch]

43. Have a lovely day, Bernardo!

[DeminPennswoods]

23. H3N2 flu

I've read reports of between 60,000 and 80,000 died in that epidemic. Apparently the vaccine for it develops some sort of mutation when grown in eggs unlike the other flu vaccines. That, again evidently, is what makes the flu shot for it not very effective. In 2017/18, it was only 25% effective against H3N2.

[RandySF]

7. Fuck

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. Yeah.

[unblock]

10. That works out to about 125,000 deaths in April above normal

Extrapolating from the one-week figure. Most likely directly or indirectly related to covid-19, but it would include all excess deaths, such as by suicides and murders and so on, which are harder to pin on the virus but, absent any other explanation for the excess deaths, it's a good working assumption they are related somehow.

At this rate, over a million deaths over the course of a full year is not at all implausible.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. You can't extrapolate one week over all weeks. . . . nt

[unblock]

21. sure i can, i just did ;)

actually, i'm just assuming that the one-week rate of excess deaths was constant (on average) over the course of the month, which, yes, is just a guess absent digging into the details.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Okay, I'll play. You can't extrapolate meaningfully one week over all weeks. . . . nt

[unblock]

24. not sure what you're playing at.

does extrapolation not exist?



i have no proof that the monthly rate is consistent with that one particular week's rate, but, conversely, you have no reason to think it doesn't, and it's a reasonable assumption until we get more insight on the monthly rate.

elsewhere, plenty of people are extrapolating the daily death rate to estimate a monthly toll, is that also something we "can't do"?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Well, if you look at the data, the other weeks in April don't support your extrapolation

You are the one playing when others are using actual data.

None of the weeks in April are nearly as high as the cherry-picked week.

If you don't look at the easily obtainable data (click the one link in the OP), then you are just making stuff up with an unreasonable assumption.

[unblock]

28. well that's more useful than just saying i can't extrapolate.

so, first, i phrased my original statement poorly; i shouldn't have said the extrapolation suggested 125,000 deaths in *april*, i should have said it suggested a *monthly* death rate of 125,000. and yes, that would have relied on the assumption that the excess deaths rate from that one particular week held up for an entire month, and there's no particular reason to think that one week is representative of future excess deaths.

now that i've had a chance to look at the data, i think that there's not enough there to reliably base any predictions on, as the excess deaths only started showing up the last week of march and so we only have 4 numbers with no clear consistency or pattern (the most recent weekly "excess" deaths was negative (set to zero in their methodology).

that said, it's entirely possible that may's numbers are worse than april's. we'll see. this will be an interesting data set to work with as it accumulates more data with the passage of time.

[gab13by13]

11. Hey there are a couple of countries that

have a higher per capita death rate than the US.

[mjvpi]

15. Best science. Cool.

You can compare what is going on now to the 2018 flue. 2018 the flue shot didn’t make a good guess on the strains in the vaccine. Montana has not had a statistical deviation. California and Washington state barely deviate. Distancing works!

[BigmanPigman]

29. Of course it works, that is why everything is opening back up.

Makes sense, doesn't it? The only place where this is a rational action is in Bizarro World, which is what the US has been for 3+ years. Which ever is the most screwed up idea at any given moment is the one Dear Leader goes with.

Distancing works
Some health improvements are seen in some areas
Therefore stop distancing and open it all back up................then............
Deaths and cases increase, hospitals are full and desperate
Lockdowns go into effect again, another economic collapse
And so on and so on, ........

[Initech]

49. God this is like if Skynet had been deployed

It seems our grim reality that we're living in right now is getting worse.