[conspire] deaths from COVID

[Rich Kulawiec]

[ Yes, I'm dropping back in again for 5 minutes.  Been really
busy with a project for months, it feels like March 163rd. ]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 06:49:25AM +0000, paulz at ieee.org wrote:
> Someone wrote to me that COVID-19 is much over hyped.

It's not.  *It's not just the death toll.*   COVID-19 attacks bodies
in many ways and some of those ways result in damage that will take
years to heal -- if it ever heals.  In other words, in addition to the
200K who are already dead, there are a lot of people who are going
to have chronic health problems that may not kill them right away,
but will take years off their lives.  How many is "a lot"?   Unknown.
How many years?  Unknown.   But it's disengenuous as hell for those
downplaying COVID-19's impact on health to just point at 200K deaths
and ignore everything else it's doing.

Let me provide a few references -- there are many, this not a representative
or exhaustive, it's just meant to illustrate the above:
	
	COVID-19 Can Wreck Your Heart, Even if You Haven't Had Any Symptoms - Scientific American
	https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-19-can-wreck-your-heart-even-if-you-havent-had-any-symptoms/

	From "brain fog" to heart damage, COVID-19's lingering problems alarm scientists
	https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/brain-fog-heart-damage-covid-19-s-lingering-problems-alarm-scientists

	Diabetes as a consequence of COVID-19
	https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-09-diabetes-consequence-covid-.html

We're going to see a sustained impact on mortality statistics for
years to come as a result of COVID-19 "long-haulers".

It's easy for us to place some value on a lost life, because it's
clear that something has happened.  What is the value of three
lost years?  How about seven?  How about twenty?  Should we simply
discard all these lost years for all these people because they didn't
die today?  I don't think so.  That would be a textbook example of
the McNamara fallacy. [1]

And what value should we place on their lost quality of life?  On the
mental and emotional stress they have to deal with?  On the impact
on their families and careers and everything else?  On the health
care systems that are going to have the additional caseload?  On all
the support systems that will need to help them?  The ripple effects
of this are deep, wide, and long-term.

So it's not just the deaths today.  It's the lives today and tomorrow and
for the next several decades.  Any attempt at a fair assessment will
take those into account and not just conveniently stop at the (horrific)
death toll that is happening right now.


> the CDC just gave a revised death rate.?? 6% of the prior number.??
> the other 94% of the deaths were due to on average 2.5 comorbidities, 

First, as I think you know: the CDC and FDA are now under the full political
control of the Trump administration and can no longer be trusted.  That's
an awful thing to have to write...but it's true.

Second, that 6% nonsense is playing fast-and-loose with the concept
of comorbidities.  Let me quote Dr. Ryan McNamara:
	
	Been seeing folks discuss the "6% only died of COVID-19 alone",
	and thought I'd have something productive to add since I'm an
	HIV virologist by training.  After years of virus spread, and
	in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will
	develop AIDS. (1/4)

	During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called
	T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to
	spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence
	pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death
	in HIV+ patients. (2/4)

	For SARS-CoV-2, the assault it elicits on the lungs can greatly
	exacerbate other pre-existing conditions. So things like cardiac
	arrest, renal failure, liver failure, sepsis, lung scarring,
	etc. can all occur post-infection with SARS-CoV-2, leading to
	death. (3/4)

	Those saying "only 6% die from COVID-19 alone", or some derivation
	thereof, don't understand how infectious diseases work. Many
	are not operating in good faith, & are the same people who have
	downplayed this pandemic since February. (4/4)

(Original source: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1300422612409966594.html)

There are many other rebuttals of this farsical 6% number, but I think
that one does it quite succinctly.


As long as I'm writing, let me also address "COVID only kills the
weak and sick and old" nonsense that has also been propagated by
people seeking to minimize the danger of COVID-19.

No.  It kills everybody.  Does it kill more people who are weak and
sick and old?  Yes.  Of course it does: pretty much every infectious disease
kills more people who are weak and sick and old.  But COVID-19 is also
killing younger people who don't have any serious pre-existing health
conditions.  For example, from yesterday:

	College football player Jamain Stephens dies at age 20 of COVID-19 complication
	https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football-player-jamain-stephens-091540415.html

See also:

	The Virus Is Killing Young Floridians. Race Is a Big Factor.
	https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/virus-young-deaths.html


To be more blunt about this, people who focus on only the deaths or
tout the 6% number or point at the weak/sick/old aren't serious people.
These are people who, either out of ignorance or disengenuous intent,
are attempting to reframe the narrative to fit their political agenda.

For further reading:

	COVID-19 News/Analysis (about 700 articles)
	http://www.firemountain.net/covid19-news.html

	COVID-19 Scientific Articles (about 140 articles)
	http://www.firemountain.net/covid19-articles.html

The distinction between those two pages is fuzzy, but the former links
mostly to sources like the NYTimes, WaPost, etc., while the latter links
mostly to sources like NEJM, AAAS, etc.  I'm attempting to update them
every couple of days, cull duplicates, remove tracking links, etc.

I also recommend reading everything that journalists Laurie Garrett
and Ed Yong write.  They're incredibly well-versed on this topic
and they're excellent communicators.

---rsk

[1] This is one of my favorite quotes:

	The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured.  That
	is okay as far as it goes.  The second step is to disregard that
	which can't be measured or give it an arbitrary quantitative value.
	This is artificial and misleading.  The third step is to presume that
	what can't be measured easily really isn't very important.  This is
	blindness.  The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily
	measured doesn't exist.  This is suicide.

		--- social scientist Daniel Yankelovich
		describes the "McNamara fallacy".

I've made every one of those mistakes.  That's why I have that quote
printed out and taped above my desk.  I can't begin to count how many
times I've referred to over the past six months.