What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Mean and median age of covid19 deaths??? (1 Viewer)

Hooper31

Hooper31

Footballguy
I almost started this as a discussion in the FFA, but thought better of it. 

The best I can find seems to indicate that the mean covid19 death is in the 70s. If this is wrong please let me know. However, because the distribution has a giant skew to it the proper way to discuss average death age here would be median (just like we do with incomes). I can't find an accurate median covid19 death age. I've looked in a few places. If someone can has a link to one I would love to see it. My best guess is it has to be well over 80. This sickness isn't killing healthy kids. The nationwide count of kids under 15 that has died is in line with the amount that does from similar related sicknesses each year. It's wiping out our elderly. 

Disclaimer: I'm generally a very liberal dude. I've voted for exactly 1 Republican in the last 30 years. 

My opinion: Our nationwide reaction to this pandemic is an enormous over-reaction. Anyone that seems to say so is shouted down by those that have been coaxed into a state of panic and fear. I strongly believe that Sweden has taken the correct approach to this. It's like rationality has just been brushed away. Every year people die from the flu. The data is readily available. Some years it's only about 30K. Other years it swells to 60K. Down to 40K. Back up to 60K. It happens. If I would have told you all this a year ago and said that next year it was going to jump up to 120K, or perhaps even 200K, what would you have thought a rational nationwide response have been? Yeah, it's not the normal flu. It's pretty bad, but it's been pretty bad before. Worse even. I don't see how we can look back at this past year and not think we've made a huge mistake. If the response is that we couldn't predict how bad it would be I fear we're setting ourselves up for a state on constant fear moving forward. When another bad one hits, we won't know how bad that one will be either. Will we shut it all down again? 

 
Hooper31 said:
If I would have told you all this a year ago and said that next year it was going to jump up to 120K, or perhaps even 200K, what would you have thought a rational nationwide response have been? 
Click to expand...
If we went on with life as we all knew it, as we do with the seasonal flu, the number would be way way higher than 120K or 200K. We are going to hit those numbers even with all the shelter in place orders.

 
the moops said:
If we went on with life as we all knew it, as we do with the seasonal flu, the number would be way way higher than 120K or 200K. We are going to hit those numbers even with all the shelter in place orders.
Click to expand...
I think we would have hit those numbers regardless of our reaction. Perhaps much sooner. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
Define "well over 80" .

We know it has to be less than 85. 
Click to expand...
I don't know what it is. That's what I keep looking for and can't find. I think it's an important statistic that's worth sharing, but it's not being shared. From looking at a graph at the CDC the balance point (median) was well over 80. 

This is killing the elderly at an enormous clip. I think shutting down the country was an irrational mistake. We were made to fear our children dying and it got people to react. The actual facts weren't being shard. 

 
Hooper31 said:
I don't know what it is. That's what I keep looking for and can't find. I think it's an important statistic that's worth sharing, but it's not being shared. From looking at a graph at the CDC the balance point (median) was well over 80. 

This is killing the elderly at an enormous clip. I think shutting down the country was an irrational mistake. We were made to fear our children dying and it got people to react. The actual facts weren't being shard. 
Click to expand...
The rarity of cases/severity in children is something that I remember being shared quite early on. I may be mistaken, and am open to being shown something different.

 
As mentioned in the other thread...

If we look here we can come up with a pretty solid guess. 

We dont know the age distribution of deaths in the 75-84 range, but the totals for the that range are 18,621. We know the total for the 65-74 range is 14,447. Based on that I think it is fair to conclude that there would be at least some shift toward the older end of that bracket for deaths, but not a ton. So of the 18621 more of the deaths would be above 80 than under. 

The median death would fall in the 75-84 bracket. So if it is weighted toward the 80 and over side at 65% the median age would be 80. I think it would be unreasonable to assume more than 65% of the deaths in the 75-84 bracket are 80 and over. That would make the 65-74 age bracket have a higher mortality than the 75-79 bracket. 

If less than 65% of the deaths in the 75-84 bracket are 80 and over, than the median is below 80.  

Make sense? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
hmm. I see 9.26 to 6.13

Which is still it double so I apologize for my bad math.

But still might be big enough difference in numbers to offset the higher likelihood of the oldest in that group though.

 
Hooper31 said:
I almost started this as a discussion in the FFA, but thought better of it. 

The best I can find seems to indicate that the mean covid19 death is in the 70s. If this is wrong please let me know. However, because the distribution has a giant skew to it the proper way to discuss average death age here would be median (just like we do with incomes). I can't find an accurate median covid19 death age. I've looked in a few places. If someone can has a link to one I would love to see it. My best guess is it has to be well over 80. This sickness isn't killing healthy kids. The nationwide count of kids under 15 that has died is in line with the amount that does from similar related sicknesses each year. It's wiping out our elderly. 

