So 307 / 100,000 = 0.3% of the population above what would naturally occur.
I wonder how this trend plays out in the long run. I.e. how many of the 0.3% were due to die in the next few years because of existing health conditions?
It's interesting how people reacted during the pandemic.
While I sympathise with anyone that has a loved one that is vulnerable to disease (I certainly have some!), one could make the case that many lives could be saved by banning sugar and forcing mandatory gym memberships. You could argue that one is within our control vs the other - but you could also argue that many are not in control of their addictions (food for example) as well.
The scariest part of it all for me was the way government quickly attempts to rewrite the rules and gain control. Being in Melbourne where the gov tried pushing through a bill to give them seemingly unlimited power during "emergencies" (as defined by them) was really crazy.
If they were "due to die", you'd see negative excess mortality in future years because the people who were going to die in those years already died. And excess mortality has continued to be positive and high.
> I wonder how this trend plays out in the long run. I.e. how many of the 0.3% were due to die in the next few years because of existing health conditions?
Assuming the cause is covid and it matches the past three years, like 80-90% of them. The average age of covid deaths has always been above the average life expectancy.
> how many of the 0.3% were due to die in the next few years because of existing health conditions?
“They were going to die anyways!” was always a common argument one among the “muh freedoms!” crowd. When someone dies in a car crash, we don’t just shrug it off if the victim was terminally ill. Why is this different? A preventable death is still a preventable death and their life still has value whether it’s for another 20 years or 20 days.
> their life still has value whether it’s for another 20 years or 20 days.
This is avoiding the question by being emotive and vague. Would you trade the life of somebody who had 30 years more to live for the life of someone who had 30 seconds to live? Why or why not?
I wonder how this trend plays out in the long run. I.e. how many of the 0.3% were due to die in the next few years because of existing health conditions?
It's interesting how people reacted during the pandemic.
While I sympathise with anyone that has a loved one that is vulnerable to disease (I certainly have some!), one could make the case that many lives could be saved by banning sugar and forcing mandatory gym memberships. You could argue that one is within our control vs the other - but you could also argue that many are not in control of their addictions (food for example) as well.
The scariest part of it all for me was the way government quickly attempts to rewrite the rules and gain control. Being in Melbourne where the gov tried pushing through a bill to give them seemingly unlimited power during "emergencies" (as defined by them) was really crazy.