That's because there are a lot of people dying from Covid-19 that were probably going to die anyways in the near future due to heart disease, diabetes, lung disease, etc. There's a lot of unhealthy people in this country.
Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jer
- Start date
- Status
How about the guy crushed by a car in a garage accident. Yep, they are fighting with the so-called expert medical examiners who claimed the virus caused his crushed organs. This has become a joke.
A letter from Virginia hospitals begging to reopen because they are vacant and going broke.
https://d33wjekvz3zs1a.cloudfront.n...or-Northam-Regarding-EO-Extension-4.18.20.pdf
You're just going to drop that interesting nugget without even a link?
Yeah there's two things:
1. COVID deaths may be overstated.
2. There are more deaths this year than last year.
Conclusion: COVID is causing lots of deaths.
NYT has article up saying in the last 31 days there has been twice as many deaths as the same time last year.
Yeah, this chart doesn't check out. My bad for posting it.
It is all about the $'s now. The states that open things up first will get a jump start on getting taxes rolling into the coffers. There is only a handful of states that can make it to June without basically bankrupting the budget. The big states are betting on the feds to completely bail them out of this. Illinois is already working up a $9 Billion shortfall bill to make everything good...
Bottom line is that the states are going to hit this hard and see what happens. They can always throttle back, especially since schools are out for the summer.
That chart is not accurate. I can see why there was a misunderstanding based on the article cited as the source, though. What the person who made the chart pretty obviously did was take the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 (the red bar) then read that there were 3,000 excess deaths compared to an expected year, so back into the blue bar by taking COVID-19 deaths + 3,000 minus total 2019 deaths. There was no mention of the number of deaths due to other causes in the article and the chart maker made an erroneous inference.
That would be a misreading of what's actually happening though. That 3,000 number referred specifically to an additional ~8,000 deaths that were *not* initially attributed to COVID-19. The initial quoted article left off some context about those numbers (from https://www.silive.com/coronavirus/...was-bigger-than-we-even-fully-understood.html):
"But the city’s Health Commissioner Dr. Oxiris Barbot said Wednesday that the city was still trying to figure out whether the 8,184 “not known to be confirmed or probable” deaths were coronavirus-related or not. Barbot said it was possible a portion of those deaths are.
“The importance of this number in terms of deaths not known to be confirmed or probable COVID-19, it’s important to take it within the context of the same number of deaths during that same time period in the previous year,” Barbot said.
“What we find is there are roughly 3,000 deaths above what would have been anticipated and I think only time will tell about what that number really means," she continued."
Instead, it's quite likely that the number of deaths related to COVID-19 is actually an *under*estimate in many places of the true level based on an analysis of excess deaths (see: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html).
I realize that a lot of this is kind of hard to understand based on the original articles, but TL;DR: the chart's incorrect, and it's more likely than not that COVID-19 deaths are (so far) actually understated in NY.
Great data put out by Linn County
https://linncounty-gis.maps.arcgis..../index.html#/59dd6607c9954e188186e39ebd2c6ec6
https://c19-linncountygis-linncounty-gis.hub.arcgis.com/
https://linncounty-gis.maps.arcgis..../index.html#/59dd6607c9954e188186e39ebd2c6ec6
https://c19-linncountygis-linncounty-gis.hub.arcgis.com/
correction - it says the data is from the CDC and NYT. It doesn't say who made the chart, which I suspect is at best misleading.
That is great. The demographics seem to follow what we've seen everywhere else - a very disproportial amount of the cases are in the black community (30%) and are primarily in SW CR (47%). Of course that's where the first nursing home was - SW has 24 of 34 deaths.
The surprising one to me is 52401 downtown where there aren't a lot of people living but yet has 5 deaths.
Are they attributing hospital deaths to that area code? Just looking at google maps it looks like both hospitals would be encapsulated by that area code.
- Status
