THE OFFICIAL NUMBER OF COVID-19 DEATHS IS A MANY-FOLD OVERESTIMATION. The Math-logic Methods to Reveal the Real Number of Covid-19 Lethal Victims. The Guideline Analysis, the U.S. in 2020.
Creators
Description
EXTENDED ABSTRACT plus SUPPLEMENT
BACKGROUND: The one objective information in the CDC tables named 'Deaths involving coronavirus' is: "xxx thousands of people have died and being probably infected with Covid-19". But how many of these people would for sure still live if not Covid-19? The main aim of this paper is to present the method that makes possible to reveal the real number of lethal Covid-19 victims. METHODS: The ideas for solutions are original, mathematical – logical; there were used constructed equations; a few riddles had to be solved. Calculations are in some places somewhat simplified, to chase calculations. There were used the CDC, NSC, SSA and other agencies/institutions' databases. Doubts are resolved to promote overestimation, not underestimation, of the analysis-result (e.g. p.6-7). A number of chronic conditions is accepted as a very good (on average) reflection of a pre-infectious worsened health-state against the average one for a specific age. FINDINGS: Including into the 2020- official "Deaths involving coronavirus" (DIC) group was based on irrational mechanical assumptions. Under 10% of those officially reported as Covid-19 victims, in the U.S. in 2020, could have died from Covid-19 complicity; the rest of them would have died in the same or in a very close to identical time anyway, because their deaths resulted from the normal age-structure of deaths in the United States, and from causes already existing before Covid-19, creating the expected average age of natural death actual in the given year (due to not-Covid-19 causes); it is also very probable that some of people of the official DIC group had their death-date accelerated (forced to die in 2020, while otherwise would die much later) by wrong/harmful procedures and so the total number of those whose death was visibly accelerated could have been meaningfully bigger than 30K (of the DIC group), but they can be also in part already included in exchange for Covid-19 deaths. With none additional 'missed risks' ('m') the average adjusted total (at-birth) life expectancy of genuine Covid-19 victims should have been 77 or less (p.21), not any 89 years; their otherwise further life expectancy (LEa) should have been moderately below 10 years, not almost 13 years -what would be with the very irrational mechanical assumption that all decedents of the 2020-DIC group were not those who died in 2020 naturally due to "aging". The equation 'ADcs+LEa = timely-LEWIIfmS' (p.20+) must be fulfilled for every external burdening factor provoking premature quick deaths (/e.g. Covid-19) and its real victims must be (on average) weaker simultaneously due to their higher age and due to their worsened, against an age-average, health-state (with a strongly increased average number of chronic conditions for low mortalities) -otherwise the equilibrium point never exists ...unless there is a 100%-mortality; partial mortalities influence their initial LEWIIfmS too, as connected with the look of the Population Pyramid, but with the actual Covid-19-mortality being so small the extra up-influence is up to 0.02 year -as it is of close to zero influence it is not presented, unless on a request. (/please read also 'Remarks'-g). And, if a number of chronic conditions was not a perfect reflection of a worsened health-state against the average one for a specific age, it would not mean much for an average age of 73, because the result is with a large margin of safety; for an average age of 67 it means yet much less, as ISD, not a number of conditions, is the main result-limiter there. ...Independently, even just the average number of chronic conditions protects the main result, which number must have been strongly increased among alive ones (but not already in a terminal state) and then really killed by the virus against the number in a comparative group of just alive ones with exactly the same age-structure (!), because Covid-19 out of infected ones at every specific age kills very few (of older ones) or extremely few (of young ones) of them -usually weaker/weakest ones; the age-adjustment eliminates any meaning of older ones dying more often than younger ones from Covid-19. The CDC knew there had to be a very clear correlation between 'Covid-19 Death Risk Ratio' and a number of conditions, but in the DIC group none increase in the average number was visible (officially <3) even with limiting the list of conditions in the comparative group to the conservative CCW list (/the comparison only of the prevalence of major hearth diseases shows it is not increased in the DIC group -more in 'Additional Notes' -b). If older persons have a higher number of CCW-conditions then this pure number matters most (on average) to