Man in his 20s dies with COVID-19 as ACT records 322 new cases

The reason deaths are reported is that it provides a “wake-up” call to those of us who mock the risk that Covid is.

Yes, Omicron is less “deadly”, but being more infectious, it’s impact has been more drastic. Over the last 12 mths, Australia has had more than 10,000 Covid deaths.

One question that might be relevant is knowing their vaccination status. Pretty much everyone got 2 vaccinations, but the take-up of the 1st and 2nd Booster hasn’t been so good and as the immunity wanes, the risk of infection increases.

Scaremongering? I wouldn’t call it that, but I would suggest that medical advice is kind of important.

Will Newby wrote: “Covid still sits around number 40 in terms of cause of death”

Source please?

I do not find support for your claim in 2022 data, where it ranks around 4th, give or take one (civil statistical data lags health-advised numbers so they differ).

Those 10,000 “Covid deaths” – for how many of them do you think Covid was the cause of death?

ABS Causes of death 2022

Kenbehrens, why do people need a wake up call when COVID is most likely not the cause of death? People are dying WITH COVID. Where people need a wake up call is their nonchalant approach to health. 60% of the population is obese and that is what is killing them. Need to bring in a sugar tax and increase the Medicare levy for those over a certain BMI. Look at countries in Africa and India which have far lower vaccine coverage but lower rates of obesity and you will see COVID is little more than a nuisance for them. Vaccine status barely matters, COVID is a fist world disease!

Will Newby, you find yourself unable to respond clearly because you are using 2020 reference data published 6 April 2022. It was 38th in 2022 so even from a couple of years ago, before we had much Covid, saying “there are 39 other [more important] factors” is an obvious falsehood, fudging data to your failed agenda.

I see it ranking 5th in January-April data 2022, just 8% off respiratory diseases in 4th. Source: ABS Provisional Mortality Statistics Jan-Apr 2022 published 29 July 2022.

Your attempted point is wholly wrong.

“Look at countries in Africa and India which have far lower vaccine coverage but lower rates of obesity and you will see COVID is little more than a nuisance for them “

Sam Oak, garbage.

Death rates from Covid-19:
South Africa: 2.5%
Bangladesh: 1.5%
India: 1.2%
Australia: 0.13%

Take it as an example of vaccine effectiveness, given we have higher coverage than Africa and India.

I allow that there may be case under-reporting which may reduce the proportions a bit, but not by factors of ten to twenty times. It would also be associated with death cause under-reporting.

Erratum
“38th in 2022 ” should read “38th in 2020” based on the ABS 6 April publication. It is, as stated, 5th in 2022 based on the ABS 29 July publication..

Phydux your death rates are flawed, you need to divide by the population of each country as at this point every single person has been exposed to COVID. So for India 527k have died out of a 1.4billion population which is a fatality rate of 0.03%…
But I can see why your want to represent the statistics the way you did in order to make the numbers look scarier than reality. Do you really think 1.2% of Indians died which implies only 44.3mil or 3% of the population has been exposed to the virus? LOL

S Oak, I already covered the issue of under-reporting in my 3:56 pm post, so it appears you have had trouble reading and understanding that. Has everyone who has had COVID in such countries been diagnosed with COVID, and deaths reported as from COVID? Has “every single person” had it? You simply have no evidence that COVID-19 is “a fist [sic] world disease” although you are more than happy to make some up, as usual.

It seems that when caught out by factual information on your unsupported sweeping claim you simply add another unsupported sweeping claim by which you hope to hide your problems under some magical carpet. The world does not work as you seem to wish it.

Surely not even Sam Oak believes the tosh he is sprouting?

Excess mortality rates in the last few years have been significantly higher in the countries and areas that Sam Oak thinks Covid is little more than a “nuisance”, than other areas across the globe.

Hilarious that Sam Oak accuses others of using manipulated statistics whilst simultaneously attempting to utilise data from areas where testing rates are very low and the ability of their health systems to adequately treat the amount of patients and accurately report true causes of death are also low.

Can’t die of Covid if you never get tested for it, hey Sam.

@phydeaux Don’t you think it would be relevant to know if the 20-something referenced in the article, died of Covid, or, as is much more likely, had some other major health problem?

Surely even you would be interested in the answer?

Or do you find the endless reels of Covid stats more interesting – how many in hospital, how many in ICU, how many with ventilation, how many infections, how many active infections, how many cumulative infections, daily case rolling means, PCR tests performed, test positivity rolling means, etc etc. It’s like a religious chant.

“Don’t you think it would be relevant to know if the 20-something referenced in the article, died of Covid, or, as is much more likely, had some other major health problem?”

CaptainSpiff, it would be much more helpful if you understood mortality statistics and their sensible purposes. I reiterate that your question is essentially meaningless at this point.

It may help to remember that by virtue of being alive, you will die. Therefore it makes more sense to talk about things which are reasonably known to change your life expectancy. If you have a reduced life expectancy from Disease A, then acquire Disease B and die, what killed you? What if the disease sequence were reversed? Having problem A does not make problem B irrelevant, and vice versa, so your “some other major health problem” is the thing that is meaningless.

From an epidemiological perspective, all co-morbidities are grist for the mill of risk assessment, so all known ones are recorded on the death certificate for later analysis. That is what is important. There are national and international standards on this and Australian reporting conforms with it. If we find that a particular illness is frequently engaged then that one is higher risk, a leading cause of death. Analysis does not blame-shift.

My goodness. Is there supposed to be a point hidden in all that verbiage?

