Trend to Mar was dashed blue in🥇📈, since accruing 75k excess deaths.
But, as🥈📊from bit.ly/3nCSOsh covers, accelerated deaths will've been missed in🥇🌊, and accrued deaths will be lowering nonC19 ones now.
So how many were accelerated if this an underestimate?
1/7
But, as🥈📊from bit.ly/3nCSOsh covers, accelerated deaths will've been missed in🥇🌊, and accrued deaths will be lowering nonC19 ones now.
So how many were accelerated if this an underestimate?
1/7
With testing now⏫the compounding effect we missed in🥇🌊is much clearer in the🥈.
NonC19 (orange) are dropping as wks progress, likely due to many of🥈🌊deaths only accelerating expected ones by a few wks.
This likely happened🥇🌊, but⏬testing meant we couldn't track it.
2/7
NonC19 (orange) are dropping as wks progress, likely due to many of🥈🌊deaths only accelerating expected ones by a few wks.
This likely happened🥇🌊, but⏬testing meant we couldn't track it.
2/7
Looking at these excess to trend deaths, we had 13k nonC19🥇🌊.
Sure, some LD induced, but🥈🌊has none? So likely many were untested C19.
It's what happens to cum. nonC19 excess next that's crucial, dropping 15.5k suggests at least this many C19 deaths have reverted since.
3/7
Sure, some LD induced, but🥈🌊has none? So likely many were untested C19.
It's what happens to cum. nonC19 excess next that's crucial, dropping 15.5k suggests at least this many C19 deaths have reverted since.
3/7
How're we sure these mostly C19?
Well, C19 takes more🙍♂️than🙍♀️deaths.
Per plot, ratio normally stable.
Yes:
▶️with 65% 90+🙍♀️
▶️a mild-year/weak-flu has lowered these
meaning🙍♂️ones 2stdevs⏫to Mar.
But:
🥇🌊5.5stdevs⏫
🥈🌊7⏫so far
with this not in data during LD alone.
4/7
Well, C19 takes more🙍♂️than🙍♀️deaths.
Per plot, ratio normally stable.
Yes:
▶️with 65% 90+🙍♀️
▶️a mild-year/weak-flu has lowered these
meaning🙍♂️ones 2stdevs⏫to Mar.
But:
🥇🌊5.5stdevs⏫
🥈🌊7⏫so far
with this not in data during LD alone.
4/7
Overall, excess to trend deaths are:
▶️56.4%🙍♂️
▶️43.6%🙍♀️
Similar to 58:42 WHO ratio, and the findings in this bit.ly/3senjsf Lancet study.
That our median age of deaths is 83, the 65% 90+ being🙍♀️ means our ratio is skewed more towards🙍♀️, but not by much.
5/7
▶️56.4%🙍♂️
▶️43.6%🙍♀️
Similar to 58:42 WHO ratio, and the findings in this bit.ly/3senjsf Lancet study.
That our median age of deaths is 83, the 65% 90+ being🙍♀️ means our ratio is skewed more towards🙍♀️, but not by much.
5/7
Returning to cum. deaths (blue line), by not counting above/below wks separately we miss accelerated deaths.
Doing so, in red, we get:
⏫79.5k accelerated, not 75
⏬with 4.5k reverted
What about separating🙍♂️:🙍♀️?
⏫80.5k accelerated
⏬5.5k reverted
So even more.
6/7
Doing so, in red, we get:
⏫79.5k accelerated, not 75
⏬with 4.5k reverted
What about separating🙍♂️:🙍♀️?
⏫80.5k accelerated
⏬5.5k reverted
So even more.
6/7
But, in 3/7 we est. 15.5k reverted since🥇🌊so:
⏫90.5k accelerated
⏬15.5k reverted
Leaving 75 excess.
Finally, in bit.ly/2XvfujH I try to est. true no. of accelerated deaths discussed in original example.
Could be 20k more.
Bottom line, spreads⏫than we think.
7/7
⏫90.5k accelerated
⏬15.5k reverted
Leaving 75 excess.
Finally, in bit.ly/2XvfujH I try to est. true no. of accelerated deaths discussed in original example.
Could be 20k more.
Bottom line, spreads⏫than we think.
7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