Disclaimer: I'm generally a very liberal dude. I've voted for exactly 1 Republican in the last 30 years. 

My opinion: Our nationwide reaction to this pandemic is an enormous over-reaction. Anyone that seems to say so is shouted down by those that have been coaxed into a state of panic and fear. I strongly believe that Sweden has taken the correct approach to this. It's like rationality has just been brushed away. Every year people die from the flu. The data is readily available. Some years it's only about 30K. Other years it swells to 60K. Down to 40K. Back up to 60K. It happens. If I would have told you all this a year ago and said that next year it was going to jump up to 120K, or perhaps even 200K, what would you have thought a rational nationwide response have been? Yeah, it's not the normal flu. It's pretty bad, but it's been pretty bad before. Worse even. I don't see how we can look back at this past year and not think we've made a huge mistake. If the response is that we couldn't predict how bad it would be I fear we're setting ourselves up for a state on constant fear moving forward. When another bad one hits, we won't know how bad that one will be either. Will we shut it all down again? 
Click to expand...
I think we are witnessing this changing more every day. I’m in liberal land Illinois here and people have had it. My suburb voted like 75% for Governor Prtizker, and even people I know who voted for the guy are openly mocking this continued absurdity. The media fear mongering isn’t working anymore and it’s great to see. 

 
the moops said:
hmm. I see 9.26 to 6.13

Which is still it double so I apologize for my bad math.

But still might be big enough difference in numbers to offset the higher likelihood of the oldest in that group though.
Click to expand...
I see now the totals on Wikipedia are based off of when the population was 308 million, so obviously need to be shifted upward a bit. 

But lets say we conclude that it is a 50/50 split, then the median would drop below 80. 

I realize it doesnt change Hooper's overall point, but just shows for sure that saying the median is  "well over 80" is not correct. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hooper31 said:
I think we would have hit those numbers regardless of our reaction. Perhaps much sooner. 
Click to expand...
Does that mean you think that 200K deaths was the max?  I think if we hadn’t done all this social distancing the numbers would be over a million.  If that were true would it change your view?

 
parasaurolophus said:
As mentioned in the other thread...

If we look here we can come up with a pretty solid guess. 

We dont know the age distribution of deaths in the 75-84 range, but the totals for the that range are 18,621. We know the total for the 65-74 range is 14,447. Based on that I think it is fair to conclude that there would be at least some shift toward the older end of that bracket for deaths, but not a ton. So of the 18621 more of the deaths would be above 80 than under. 

The median death would fall in the 75-84 bracket. So if it is weighted toward the 80 and over side at 65% the median age would be 80. I think it would be unreasonable to assume more than 65% of the deaths in the 75-84 bracket are 80 and over. That would make the 65-74 age bracket have a higher mortality than the 75-79 bracket. 

If less than 65% of the deaths in the 75-84 bracket are 80 and over, than the median is below 80.  

Make sense? 
Click to expand...
Based on that data the median looks to be around 77 or so.

 
Hooper31 said:
I almost started this as a discussion in the FFA, but thought better of it. 

The best I can find seems to indicate that the mean covid19 death is in the 70s. If this is wrong please let me know. However, because the distribution has a giant skew to it the proper way to discuss average death age here would be median (just like we do with incomes). I can't find an accurate median covid19 death age. I've looked in a few places. If someone can has a link to one I would love to see it. My best guess is it has to be well over 80. This sickness isn't killing healthy kids. The nationwide count of kids under 15 that has died is in line with the amount that does from similar related sicknesses each year. It's wiping out our elderly. 

Disclaimer: I'm generally a very liberal dude. I've voted for exactly 1 Republican in the last 30 years. 

My opinion: Our nationwide reaction to this pandemic is an enormous over-reaction. Anyone that seems to say so is shouted down by those that have been coaxed into a state of panic and fear. I strongly believe that Sweden has taken the correct approach to this. It's like rationality has just been brushed away. Every year people die from the flu. The data is readily available. Some years it's only about 30K. Other years it swells to 60K. Down to 40K. Back up to 60K. It happens. If I would have told you all this a year ago and said that next year it was going to jump up to 120K, or perhaps even 200K, what would you have thought a rational nationwide response have been? Yeah, it's not the normal flu. It's pretty bad, but it's been pretty bad before. Worse even. I don't see how we can look back at this past year and not think we've made a huge mistake. If the response is that we couldn't predict how bad it would be I fear we're setting ourselves up for a state on constant fear moving forward. When another bad one hits, we won't know how bad that one will be either. Will we shut it all down again? 
Click to expand...
I'd make just a few points:

  •  Fauci said early on that if people are saying it was an overreaction they did it right
  •  The virus was novel so there was a lot scientists didn't know and still don't know
  •  Many countries shut things down, I don't think all these scientists and experts worldwide are idiots
  • There's no way to know what would have happened if things weren't shut down
  •  Still not really out of the woods yet so we'll learn more as things open up
 
the moops said:
If we went on with life as we all knew it, as we do with the seasonal flu, the number would be way way higher than 120K or 200K. We are going to hit those numbers even with all the shelter in place orders.
Click to expand...
No idea how everyone just blows straight through this fact.  We're at 100k in just over two months with something like 50% less activity than normal.