further life expectancy (LEa); the marginal decline in LEa increases with an additional chronic condition, when a number of conditions is low or moderate, but this decline starts with low values -first 2 conditions of 2008-CCW ones (and so approximately first 3 of current CCW ones) sum up to about 3 times less negative effect on life expectancy than the next 2 conditions (3+4) of 2008-CCW do in 75-year old ones (= approximately 4+5+6 of current CCW ones). /E.g. normally, still alive ones at age 67 and 75 with a low number (0 - 3) of current CCW-conditions should otherwise live, on average, for the next approximately 22 and 16 years respectively, but with a very high number (15 - 30) of conditions they would otherwise live, on average, for the next 5 or yet less years only./ [18 +CCWdata]. Natural deaths with chronic conditions (ones 100%-mortality) are, in contrast to quick premature deaths due to the infection, realization of risks originated in the ones' past, with very little predictability of a specific year of falling into one's terminal state (read also 'Additional Notes'-c , which are below). INTERPRETATION: The official number of "Covid-19 victims" is a very untrue number and means, in a vast majority, 'the double counting' of those who would die whatsoever in the same (or in a very close to identical) time without Covid-19. The 2020-DIC group's construction is based on irrational mechanical assumptions, resulting in natural 2020-deaths being not removed from it at all. /Please read the rest of Zenodo-page first!/
SHORTENED SUPPLEMENT (this supplement is not in the essay's body): THE ALTERNATIVE METHOD (summary)
Complete disregard of LEWIIfmS will only little weaken the proof, because we can base mainly on the adjusted by the illness-rates Population Pyramid [10], 'Life Table'-2019 [2], [6], [18], [20] instead ([6] is now in archive.cdc.gov: Estimated Covid-19 Burden); coming down with a supposed average death-age of real victims of Covid-19 to ⩽73 y. proves the heavy Covid-19 mortality-fallacy by ISD (defined in the essay). ...At the same time, maintaining a high age is impossible without a strongly increased average number of conditions what proves the fallacy too. The average measured by 'further life expectancy' (LEa) health-status at an average age of 83 (the age-range 77+), if one still lived, was similar (or slightly better -as an age-dispersion itself increases av.LEa slightly more here) to that at an average age of 67 while with 12.5, on average, of current CCW conditions, so the big rest of the lower age-subgroup (91%) {the %-prevalence of the high numbers of current CCW-conditions is safely taken to rise within the same age-range 3.0 times, because with the rise of 2.6 times, between the 50-64 and the 75-84 age-subgroup, 5+ conditions in [20: JHBSofPH] by its prevalence correspond to >6+ of 2008-CCW [18] and ⩾9+ of current CCW ones} would already have to be of strongly smaller average mortality (together with mortality suitably strongly decreasing within this rest with a number of conditions diminishing from 9 to 0 -for every age). The higher age-subgroup is visibly over 4 times smaller than the lower one [10] (without the share of the higher age-subgroup and so also limited to ages 60+, but <77), while those aged <60 y. happen to be killed too. [The falling in adults with aging illness rates must decrease within the 65+ age-range too, the rates at age 95 should be ~0.55 of those at age 60, the distance is 35 years, 35 = 2 x 17.5; the average age of alive ones at age 50-<65 is almost 57.5 and at age 65+ is almost 75; 0.74 x 0.74 = 0.55 -due to falling social activity and diminishing levels of ACE2 expression; the distance between the average ages of the two higher subgroups is much smaller; younger than 75 years old ones must have the rates bigger than older than 75 y.o. ones]. For safety reasons we will further use only '4 times smaller'; we were already careful basing on the infection rates, not on the more objective symptomatic illness rates (the second ones decline faster), so otherwise it would be close to 5 times smaller. ...E.g. for a hypothetical average age of decedents of 75 there should be taken not less than 13% of those at age <60 [wonder.cdc.gov -for an average age of 76.58 /Covid-19 in 2020 =DIC/ there was >12% (against negligibly more amongst natural deaths, without 'infant mortality', in 2019: >12% too) and with a proportional loading of lower age-ranges, due to the diminished to 75 average age, it would be 13.5% there; /additionally, the illness rates at age <60 are higher by almost 20%, but we initially ignore this fact/], with their average age not more than the normal 51 (with the back-higher illness rates and true Covid-19 deaths this av. age will somewhat decrease), which is 3.0 times more distanced to 75 than 67 and 83 are. So there must be initially only 24% (*) of those at ages 61-<77 (but 63.0% of those at age 