I am confident, CaptainSpiff, that many here would have understood my point very well. Given that you suggest you did not, here is a short and simple version: death records are formal documents kept to required standards, significantly to facilitate research on health risks and responses. That is, to help to protect people like you.

I wonder what you think would happen if you knew a direct answer on underlying death causes compared with “WITH” morbidities? Will you then give an opinion that will cause epidemiologists in research institutes, ATAGI, AIHW, academia, to fall about in amazement at your acumen? Do you really think they are stupid, that you know more?

A clue may be found in the fact that I, who have no particular interest in your supposed question, know (and have for a while) the direct answer to it, while you and some others who repeatedly claim vital interest have never apparently discovered the publicly available information on a well known government web site. As usual, your (plural) research is abysmal.

Covid was the underlying cause of death in 89.8% of Covid cases to 30 April 2022. Another morbidity (e.g. cancer) was the underlying cause of death in the other 10.2% of total cases where Covid-19 was found.
So in nine of ten cases, Covid-19 was the underlying cause of death in someone who otherwise would have lived longer. Time to write to those aforementioned experts with your hot take on the data, CaptainSpiff. There is reason for the invention of rubbish bins.

The conclusion from the example you provided is that the vaccines don’t work if deaths are in proportion to the vaccine status of the population.

Just like if 20% of the population had blue eyes and 20% of COVID deaths were people with blue eyes you can conclude having blue eyes doesn’t protect nor make you more vulnerable to COVID. You don’t need to be an epidemiologist or doctor to figure that one out. However you seem to think people need some sort of medical degree to interpret basic statistics?

Think you just outsmarted yourself and now look like a goose lol.

Thank you for making a try, S Oak, but that is not correct, nor is your analogy any different.

The correct conclusion is … you are unable to draw a conclusion at all. You lack information about population cohorts for vaccination and for deaths.

Actual data since vaccination commenced, and in the last NSW data published (there is none routinely published nationally) shows that the unvaccinated are far more likely to suffer severe illness and death. With the population now dominantly being vaccinated, the larger count of deaths is among the vaccinated, especially given that older people, more likely to die, are also among the most vaccinated. However, those counts do not alter the proportional facts that unvaccinated people of any age are more likely to suffer severe or critical illness, or death, than vaccinated. Any reputable source will show you this. Proportions are basic statistics. Children start to learn them around years 6-7 so no medical degree required.

To show you using your own analogy, what if the prior probability of death in the given time frame were 10% for blue-eyed and 90% for others? Now, we have an excess of blue-eyed deaths, double the expectation from the population. If statistically significant then it would deserve research. In the vaccination case, we already know the answer.
This is conditional probability, more like year 12 or tertiary but still not requiring a medical degree.

I have invented the particular numbers used to illustrate the difference between counting deaths, proportional deaths, and rates based on conditional (Bayesian) probability. The facts regarding death rate differences stand as I have described; vaccination reduces likelihood of severe or critical illness, or death.

Asking simply for “vaccination status” merely demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the questions.

My conclusion drawn from your original example with lack of further information provided is correct. You are embarrassing yourself trying to add silly little details after the fact in attempt to make yourself look clever. Your answer to what does 1+1=? would be to say its complicated, you’d need a phD in mathematics to understand it lol. You’ve been exposed as just as clueless as the rest of the left wing mob. Look at you talking about “aerofoils” pretending you are some genius on all things, it’s embarrassingly hilarious!

“To show you using your own analogy, what if the prior probability of death in the given time frame were 10% for blue-eyed and 90% for others? Now, we have an excess of blue-eyed deaths, double the expectation from the population. ” With my example where 20% of the population is blue-eyed, that is not an excess of blue-eyed deaths. That would mean they are under-represented in the mortality statistics. LOL You can’t embarrass yourself more if you tried!

S Oak wrote:
“My conclusion drawn from your original example with lack of further information provided is correct.”

I see you are catching up with my very point that you lacked essential information for consideration of vaccination and death data, rendering the simplistic question meaningless. This would have been bleedingly obvious to you if you knew anything about the nature of vaccination/death questions or analysis of same.

Now, you are claiming that you would have been right *if only* the problem had been as simplistic as you hoped, if there were no conditional probabilities involved (as there are in anything to do with lifetime morbidity).
That is OK because by saying you lacked sufficient information (albeit unable to see that beforehand yourself) conversely you are agreeing that a simplistic “were they vaccinated or not”, is ill-informed, inadequate to the case, meaningless. Thank you for your agreement.

Do keep up the attempts at insults though. Otherwise your posts would be quite short, though no more to the point.

S Oak wrote:
“My conclusion drawn from your original example with lack of further information provided is correct.”

I see you are catching up with my very point that you lacked essential information for consideration of vaccination and death data, rendering the simplistic question meaningless. This would have been obvious to you in the first place had you known anything about the nature of vaccination/death questions or analysis of same.

Now, you are claiming that you would have been right *if only* the problem had been as simplistic as you hoped, if there were no conditional probabilities involved (as there are in anything to do with lifetime morbidity).
That is OK because by saying you lacked sufficient information (albeit unable to see that beforehand yourself) conversely you are agreeing that a simplistic “were they vaccinated or not”, is ill-informed, inadequate to the case, meaningless. Thank you for your agreement.

Do keep up the attempts at insults though. Otherwise your posts would be quite short, though no more to the point.

I would settle for just knowing their actual cause of death.

Can I ask you what purpose that would serve ? To gather and release all this information is time consuming and really none of yours or anyone’s business.