I don’t mean directly, but from lockdowns and social distancing.
I think it will result in a non-negligible reduction in deaths from most other communicable diseases.
6 million people die in car accidents each year in the US. Driving has been severely curtailed. I think hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of car related deaths will be prevented.
I also think violent crime will go down too to some extent.
This, of course, assumes that there will not be massive public uprisings.
Whoops, 6 millions car accidents each year, not 6 million deaths. Do’h
More like 33,000 deaths.
So not nearly the impact.
You raise an interesting question. From a UK perspective:
Maybe there are other subtle social changes as well. I still doubt it’s enough to outweigh Covid-19 deaths, but as I said, interesting question.
j
Even at the low end of the general prediction ranges (200k), coronavirus would come in as the third leading cause of death for a normal year. So it will, alone, boost the numbers by a fairly good amount even if a lot of the people it kills would have died from their other illnesses.
While car accidents will go down, I would expect suicides, murder-suicides of families, etc. to all go up by a significant amount due to Covid-19. When people are allowed to go outside again, we’re liable to start discovering a lot of doors that are still locked and need to be broken down.
Cabin fever ain’t nothing.
Lack of light, poor nutrition, insufficient exercise, etc. will contribute to reduced health for many. Constrained hospital resources will cause there to be insufficient investigation of health issues for many. We should expect more deaths through general poor health and poor medical care.
Likewise, insufficient money due to lack of income could cause more cases of thefts even though those homes have inhabitants. This may lead to more murders, one way or the other. Alternatively, those people in poverty may end up homeless and, subsequently, stay that way. That won’t kill them this year, but it will shorten their lives considerably and eventually factor into things.
It’s plausible that shelter-at-home could kill more people than letting people go out and get Covid-19, particularly if you intelligently divided things and told those under 50 with healthy lungs and no underlying conditions to keep living life and those over 50 or with other complications to shelter-at-home varying to complete quarantine, depending on their risk factor. Being shut-in isn’t healthy and for some it may be more unhealthy than an extra-strong flu.
You would need to analyze a lot of research across a wide variety of sources to try and predict which is better, overall. But, I guess, in this case we’ll find out through direct experimentation.
Apart from the first point, I have seen the opposite:
–people are sitting on their fat asses and making them fatter
–people are overeating because they are bored
–people are drinking more because they are bored.
What the heck are you talking about? Lung cancer kill 1.5M+ people a year and that is third place after heart disease/stroke and COPD. Unless you’re saying the low end prediction for the US is 200K? That doesn’t sound low end.
1.5m would blow away heart disease by more than double. I’m not sure what dataset you’re looking at. Maybe in the heyday of smoking you might have had that sort of result - but then the population would have been much smaller.
I was looking at world stats because I couldn’t believe that you meant 200k was the low end of American covid-19 death projections.
Where are you seeing 200k as the low end of the general predictions of American covid-19 fatalities?
200k-500k seems to be the sweet spot (for the US).
But even still, those aren’t projections. They are individual experts making a best guess. The 538 panel of experts was quite off last time.
nm
j
Not the US but Hong Kong recorded 113 flu deaths this year as opposed to a typical ~300 while only recording 4 Coronavirus deaths because of their universal masking and widespread social distancing so it might be one of the few regions to come out of this with net negative deaths.
Oh, and I love that one bit on the death graph. “Chart omits one expert whose best estimate was 1 million and high-end estimate was 10 million”. Guess who’s not invited back next week?
Just to review. Below are proposed possible effects of the pandemic on death rates outside of direct deaths.
[ul]
[li]Fewer vehicle collisions (lower)[/li][li]Reduced violent crimes (under discussion)[/li][li]More or less exercise[/li][li]More or less drinking[/li][li]Medical care put off (raise)[/li][li]Stress from financial difficulties (raise)[/li][li]Less air pollution, (lower)[/li][li]Habit of washing hands continues (lower)[/li][li]Increased vaccination rates (maybe)[/li][/ul]
I added a couple. Feel free to dismiss them.
There will be more deaths from domestic violence, with people being home from work and children being home from school. For many if not all of the victims, the children being able to go to school and the victim and/or aggressor going away to work is the only respite they had. My heart breaks at the thought of this 
One more effect not mentioned that will be very difficult to accurately capture: reduction in preventive testing for other conditions.
In the current environment, with non-essential medical procedures being cancelled, people are not getting mammograms and other types of routine tests, including routine checkups. I was scheduled for a routine diagnostic procedure on Mar. 19 that was cancelled. The chance that it would have found anything is small, but it’s also possible that six months from now I will be dealing with something that could have been prevented if it had been found early.
Those types of deaths are unlikely to show up in the statistics, but can still be ultimately attributed to the pandemic.
a) A projection and an expert making a best guess are synonymous (unless you’re catching the expert off-guard, on TV, and he decides to rattle off a number out of cavalier exuberance). I am quite certain that all of those numbers come from some form of math, based on that person’s knowledge, intellect, and capabilities.
b) I’m not sure which “last time” you’re referencing but, if you mean the 2016 election, then I would point out that they had Trump down for a 1 in 3 chance. Everyone else was giving him something more like 1 in 10 or 1 in 20. Of all professional predictions, they were the closest. More importantly, those are “odds”. If I tell you that your odds of being shot in the face, when playing Russian roulette, are only 1 in 6, that doesn’t mean that you should play. Personally, I was freaking out that Trump had a 1 in 3 chance. 1 in 3 is huge and it’s not surprising that he won, on the basis of what FiveThirtyEight projected.
This woiuld suggest that t hose three causes of death kill at least 4.5 million people in the USA every year. The USA doesn’t have 4.5 million people die in a year from every cause there is.
Trust me, nobody is drinking less.
Also, for many children living in impoverished or absentee parent households, the hot meal they get in school lunch is the only nutritious meal they get in the day. Not to mention the general lack of exercise, depression, lack of necessary medical treatment, et cetera. There are a lot of unseen harms resulting from the lockdown, as necessary as it is to limit overwhelming the health system right now.
Stranger
So, the one expert they excluded who guessed 1 million most likely and 10 million max, that had “math” involved you say?
This is the third week of the 538 weekly polling of experts, btw. That’s what I meant by “last time” they were off, at least in case number guesses.
Last one:
Experts Say The Coronavirus Outlook Has Worsened, But The Trajectory Is Still Unclear
Previous:
Infectious Disease Experts Don’t Know How Bad The Coronavirus Is Going To Get, Either