An Estimate of Excess COVID Deaths Resulting from Non-Vaccination

 

I’ve put together a calculation of the number of excess COVID deaths over the past month that have resulted from non-vaccination.  Obviously, this calculation is only an estimate and relies on certain assumptions.

The algebra on this is fairly easy, though I won’t bore you with the derivation (which would be difficult to display without special text features anyway).  If:

  • n = number of deaths from COVID
  • IRR = incident rate ratio for death from COVID (i.e. the ratio of the death rates among the unvaccinated and the vaccinated)
  • PV = the percentage of the population that is vaccinated

Then the number of deaths among the vaccinated (DV) is:  DV = n x PV / (PV + ((1-PV) x IRR)).

The number of deaths among the unvaccinated (DU) is:  DU = n – DV

The number of excess deaths among the unvaccinated (DE) is:  DE = DU (1 – 1/IRR)

The latest estimate that I’ve seen of the IRR is 11.3, from this CDC report.  This means that an unvaccinated person is 11.3 times more likely to die from Covid than a vaccinated person.  The CDC reports (here) that the national vaccination rate (PV) is 53.8% of the entire population, 64.9% of the population aged 18 or older, and 82.5% of the population aged 65 and over.  As I suspect that Covid deaths continue to be concentrated among older people, I used two PV figures for my estimate: 65% and 80%.  (Note that in these calculations, a higher PV figure results in a lower number for excess deaths among the unvaccinated, so these are conservative figures.)

Finally, I used Worldometer (here) as a source for Covid deaths, selecting the one-month period from August 12 to September 11.  I calculated that a total of 39,384 deaths were reported in this period.

Here are the results, which do differ depending on the vaccination rate (PV) that I assumed for the calculation.

Assuming 65% vaccination (PV=0.65):  Deaths among the vaccinated (DV) is 5,559; deaths among the unvaccinated (DU) is 33,825; excess deaths among the unvaccinated (DE) is 30,832.

Assuming 80% vaccination (PV=0.80): Deaths among the vaccinated (DV) is 10,296; deaths among the unvaccinated (DU) is 29,088; excess deaths among the unvaccinated (DE) is 26,513.

As a sensitivity analysis, I also ran the calculation for a somewhat lower death figure (38,000) and a somewhat lower vaccine effectiveness (IRR=10).  This yielded estimates of excess deaths among the unvaccinated of 24,429-28,843.  Obviously, these are estimates, so while I report the precise figures determined by my calculations (to the nearest whole number), I think that these figures should be interpreted as a reasonable range.

Based on these figures, I think that it’s reasonable to conclude that about 24,000 to 30,000 Americans died of COVID, during the month ending 9/11/2021, because they were not vaccinated.  That’s about 8-10 times the death toll from the actual 9/11.  Another way of thinking about it is that we’ve had a 9/11-worth of death every 3-4 days over the past month, due to individual decisions not to be vaccinated.

The vaccinations may have caused other problems, as there are some side effects, and there may be future side effects.

This death toll probably explains the President’s actions in mandating vaccination in a number of circumstances.  You may or may not agree with his decision as a policy matter, but I think that it is important to understand the death toll that he probably considered in making his decision.

For the record, I disagree with the President’s decision about vaccine mandates.  If people prefer to risk death from Covid rather than take a chance on vaccination, I would respect that decision.  I respect the decision of the 24,000-30,000 Americans who, by my estimate, died during the past month or so as a result of their decision not to be vaccinated.

If I were in charge, I would not require anyone to be vaccinated.  I would reopen everything including schools, put an end to all mask requirements everywhere, report the facts, and continue to offer free vaccination to any American who wants it.

Two other related points:

  • The Worldometer graphs for both cases and deaths suggest that we’re past the peak of the current wave, and things are going to get better over the next month or two.  No guarantees, but this seems to be the trend.
  • There is some evidence that the efficacy of the vaccines diminishes over time.  The CDC is now recommending a booster shot for those who received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, 8 months after their second shot, for people who are moderately to severely immunocompromised.  FDA approval of this recommendation is pending.  If this recommendation remains in effect, I will plan to get a booster shot myself, next January.

For those of you who are not vaccinated, I do urge you to do consider getting the shot, for the sake of your own health.  Well, with some caveats.  We don’t have a precise figure for risks and benefits, but my general sense is that you should probably get the shot if you’re over 40; that it’s a close call if you’re 25-40; and that you shouldn’t get the shot if you’re under 25.

However, each of you has to weigh the risks and benefits, and I will respect your decision.  I hope that this information proves helpful.

Published in Healthcare
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 189 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    Analyzing the hospitalization data is a whole nother thing, and those are not subject to the same kind of statistical analysis. Unless you can think of some comparison that I can’t.

    This entire argument with MiMac began with people pushing back on the hospitalization numbers.

    Do you think that those numbers do not contain false positives?

    Do you think it is unreasonable for people to ask questions about that data?

    Do you think people who are questioning if the hospitalization numbers are painting an accurate picture are being unreasonable?

    Power corrupts. Money corrupts. Government money is laced with power for extra corruption.

    Which doesn’t say anything about VAERS.

    But it may say something about hospital Covid numbers.

    It may not hurt to start with an assumption, that seems to be borne out in observation even if the exacts extents remain unknown, that covid cases and deaths are being overestimated while vaccine reactions are likely being underestimated.  Just because of how the different numbers are reported, and the incentives/disincentives in each case.

    • #181
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    Even here on Ricochet I’ve seen a whole bunch of wild-a$s guesses with no basis in anything other than that they believe the number should be lower.