77+). The 9%-sub-age-subgroup (of the 60-<77 age-subgroup) initially (*) "equalizes" 36% of the 77+ age-subgroup (9% x 4.0 =36%), and the lowest age-range (<60) "equalizes" 61.9% [13/63 x (75-51)/(83-75) = 0.619 = 61.9%] of it; thus the 91%-sub-age-subgroup could initially "equalize" only ~2.1% (for the total average age not to fall under 75). The average number of conditions in the whole 91%-majority of the 60-<77 age-subgroup is 3.5, mortality would have to be 173 times (*) lower there (= 91/9 x 36/2.1) and so the average number of CCW conditions in the whole 60-<77 age-subgroup would have to be almost 3 times higher than the normal one is' (let's name it 'THN'): [(91/9)/173 x 3.5 + 12.5]/(0.058+1.0) = 12.7; 12.7/4.4 = 2.9. [There is the increased 4.4 condition for the whole age-subgroup, because its age-dispersion is limited (4.5 is acceptable too)] ...*Initially we ignored health-differences (an age and a number of chronic conditions, and partly changes in %-prevalences of conditions) within the 60-<77 and 77+ age-subgroups, and we ignored that, with the same LEa-s' ratio, a difference in mortality keeps diminishing with both LEa-s decreasing, so in the final step we must make changes and some assumptions +also, as mortality must be very small in the 91% majority, we must take an average age of victims there meaningfully higher than 67. As a result, a share of the 60-<77 age-subgroup has to be higher than the initial one, and the share of the 77+ age-subgroup must be decreased. An average age of victims must be finally over 83 in the 77+ age-subgroup; not much as availability of alive ones violently declines in the 77+ age-range (with increasing age [10]) and at ages noticeably over 80 the %-prevalence of high numbers of conditions does not increase any more, but decreases (/the reversal), the average number of conditions too, but slightly [20] -it is influenced by the phenomenon of the core of long-living (while having few conditions) people who all go far through the Life Table; the calculated average age in the 77+ age-range of the DIC group is 84.75 for 2020, but it corresponds to a higher total average age (76.6), thus we take 84.5 for our age-subgroup. [Amongst 'natural deaths' in 2019 it was slightly higher, but still <85 y.]. What about the 9% sub-age-subgroup, with a high number of conditions an age matters very little there for LEa [18+Table2], but the %-prevalence of high numbers of conditions would increase proportional to the decrease(*) in availability of alive ones, if the falling illness rates were not accelerating it* [6, 10, 20] (changing the av. age from 67 to slightly over 68), and an average number of conditions must be finally taken as ≫12.5 -due to a small mortality; for this sub-age-subgroup we take the average age of victims as 69.5, because on the one hand it cannot be visibly lower, while on the other hand it is hardly possible to take now 70, as then we would have to take under 69.5 as the av. age in the 91% sub-age-subgroup, what gets clear a bit below. [Together with a total av. age falling averages of age-subgroups must be falling too, unless we disproportionately strong increase weights of yet lower age-subgroups.]. However in the 91% sub-age-subgroup the average age of victims could go importantly higher, making possible to assume mortality to be higher too. There must be simultaneously taken a considerable internal increase in the average number of conditions, because in the 9% sub-age-subgroup (12.5 conditions, on average) mortality is small, similarly in the 77+ age-subgroup (<5.5 conditions), while in the much stronger 91% sub-age-subgroup (3.5 conditions, on average) yet much smaller -without those with higher (6-9) numbers of current CCW conditions the rest have 0-5 conditions and their average LEa is >22 years! Now we will show a high average age of 75 (of nobody being already in a terminal state before getting infected) with THN = only 2, is impossible (and hardly possible with any other assumption). The first 36% of the "equalization" drops to 20.8% [36 x (75-69.5)/(84.5-75)]. Let's check an average age in the 91% sub-age-subgroup of only 70 first; if mortality within the 91%-sub-age-subgroup would be only 4.5 times lower than within the 9% sub-age-subgroup the average age in the 60-<77 age-subgroup would be >69.8 (/but it is still higher than the av. age in the same age-subgroup of the DIC group: <69.6 !). But '4.5 times' would be impossible due to the "equalization" done by the <60 age-subgroup changing to 63.2% (13/52 x 24/9.5 = 0.632) and the first two "equalizations" summing up to: 63.2 + 20.8 = 84.0%, beause the 91% sub-age-subgroup with its av. age 70 would have its own "equalizing" effect: 91/9 x 0.225 = 2.25 and 2.25 x 20.8 x (75-70)/(75-69.5) = 42.5%; 42.5% + 84.0% = "126.5%". The average number of conditions would be >5.5 (in the 91% sub-age-subgroup, hints are given a bit below; the decline in availability