 
Hooper31 said:
I don't know what it is. That's what I keep looking for and can't find. I think it's an important statistic that's worth sharing, but it's not being shared. From looking at a graph at the CDC the balance point (median) was well over 80. 

This is killing the elderly at an enormous clip. I think shutting down the country was an irrational mistake. We were made to fear our children dying and it got people to react. The actual facts weren't being shard. 
Click to expand...
We were not made to fear children dying.  The complete opposite.

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
No idea how everyone just blows straight through this fact.  We're at 100k in just over two months with something like 50% less activity than normal.
Click to expand...
Most think the total death total is the estimate we always get that is only like a month ahead.

You tell them 250k are going to die by years end they think you are nuts.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Does that mean you think that 200K deaths was the max?  I think if we hadn’t done all this social distancing the numbers would be over a million.  If that were true would it change your view?
Click to expand...
Ok. I think you’re wrong. We both have opinions. I think rational people can disagree. I think the number of deaths wouldn’t be much different either way. 
 

Is there an acceptable number of covid deaths that would prevent shutting down society? Of course. It happens every year. So where’s the line? What number is no longer acceptable? Am I a monster if my number is higher than yours? 

 
Hooper31 said:
Ok. I think you’re wrong. We both have opinions. I think rational people can disagree. I think the number of deaths wouldn’t be much different either way. 
 

Is there an acceptable number of covid deaths that would prevent shutting down society? Of course. It happens every year. So where’s the line? What number is no longer acceptable? Am I a monster if my number is higher than yours? 
Click to expand...
no, there is not "a number".  and no, your not a monster if your number is bigger than mine.  and no, we didn't "shut down society"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do we need a reminder of where that initial prediction of 1.5-2 million people dying came from...what it's origins were and who gave it oxygen?  Come on guys.

Also, is the media here really saying our children are going to die?  Sorry if a dumb question, but the only news I pay any attention to state side is my local news channel and whatever monotoned narrator is on CSPAN covering the "update press conferences" (though I stopped watching those after about two days.

 
The Commish said:
Do we need a reminder of where that initial prediction of 1.5-2 million people dying came from...what it's origins were and who gave it oxygen?  Come on guys.

Also, is the media here really saying our children are going to die?  Sorry if a dumb question, but the only news I pay any attention to state side is my local news channel and whatever monotoned narrator is on CSPAN covering the "update press conferences" (though I stopped watching those after about two days.
Click to expand...
yes, we need a reminder.  who said that?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Does that mean you think that 200K deaths was the max?  I think if we hadn’t done all this social distancing the numbers would be over a million.  If that were true would it change your view?
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious that the models being relied on weren't accurate so we have no way of knowing.  The initial stay at home was a reaction based on Italy and not knowing enough about the virus.  Looking back however, the numbers coming out of my state, PA have 75-80% of the deaths in the 70+ age group and upwards of 85% of deaths have at least 1 comorbidity.  So protecting those groups is probably all we needed to do to keep the numbers down.  As we see, we didn't do a good job of protecting those groups that's why our numbers are where they are.

 
Hooper31 said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Does that mean you think that 200K deaths was the max?  I think if we hadn’t done all this social distancing the numbers would be over a million.  If that were true would it change your view?
Click to expand...
Ok. I think you’re wrong. We both have opinions. I think rational people can disagree. I think the number of deaths wouldn’t be much different either way. 
 

Is there an acceptable number of covid deaths that would prevent shutting down society? Of course. It happens every year. So where’s the line? What number is no longer acceptable? Am I a monster if my number is higher than yours? 
Click to expand...
If I were like you and believed "the number of deaths wouldn't be much different either way" then of course it would be silly to have taken the steps that we did.  You've set this discussion up as a difference of priorities but really this seems more like a difference in expectations about what would have happened in the absence of social distancing measures.

 
The Commish said:
Do we need a reminder of where that initial prediction of 1.5-2 million people dying came from...what it's origins were and who gave it oxygen?  Come on guys.

Also, is the media here really saying our children are going to die?  Sorry if a dumb question, but the only news I pay any attention to state side is my local news channel and whatever monotoned narrator is on CSPAN covering the "update press conferences" (though I stopped watching those after about two days.
Click to expand...
I dont see the stories as often anymore, but early on the media was all over any story that involved somebody young. Even when there was cause to believe it wasnt even a covid death. 

