It’s part of a much broader issue where the idea of attributing “one death” to “one cause” is inadequate. If COVID kills an otherwise completely healthy 25-year-old, that is quantitatively much more significant than contributing to the death of a 95-year-old with a host of other ailments. We don’t want to get bogged down in making ethical claims about whether one life is “worth more” than another, but in terms of public health policy the ideal (given adequate data) would be to estimate the number of years of life lost where the only changing variable is the absence/presence of COVID. And then “number of years of life lost” really also needs to be adjusted for the quality of life during those years.
COVID, even a mild case, can wreck your heart and lung function.
No doubt. However, any number of other diseases can also do that, and if one recovers and goes on with their life, even if compromised some, then dies some time later, does that disease notch another victim? That seems much different from someone who spend their last few days on a ventilator due to a COVID infection.
Yes, other diseases can do that. That’s why they say it was a CONTRIBUTING factor, or I should say at this point that it MIGHT have contributed, not that she died of Covid. The Queen obviously did not die directly from Covid but it may not have helped if she had it in February given her age. Had she not contracted it, she might have lived a couple more years but we’ll never know. Actually, some speculated she died of a broken heart since her husband died 17 months ago after 73 years of marriage. That too could be a contributing factor but “broken heart” is not a valid medical condition.
My mother’s death certificate lists 4 causes. The proximate cause of her death was acute covid. But that was aggravated by the profound weakness of her immune system, which in turn was the result of myasthenia gravis. And in turn, the covid triggered a resurgence of her myasthenia, which has been in check for decades, but complicated her situation in the final weeks. Additionally, she had kidney disease, which also aggravated the impact of covid, and night have contributed directly towards her death. (no one was talking blood samples at the time, as she chose hospice care. But it’s reasonably likely.)
So all four are listed (covid, immune deficiency, myasthenia, and kidney disease) and realistically, all four have some responsibility for her death.
I think the average number of causes is two, although i am quoting that from memory.
That being said, if the queen died of heart/clotting disease that was directly caused by covid, i think it’s appropriate to list hers as a covid death. Despite “old age” being a contributing factor, as well.
I agree. My mother’s cause of death was listed as ovarian cancer, and it’s true that this was the “first domino.” But after four years of remission, it blew up, and metastasized into intestinal tumors that prevented her being able to eat solid foods. She refused radical nutrition procedures (which might have back-fired anyway, because her skin was “friable,” and even a very minor procedure might never have healed.
Whatever her death certificate listed, she actually either starved to death, or died of dehydration. But she was pumped full of pain meds, anti-depressants, and antianxiety meds, and was so high just before death, she was very happy.
I talked to her the day before she died. Someone had to hold the phone for her, and her voice was a whisper, but she sounded quite content.
This seems reasonable. Given that her own mother lived to be 101, a longer life for Elizabeth II was certainly possible. She was notably active and fit for most of her life; did drink some alcohol but was a non-smoker.
If she’d never contracted COVID, she might have matched her mother’s record.
Maybe? The write up of a study I read last week suggests that parents’ age at death doesn’t make much of a difference. The people in the studies whose parents died very old were only 7% more likely than the average person to die very old themselves.
Interesting. Since that goes against the ‘common wisdom,’ presumably the study’s designers made sure to use unimpeachable methodology.
Yes. Without meaning to impugn @elfkin477, it’d be very interesting to read that study. Reversion to the mean is real, but so (probably) is a genetic predisposition to longevity.
Perhaps they have a cite to share?
It came up during a literature search for work so I’m probably not going to find the study url tonight because I’m not firing up that computer, but this article is about the same study.
Did I read that right that they didnt study across generations? Such as grandparents?
QE II had many long-lived forebears, not just her mother. Looking at her family tree on wikipedia, here are the ones who lived to 80 or older, referred to according to their number on the tree, and their ages: Elizabeth II - Wikipedia
3, age 101 - mother
5, age 85 - paternal grandmother
6, age 89 - maternal grandfather
9, age 80 - paternal great-grandmother
13, age 89 - maternal great-grandmother
15, age 85 - maternal great-grandmother
And not on the tree are a maternal great-grandmother who lived to 86 Henrietta Mildred Hodgson - Wikipedia and her paternal great-grandmother Queen Victoria who lived to 81. I would think that given advances in health and medicine, living to age 80 in the 1800s would be like living to age 90 today, and living to age 89 would be like living to age 100.
Elizabeth II did have a very long life, just like her mother. 96 is a very long life. She may not have lived precisely as long as her mother, but I don’t think anyone can argue that 96 isn’t a good run.
Are you saying Ira Howard was WRONG??? 