of alive ones, with aging, is very much faster than the rise in the %-prevalence of moderate numbers of conditions). Mortality in the 91% sub-age-subgroup would have to be 12 times* smaller, than in the 9% sub-age-subgroup, to make the total average age = 75 illusory possible, and THN would become ⩾2.3 (>10 conditions), with still ignored the higher illness rates at age <60. (/*however the av. age in the 60-<77 age-subgroup could not fall under that which is in the DIC age-subgroup as with such a big 'mortality difference' in one place we would have also to importantly increase the average ages of both sub-age-subgroups). [/The 9% and 77+ age subgroups have a similarly limited age-dispersion and a possible change of the average age. The dispersions in LEa are similar too; for the 9% sub-age-subgroup we should not take the average LEa for those with 10+ of 2008-CCW conditions as 5, but 4 years, because it seems impossible for the av. number of condinions to be otherwise only about 11 there.]. ...The average age of victims originating from the 91% sub-age-subgroup must be assumed to be 75 to have its no negative effect on the total average age, although 75 is impossible here (/ask us); but what if we ignore this impossibility and take 75? The share of those with 8-9 conditions in the 91% majority is significantly higher than the share of those aged 75-<77 (the Population Pyramid, adjusted by the falling illness rates) and the decline in availability of alive ones, with aging, must still be importantly faster* than the rise in the %-prevalence of 8-9 conditions there (because it would get not faster only vs. the %-prevalence of 10++ conditions ...however if the falling illness rates were not preventing it) [*and yet faster after deducting the 9% minority from the 60-<77 age-subgroup], thus the average number of conditions must approach 8-9 in a similar time that the average age in the 91% sub-age-subgroup 75-77 y, because at the same time the decline in LEa with the rise in the number of conditions from 3.5 to 7.5 is very similar to the decline while aging from 67 to 75 years [6, 10, 18 +current CCWdata, 20]. It means for an av. age of 75 the average number should be ~8. If we assume mortality within the 91%-sub-age-subgroup to be 7 times smaller (/if we assume less times then the average age will be yet higher), the average number of conditions in the lower age-subgroup would be: [(91/9)/7 x 8 + 1.0 x ≫12.5] /(1.444+1.0), thus THN >2.3, and unfortunately with the average age in the whole 60-<77 age-subgroup being by >3 years higher than the one which is in the same age-subgroup of the DIC group (/if we assume mortality within the 91%-sub-age-subgroup to be more than 7 times smaller then THS will only grow here). =It all means numbers must be considerably increased in all age-subgroups (/In the 77+ age-subgroup, in search of the very weakest ones, we can go considerably up with the average number of conditions, but little with the average age.), and the total average age must be importantly decreased* [*Mainly because the ratio of av.LEa in the 77+ to that in the 60-<77 age subgroup is only little bigger than the internal ratio between the sub-age-subgroups of the 60-<77 age-subgroup. Due to the same reason the av. age of aged 77+ could not be here visibly over 85 (= meaningfully increasing a 'mortality-difference' for a fixed LEas' ratio). /With the same LEa-s' ratio (e.g. 1:2) a difference in mortality must be rising with both LEa-s increasing, this difference has to be smaller in the 77+ age-subgroup than between 60-<77 and <60 age-subgroups.]. ...A number of chronic conditions is a very good indicator of an age-overall state of the organism, what can be seen e.g. by the fact that a smaller number of conditions has a very-disproportionately small negative impact on life expectancy [18; Cutler et al. 2013]; from 5 to 9 conditions of 2008-CCW ones a marginal %-decrease in remaining LEa is almost constant with an additional condition (both for 67 and 75 old ones), but for 10+ conditions this effect looks like diminishing. =An importantly increased number generally reflects the importantly worsened age-health-state, not risks to die in the future because of one or another chronic disease. Chronic condition counts are a strong indicator of health [Anderson G. 2004 and 2010.; Wolff JL et al. 2005]. At the same time, with a high number of conditions it means little for LEa e.g. if a person is 75 or 67 instead, so a high number of conditions is most important, in older adults. This additional method is quicker, with no need to estimate LEWIIf or extra 'missed risks'. [But the complete disregard of LEWIIfmS is unserious, as it means initially assuming total life expectancy of Covid-19's victims being incresead by ~8.5 year over 80.5 (instead of being decreased); it is huge as natural deaths are very concentrated - 90% of people die only from age 60 onwards.]