I mean the media ran with the story about the kid in CA that was denied care at an urgent care and died of covid.

Turns out he didnt die of covid and he never even went to an urgent care. The city mayor made a facebook video where he mentioned these things. He never spoke to the family, the media never spoke to him or the family. It was relayed second hand from somebody that barely spoke english. 

Time is the only publication I saw issue a retraction. 

 
Hooper31 said:
Ok. I think you’re wrong. We both have opinions. I think rational people can disagree. I think the number of deaths wouldn’t be much different either way. 
 
Click to expand...
I honestly have no idea how you come to this conclusion. All we need to do is look at NYC. If they kept on keeping on, you think they would still be at 23,000 deaths?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
If I were like you and believed "the number of deaths wouldn't be much different either way" then of course it would be silly to have taken the steps that we did.  You've set this discussion up as a difference of priorities but really this seems more like a difference in expectations about what would have happened in the absence of social distancing measures.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing that thought. I don’t think you’re wrong. 
 

Regardless, knowing what we know now I think it’s silly to keep this up. I just had a meeting about planning for the school I teach at to stay shut when the fall rolls around.  

 
the moops said:
I honestly have no idea how you come to this conclusion. All we need to do is look at NYC. If they kept on keeping on, you think they would still be at 23,000 deaths?
Click to expand...
Because I think our reaction was poor doesn’t mean I think we should have done nothing. I think we could have done a much better job of educating those that are really in danger. I think Sweden did this correctly. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hooper31 said:
Where did financial impact come from? Is that directed at me? 
Click to expand...
not necessarily.  the balance of public health vs financial hardship seems to be the predominant debate.  i guess the alternative path is strictly a personal liberty question.  apologies if i assumed

 
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer said:
not necessarily.  the balance of public health vs financial hardship seems to be the predominant debate.  i guess the alternative path is strictly a personal liberty question.  apologies if i assumed
Click to expand...
I guess it’s a fair assumption. I teach high school. I still get my full salary. If anything, I’ve saved a ton during this time because I can’t spend it anything I would want to do. Heck, I even got a $400 check from my government that’s sitting in a savings account. 
 

I understand the initial response when questions were unanswered and we weren’t sure who was really in danger. But now? We know who is at risk. We could be doing a lot better in choosing who to isolate and letting people choose to get on with their lives. 

 
Hooper31 said:
I guess it’s a fair assumption. I teach high school. I still get my full salary. If anything, I’ve saved a ton during this time because I can’t spend it anything I would want to do. Heck, I even got a $400 check from my government that’s sitting in a savings account. 
 

I understand the initial response when questions were unanswered and we weren’t sure who was really in danger. But now? We know who is at risk. We could be doing a lot better in choosing who to isolate and letting people choose to get on with their lives. 
Click to expand...
Well things are starting to open up, not sure what else you want.

 
Let's start with some actual numbers from the CDC, and try to determine the mean & median death ages.  We won't be able to guarantee the ages are correct, but we can get close IMO, as long as you think the CDC data is correct.  Here is the link I am using, and the data is current as of 20 May...
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

Now, I can show my math if you want, but the mean age is between 76 and 77.  The median age is between 78 and 79.

OK, now on to the question at hand - are we overreacting to this virus?  And do the mean and median ages play a part in your decision on whether or not we are overreacting?  I guess your answer is based in your own situation.  If you are an asthmatic overweight diabetic 90 year old who lives in a nursing home, you likely think we are under-reacting.  If you are a physically fit 20 year old college student, overreaction is an understatement.  

 
Hooper31 said:
I guess it’s a fair assumption. I teach high school. I still get my full salary. If anything, I’ve saved a ton during this time because I can’t spend it anything I would want to do. Heck, I even got a $400 check from my government that’s sitting in a savings account. 
 

I understand the initial response when questions were unanswered and we weren’t sure who was really in danger. But now? We know who is at risk. We could be doing a lot better in choosing who to isolate and letting people choose to get on with their lives. 
Click to expand...
The initial response?  But now?

It has been 10 weeks.  Not that long.

50 states left to figure it out.  Yeah this all could be better organized.  
 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
16 Year Old Iranian Schoolgirl Is Beaten To Death For Refusing To Sing "Pro-Regime Anthem" (10/7/22 07:28 PST)
Replies
18
Views
810
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
CNN: Obama On Republicans "Just Beat Them" Because They're "Mean, Racist, Sexist, Angry" (10/10/22 17:48 PST)
Replies
6
Views
480
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Johnson & Johnson Employee Caught Denouncing COVID19 Vaccine For Children (10/1/21 04:24 PST)
Replies
46
Views
1K
(HULK)
(HULK)

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top