> the numbers are pretty much business as usual . . . going purely by deaths the situation is mostly normal
The article notes that, through July 25, there were 235,610 excess U.S. deaths. The link you gave shows that excess deaths started March 28th, for a period of ~119 days.
Wikipedia says that the U.S. had 291,557 combat deaths during WWII, which was over a ~1366 day period of U.S. combat involvement if we count the period from Pearl Harbor until the end of the war. The U.S. is about 2.46 more populous now, so adjusting for that, the ratio of the rate of excess death over the period studied vs. U.S. combat deaths in WWII is (235610 / (119 * 2.46)) / (291557 / 1366) = 3.77.
Since you're calling 3.77x the population-adjusted rate of WWII combat deaths "mostly normal", I would be curious to know what rate of death you would consider abnormal.
On a non-population-adjusted basis, which is arguably the correct measure if we want to think about waging a war that's the equivalent of WWII, the death rate over the period studied would've been equivalent to the U.S. combat deaths from waging 9.28 simultaneous WWIIs. Personally, I wouldn't consider simultaneously engaging in nine wars the size of WWII to be business as usual.
Is WW2 generally perceived in america as having caused many deaths among american military aged males? I'm sure we can point to D-day and other punctual events as being outstandingly bloody but does this extend to the whole conflict?
I'd be particularily interested in comparing the above ratio for Vietnam, or to German or Russian (combat & non-) WW2 deaths.
Having grown up in the US in the 1980s and 1990s, the American Revolution and WWII both loom large in the mythology of American exceptionalism, so I think the sacrifices of the soldiers weigh psychologically disproportionately.
I think most college-educated Americans are aware that the Soviets lost nearly endless waves of soldiers against the Nazis. I also think most Americans are largely indifferent to the numbers of German rank-and-file soldiers killed, as if sympathy for the enemy dead would somehow diminish admiration for the heroes who defeated the Nazis.
On a side note, I have a Scottish friend who still swears up and down that Americans weren't involved in D-Day. I tried pointing him at Wikipedia entries for Utah and Omaha beaches, but I get the impression he believes it's just American propaganda that the US had much involvement in WWII before the Nazis were on the retreat.
> I would be curious to know what rate of death you would consider abnormal.
Well, clearly this is an abnormal number of deaths. Pretty much every week is statistically Very Unlikely.
But it is 20% higher than the background rate. Quitting a job as a day labourer and going into roofing is something like a 400% death rate. People voluntarily subject themselves to some pretty outsized risks.
> Wikipedia says that the U.S. had 291,557 combat deaths during WWII...
That is about a decade worth of car accidents. So on the one hand, horrific. On other other hand, the raw number of deaths is not the biggest issue at play. It didn't stop Americans marching over to the other side of the world to fight people.
> Since you're calling 3.77x the population-adjusted rate of WWII combat deaths "mostly normal"
This is an example of how statistics can mislead. Why not select the worst 119 days of ww2 and compare it to 119 days of covid? After all, most of 1366 days of ww2 didn't involve actual fighting. Also, are we including definitive covid deaths or "covid related deaths". Because if we included "ww2 related deaths and not just combat deaths", then I suspect that ratio would plummet towards 0.
> I would be curious to know what rate of death you would consider abnormal.
I guess it depends, but spike in deaths every now and then is normal even if it looks abnormal. It may sound counterintuitive but that's just life.
Your statistical analysis is intentionally dishonest. You cherrypicked the time frame and example to fit your agenda. How about try another set of data - the US combat deaths on D-Day ( 2500 deaths ) and extrapolate that to 119 days and population adjust and enjoy. Funny how that makes covid look like a walk in the park huh? But if I did that, it would be just as intellectually dishonest as your example.
Also, almost all of the combat deaths in ww2 was young healthy men whereas covid seems to afflict predominantly older people - almost all of them 45 and over. So not quite apples to apples right?
And what happens if you repeat these calculations over different period?
There is a "harvesting" theory which claims that COVID causes some deaths to happen sooner. So it is a possiblity that there were many more deaths in April 2020, compared to Aprild 2019, but there will be way fewer in April 2021.
Somewhat similar "dry tinder" theory is sometime applied to Sweden: they had fewer excess deaths during the flu season for a last couple of years and got hit hard by COVID claiming lives spared by the flu.
Well Covid-19 causes all deaths happen sooner than they would without it, the important question is how much sooner, and early research shows its much sooner (like 10 years too early in the median case, which would mean the harvesting theory is wrong).
The article notes that, through July 25, there were 235,610 excess U.S. deaths. The link you gave shows that excess deaths started March 28th, for a period of ~119 days.
Wikipedia says that the U.S. had 291,557 combat deaths during WWII, which was over a ~1366 day period of U.S. combat involvement if we count the period from Pearl Harbor until the end of the war. The U.S. is about 2.46 more populous now, so adjusting for that, the ratio of the rate of excess death over the period studied vs. U.S. combat deaths in WWII is (235610 / (119 * 2.46)) / (291557 / 1366) = 3.77.
Since you're calling 3.77x the population-adjusted rate of WWII combat deaths "mostly normal", I would be curious to know what rate of death you would consider abnormal.
On a non-population-adjusted basis, which is arguably the correct measure if we want to think about waging a war that's the equivalent of WWII, the death rate over the period studied would've been equivalent to the U.S. combat deaths from waging 9.28 simultaneous WWIIs. Personally, I wouldn't consider simultaneously engaging in nine wars the size of WWII to be business as usual.