REMARKS (Important !): a) If there are some ready numbers in the text, e.g.: the average age of death in 2019 due to any injury (52 -p.3), the norm of 2008-CCW conditions for a group of alive ones with that of the DIC group age-dispersion (<3.5 -p.12) or of the current CCW ones for of-the-strong-dispersion av. age 67 (~4 -p.21) -these numbers were calculated using sources given in the text and Discussion [4, Injuryfacts; 18, 20, 26, CCWdata, MEPS]. b) Raw deductions and raw recalculations-effects (p.6 and p.20) mean basing on middle ages of age-subgroups. c) The ADC cannot be assumed to be under 76.58 (p.7-8), true Covid-19 deaths should have only lower than ADC average age and both must finally make 76.58 y. The flu serves as an example for external burdens and confirms it, as even with proportional limiting the average age of death to 68 the share of deaths at age under 50 cannot exceed the one that the flu officially has (close to 8%). Not to overcome is that we have almost everywhere (/the flu) the considerably increased weight of the low age-range strictly against that of the higher age-subgroup (50-64), with the exception of the flu season 2011-2012, with the illness rates always increasing between the age-subgroups in the 2010-2020 period. If a primal Underrepresentation could be induced anywhere it would appear the fastest in the low age-range (/an 'inexact relationship'* between an age itself getting higher and the weakening of the body, and mighty basic age-dependant life-strenghts, are there, +there is the highest share of only one-two, but finally mortal conditions with a sharp picture difficult to wrongly attribute to the flu). The illness rates for Covid-19 importantly decrease at advanced ages what should finally result in a meaningful lowering the average age of decedents against ADC. ...It is connected with 'missed risks'; due to a sufficient excess in the share of the lowest age-range, in the flu-example, no additional 'missed risks' are considered in the 'Next Steps' (p.19+) too. [In fact, most probably a yet bigger excess; the flu's Ilness rates at age 65+ were usually small, but comparing those for 0-49 with those of 50-64 age-ranges, and comparing numbers of deaths at ages <50 to 50-64 to 65+, it can be strongly supposed there were numerous deaths wrongly attributed to the flu at age 65+.]. /External burdens supposed to kill with an underrepresentation of the low age-range are artificially created and selectively applied (on the oldest ones) by a man ones (p.22). d) While receiving the initial ISD (p.7) it can be additionally increased only by a petty value in 'the first step', because in a group of natural deaths deficits of lower age-subgroups' shares could be only minimally higher (/explained in the part from the very end of p.6 to the end of p.7); additionally, in the DIC group there was a visibly lowered average age in the big 85+ age-subgroup, if to assume it was not an impact of the illness rates then ISD should be increased by an additional small value, giving about 0.2 year in total. e) ADcs =a supposed average death- age of real victims of Covid-19 (p.20). f) Any assuming the final ISD could be up to a bit over 0.8 and so the subgroup's size about 7% (p.22) does not mean it is much probable, but an extreme-like size with simultaneous assumptions that there could still be some differences in the state of the immune system between older ones and very old ones, all in their terminal state, and that ACE2 gene expression in nasal epithelium declines in old ones (with aging), but little significantly (/it was still unknown how significant this decline was). A yet higher ISD, with the illness-rates bigger by >20% for 65+ old ones (all in their terminal state), looks irrational even witch such theoretical assumptions (/e.g. being very active in sports reduces one's risk of getting infected with Covid-19 only by 11% -the CDC/). g) There is an extra up-correction of an 'initial LEWIIfmS', depending on the Covid-19's general mortality; on a request we can explain it, however while with a 100%-mortality the up-correction would be several years, then it is of never noteworthy influence (0.01-0.02 year) on a result with a general mortality of up to several per mille; this extra up-influence is connected with the look of the Population Pyramid. To understand it, at the start we recommend a very simple model, like e.g. of "mice" with 6 births every year and out of born ones 1 mouse dying during the first, 2 during the second and 3 during the third year (of their life), after 2 