COVID Senior Deaths in US ~80% Of Total

COVID-19 Deaths Scary to This Senior

As a retiree, and a Senior, I am concerned that our leaders and media are either inept or deliberately trying to hide the true magnitude of the disaster that COVID-19 is taking on the Senior demographic. Here’s a few stats that I could find without too much digging, thanks to the links on the worldometers.info website.

From these data it is not a very far reach to conclude that Senior deaths make up about 80% or more of the total number of deaths reported to date. Am I wrong, or has this fact been subtlety hidden from the populous?

Both items are very scary, indeed! I suspect that most people including Seniors have a feeling that the number is about 50%, not the really dramatic and scary value of 80%! That’s more than 2/3rds of total deaths!!

Why, in heavens name, would State enumerators not analyze the data by age when there are analyses by all sorts of things like race, county and more? There is no uniformity to reporting and some states do a far more competent job than others.

Note please, that the percentages shown below are of the total number reported COVID-19 attributed deaths for each reporting unit. In some cases there was no breakout of deaths for people over 65 years age and, the number I used is half the reported number for between 60 and 69. That’s probably conservative since it is most likely that there are more deaths above 65 than below.

Percentage of  Deaths for Citizens 65 and Older Due to COVID-19 Infection By Sampled U.S.A. Areas:

New York: 74%

New Jersey: 80%

Connecticut: NR*

Massachusetts: 90%

Michigan: 88%

District of Columbia: 33% **

Louisiana: NR***
Pennsylvania: NR*

Rhode Island: 86%

Illinois: 68%

Maryland: 78%

Florida: 85%

Georgia: NR

Indiana: 83%

Average of reported and credible sample data: 81%
___________________

• *Not Reported
• ** Not Reported, not analyzed rest home data available, clearly under reported
• ***Not Reported, some rest home data mentioned, no other

____________________

What does this imply?

Seems to me there are several obvious things that these statistics strongly imply:

1. The “News” Media does not have a clue, they seem to focus on the obvious and do not go any further like asking some thoughtful questions of those in charge about the meaning of lop-sided demographics of deaths in terms of treatments options, options in opening the economy and development of plans to better protect the vulnerable to make opening easier and sooner.

2. From the onset of the crisis there have been generic warnings about those who are vulnerable, but little beyond, again, vague generalities of washing hands and avoiding contact, There has nothing promoted about efforts to seriously impress the gravity of the situation on Seniors over 65!

3. Despite massive government efforts to develop antivirals and vaccines, there has been no mention, at least I haven’t heard any, about efforts to improve the immune systems of the most vulnerable people in the country, the ones who make up more than 80% of deaths, thus far. Are there medicinals, vitamins or some new pharmaceutical approach that could help? (My personal observation is that there are hardly any Vitamin C tablets available at CVS, Costco or other stores and even very slow delivery from Amazon online. Some people obviously believe in Vitamin C! Thanks to Dr Linus Pauling, a double Nobel Prize awardee, I am a fan; his arguments in his book, “Vitamin C and The Common Cold”, were very convincing to me. )

4. Seems to me that Seniors including those on Medicare should be receiving more urgent warnings and support to keep away from outside contacts and made aware of how truly serious the hazard is to them.

PostNote:

In a corrected report, March 18th, on morbidity and mortality, the CDC actually reported that 80% of COVID-19 deaths were among the 65 and older age group, yet I never heard any report in the media about it and it is buried in Internet search results. See: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6912e2-H.pdf

Looks like the very high percentage of deaths from COVID-19 for those older than 65 holds true for Sweden, too.  According to the data online at https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/, as of May 20, the percentage is 91.7%.

In April, Metro news in the U.K. estimated that about 82.3% of COVID-19 deaths was among those over age 65. See https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/03/coronavirus-deaths-age-uk-12506448/.

COVID -19 Response Effectiveness

Which Prosperous Countries Did Best?

Current statical data provide insights into the COVID-19  effects on the world’s populous. They also provide some stellar views on the effectiveness of various countries’ preparedness and the effectiveness of their Public Health Systems.

Everyone has been aghast at the sudden illnesses and deaths in many European countries where deaths exceed 400 people per million (M) population according to the data updated daily on Worldometers.info as of 15 May 2020. How did a few creditable countries like S. Korea and only a very few others shut the door so effectively on COVID-19?

Why has the response in the U.S.A. been so poor when compared to a few other prosperous countries like S. Korea, Germany and Austria? See some selected measures displayed on the freely available tables of data for all countries on Worldometers.info and summarized below.

