• BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Excess deaths can be anything including say blood clots causing organ damage long after you had covid, because who knows what the long term effects were. So you didn’t die directly because of covid, but can easily be caused by covid. That’s kind of why it’s measured. But you can also say excess deaths were from not having random doctors visits and randomly catching issues. So no one is willing to say much. But I think it’s pretty apparent that a disease that cause severe health issues is going to cause more than the direct deaths.

    • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anecdotallly, we saw a LOT of this. I had a dialysis patient who survived Covid, but their quality of life was so poor they chose to stop dialysis. Another week recovered from Covid and collapsed their first day back to work with new onset cardiac problems. Another who had multiple hospitalizations for hypotension after a Covid episode when they had been stable on their cardiac meds for decades.

      None of those get counted as Covid deaths. They’re all “excess deaths”

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also excess deaths include deaths that likely wouldn’t have happened before COVID, but due to factors like overworked health care staff or shortage of supplies/medical beds because of COVID patients, happened anyway.

      In other words, people didn’t just die from COVID, some died from COVID existing.

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that was the case, but the point is the study doesn’t actually prove it and it admits that.

        • Tedesche@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand the study’s basic methodology. It doesn’t change my point. And I don’t know that it’s never going to be provable. Maybe with enough data we could find a very subtle pattern that proves it. The point is, this study doesn’t, nor do any of the others on their own, but they collectively provide evidence that the hypothesis may be true.

          • Yendor@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You realise you’ve just described science there. Nothing can ever be conclusively proven, you can only disprove it, or build more evidence for it.

            • Tedesche@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, I’m not. Ironically, I think you are. But I’m tired of debating this with people. It says it in the linked article. Debate with the authors of the study if you want to.

              • TheDeadGuy@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I agree with you, it’s in the article. Not sure why people are injecting a new thesis instead of discussing the one presented and researched