years there is already the equiliblium reached. This model helps to understand why if at-birth-LE is 1.83, then if calculated for all alive ones total-LE is 2.07, but the average AD is still the same (1.83) every year; the model itself explaines why without a very high mortality among young ones a group like the DIC group must be, in a vast majority, composed of those who were already in a dying state before getting infected, if their actual average age plus their hypothetical otherwise-LEa is much higher than LEWIIfmS. h) The average pre-infectious health-state must have been meaningfully worse (and so the strongly correlated with it average number of chronic conditions must have been meaningfully increased) for any specific age in a subgroup of true Covid-19 deaths, against that at the same age in a big comparative group of alive ones; due to a similar mechanism (killing-choosing weaker/weakest ones) the average age of Covid-19 decedents was by much over 50 (<50 = the average age in the society, Covid-19-illness-rates-adjusted). The average-age's shift makes it very strongly over 50, so the simultaneous conditions-number's shift should be considerable. There is a very similar share of people at age 67+ in the U.S. society to the share* of old ones (*among the old ones) having 7+ chronic conditions of 2008-CCW ones (= 10-30 of current CCW-conditions). The decline in LEa is very significantly stronger with the rise in the number of conditions from the age-average to 10+, than the decline while aging from this 67 to 75 years; and with a high number of conditions it means little, for the number of remaining years of life e.g. if a person is 75 or only 67 instead [18], while the share of old ones in the U.S. population violently declines with age-increasing >6-folds, from those at age 60+ to those at age 80+ (<4%), with the prevalence of high numbers of conditions rising 3 -folds between somewhat under 60 and about 80 years of age [20(adjusted)] -and under 1.5 -folds (<+50%) between 60+ and 80+. [2, 6, 10, 18, 20]. The health-equivalent for perspectives of survival of a person at a specific age while with the age-standard health-status -are those of a person with the increased number of chronic conditions only if simultaneously his age is lower. i) Let's theorize there is a pre-terminal state with a high probability of the death-date prediction (giving on average ≪5 years to death) -as a still alive person with a big number of chronic conditions next lives, on average, much shorter than a person (at the same age) with a small number, then there are much bigger risks for such a person to already be in such a state; with a bigger LEa the probability of death in different years is spreaded out with disproportionally smaller risks within very few years [2].
CORRECTIONS: a) The prevalence of 5+ (summary) conditions [20] seems to rise probably in a close to linear way from those forming a group at age 50-64 to those at age 80, but for 2-4 condition the rise considerably slows down (p.12). b) A minor assumption concerns R2 (p.12) -a supposed average number of conditions in the 10+ subgroup was taken; if a theoretical av. age of 67 was stronger a result of the falling illness rates, R3 (p.21) could be a bit higher, e.g. 0.94. c) It is simpler just to deduct 20% from the general equation and get new ADC quickly and then get the recalculated ISD and ISD-increase quickly too (/so not to make 'raw deductions' and a bit elongate calculations) (p.19+). d) Of course, there should be "OVER 3 conditions above the number in the comparative group", because without real Covid-19 deaths the normal number is a bit higher, as then concerns natural 2020-deaths (p.21). e) For an average age of 67 there should be 10 (instead of 9) conditions of CCW-like ones (p.21) -if with rounding to the nearest whole number; however its estimation is not necessary as matters little, in contrast to ISD. f) It could be more clear if the subgroup’s size was limited first and then the adjusted LEWIIfmS given -which could be additionally increased little, or rather not at all as with an expected Overrepresentation (p.21). g) There should be not "Solely...", but: "Even just the number of chronic conditions confirms the above result" (Discussion).
LICENSE: Reuse (of the article, 'Supplement', 'Remarks' or of 'Additional Notes') needs a permission (until 06-2025, unless the date is changed).
Notes
Files
Covid2023b.pdf
Files
(372.5 kB)
Name | Size | Download all |
---|---|---|
md5:5f13721ec22ccaac1f4df9f0fcc947e6
|
372.5 kB | Preview Download |