Whatever the reason, it is perhaps time for many countries to wake up to the real needs of science and the significance of priorities in Public Health. Certainly both S. Korea and Germany have governments that value their citizens lives and safety more highly than many others, including the U.S.A. Rhetoric and boisterous disclaimers pale when compared to the facts revealed in the data.

It should not take The Pandemic to deliver the message that our leaders are not very good at leading, but perhaps that will be the impetus for its leaders to do their jobs in the public interest...first.

Perhaps many on the US’s political left have some truly good ideas on Public Health.

Table 1, Selected data from Worldometers.info

Date: May 15, 2020. 

Country     Total Cases   Active Cases   Total Deaths   Deaths/ 1M pop.    Tests/ 1M pop.

U.S.A.          1,470,067       1,074,576             87,704             265                         32,599

S. Korea           11,018                  937                 937                 5                          14,937

Germany         175,223            15,737               7,951               95                          37,585

Austria               16,109              1,010                 628                70                          39,040

Israel                 16,589              3,736                  236                31                          56,258

Bright: Science vs. Muck

Facts vs. Blather

The stir that Dr. Rick Bright’s whistleblower complaint on cronyism and other swamp-like practices in HHS’s BARDA has produced a flurry of claims, counter-claims and “news” that seems to bury some of the key facts of the matter. It has already created wider and deeper amounts of muck that obscure the facts he claims due to the implications they raise about our country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

How can we know what’s actually true among the thickening mist of allegations and ad hominem obfuscations? How about starting at the very beginning? Dr. Bright reveals in his complaint that he is a very competent person and, at least, keeps a detailed daily diary.

Read the complaint itself to learn what Dr. Bright alleges; don’t expect any news media source to interpret it faithfully! It’s only a few dozen typed pages, free online and quite interesting.

Certainly, the political implications are embarrassing and hotly contested.

It would all amount to typical “swamp gas” except for the possible conclusion that the inept and/or illegal actions of Trump’s Administration at the start of, and during, the “COVID-19 Crisis” claimed by Dr. Bright may have significantly contributed to the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens and the major economic distress to our people, country and our unprepared Federal & State Governments and Medical Systems.

Below is the link to the New York Times unvarnished copy of his complaint (there are many others). You may have to scroll down through some basic forms to find the details of his statement; it is entitled:

“ADDENDUM TO THE COMPLAINT OF PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICE AND OTHER PROHIBITED ACTIVITY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SUBMITTED BY DR. RICK BRIGHT“

Free Course to Train Coronavirus Contact Tracers

Six- hour online class

“Johns Hopkins University is hosting a free, publicly available course titled Understanding the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from Johns Hopkins University Experts. This course is set up as a series of short modules to explore the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Registration is not required.

“The modules build on each other. The course begins with a discussion of the virus that causes COVID-19 and works its way to the pandemic’s broader implications for society.

“This course features original content that was created after the imposition of social distancing measures.“

For details and to take the course, visit: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/covid-19-basics/understanding-covid-19

Spectral Emissivity on Fluke's Website

After the Fluke organization acquired Raytek, many of the original technical webpages were merged into the Fluke Process Instruments webpages.

The links we had on spectral emissivity values for  Raytek's webpages on my original website were changed.

However the data remains the same and still provides useful insights for users of Infrared Radiation Thermometers and Thermal Imaging Cameras.

Of course, the data clearly shows, as it always has, that "Emissivity" is not a simple topic and that, in fact there are some significant spectral variations in emissivity values according to the waveband sensitivity of the IR Thermometer being used and the type of material being measured. There are more, but those details are not detailed here.

Raytek's well-presented information on Spectral Emissivity, was one of the few instrument makers who did so. In fact, I believe they still are unique for their successor organization, Fluke Process Instruments.

Although they just call it plain "emissivity" they then present values for three or four different wavebands, according to the table viewed,

"A Rose by any other name...". There are two pages with disclaimers.

Here's the opening statements in each page and links to them.

"Emissivity - Non-Metals"

"Emissivity Values for Common Materials"

"Emissivity is the measure of an object's ability to emit infrared energy. Emitted energy indicates the temperature of the object. Emissivity can have a value from 0 (shiny mirror) to 1.0 (blackbody). Most organic, painted, or oxidized surfaces have emissivity values close to 0.95. The majority of our IR sensors have an adjustable emissivity feature to ensure accuracy when measuring other materials, such as shiny metals.

"Please note, these values are to be used as a guide only, as emissivity changes depending on the actual material surface and conditions."

Emissivity Table for Non-metals (Note: Shows typical values in four different wavebands)

"Emissivity Values for Metals

Same statement as for Non-Metals

  Emissivity Table for Metals (Note: Shows typical values in three different wavebands)