    Much lower, and also much higher, and I’m not saying it was aliens, but IT WAS ALIENS!

    • #182
  3. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    as there are probably not a lot of ambiguous situations that wouldn’t result in big problems for the people who would try to fudge it.

    I wouldn’t even say it’s being fudged. I think the definition of a hospitalized case has reached consistency – positive tests at admission. It’s straight forward. I don’t think at this time those numbers are fudged.

    I do think that the public is not being made aware of what that includes, and that is press related. And likely CDC related.

    I am not going after the numbers because I think they are fudged by hospital reporting. I’m going after the numbers because the CDC (or someone) set a definition of COVID hospitalization that includes a lot of people we shouldn’t be concerned about (COVID-wise).

    *When I say “false positive” reporting, I mean someone who technically meets reporting criteria (has Covid) but is asymptomatic and in the hospital for an unrelated reason. They are not indicative of Covid risk.

    • #183
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    as there are probably not a lot of ambiguous situations that wouldn’t result in big problems for the people who would try to fudge it.

    I wouldn’t even say it’s being fudged. I think the definition of a hospitalized case has reached consistency – positive tests at admission. It’s straight forward. I don’t think at this time those numbers are fudged.

    I do think that the public is not being made aware of what that includes, and that is press related. And likely CDC related.

    I am not going after the numbers because I think they are fudged by hospital reporting. I’m going after the numbers because the CDC (or someone) set a definition of COVID hospitalization that includes a lot of people we shouldn’t be concerned about (COVID-wise).

    *When I say “false positive” reporting, I mean someone who technically meets reporting criteria (has Covid) but is asymptomatic and in the hospital for an unrelated reason. They are not indicative of Covid risk.

    I suppose that could be a problem. I hadn’t thought of that. 

    • #184
  5. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    as there are probably not a lot of ambiguous situations that wouldn’t result in big problems for the people who would try to fudge it.

    I wouldn’t even say it’s being fudged. I think the definition of a hospitalized case has reached consistency – positive tests at admission. It’s straight forward. I don’t think at this time those numbers are fudged.

    I do think that the public is not being made aware of what that includes, and that is press related. And likely CDC related.

    I am not going after the numbers because I think they are fudged by hospital reporting. I’m going after the numbers because the CDC (or someone) set a definition of COVID hospitalization that includes a lot of people we shouldn’t be concerned about (COVID-wise).

    *When I say “false positive” reporting, I mean someone who technically meets reporting criteria (has Covid) but is asymptomatic and in the hospital for an unrelated reason. They are not indicative of Covid risk.

    I suppose that could be a problem. I hadn’t thought of that.

    One thing, though, is that people going into a hospital for elective surgery have to have a covid test before they will be admitted, and they won’t be admitted if they have covid. (In my opinion there are problems with the testing they’re doing in those cases, but that’s a separate issue.)  Anyway, that sort of screening is going to cut down on the amount of the problem you’re talking about. 

    • #185
  6. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    Even here on Ricochet I’ve seen a whole bunch of wild-a$s guesses with no basis in anything other than that they believe the number should be lower.

    At some point, you need to let people have reasonable assumptions based on experience and human nature coupled with logic. We don’t have numbers because they aren’t being reported. I can’t say “check out this data”.

    I DID have data that tried, but I lost it in the pit and I failed to bookmark it.

    I only know that, logically, where asymptomatic positives are counted as Covid hospitalizations, then the actual number I care about is lower. That’s just how sets and subsets work.

    And I can say I know asymptomatic positives are counted because I heard a hospital administrator say so on a publicized round table call with my Governor.

    But I cannot point you to numbers that justify that. I will continue to push back on MiMac’s reporting of the numbers because he presents them uncritically.

    • #186
  7. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    as there are probably not a lot of ambiguous situations that wouldn’t result in big problems for the people who would try to fudge it.

    I wouldn’t even say it’s being fudged. I think the definition of a hospitalized case has reached consistency – positive tests at admission. It’s straight forward. I don’t think at this time those numbers are fudged.

    I do think that the public is not being made aware of what that includes, and that is press related. And likely CDC related.

    I am not going after the numbers because I think they are fudged by hospital reporting. I’m going after the numbers because the CDC (or someone) set a definition of COVID hospitalization that includes a lot of people we shouldn’t be concerned about (COVID-wise).

    *When I say “false positive” reporting, I mean someone who technically meets reporting criteria (has Covid) but is asymptomatic and in the hospital for an unrelated reason. They are not indicative of Covid risk.

    I suppose that could be a problem. I hadn’t thought of that.

    One thing, though, is that people going into a hospital for elective surgery have to have a covid test before they will be admitted, and they won’t be admitted if they have covid. (In my opinion there are problems with the testing they’re doing in those cases, but that’s a separate issue.) Anyway, that sort of screening is going to cut down on the amount of the problem you’re talking about.

    That may be hospital policy related. I don’t think Florida was doing this. Some hospitals set up separate wards to quarantine electives from the rest of the hospital (setting up Covid tents?)

    So that is interesting, but not valid with every hospital.

    • #187
  8. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    There was a theme that I saw people saying please stop making me defend Trump. Yall are going to make me defend Mitac.

     I’m extremely worried at some point you’re all gonna have me defending Gary.

    • #188
  9. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    kedavis (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    If we count someone with Covid as dying of Covid, then we need to be more accepting of the vaers data

    Is there anyone who doesn’t accept VAERS data?

    Yes. I think Jerry and MiMac have been very dismissive of it. Probably Caryn, too. Jerry is mostly about it not being good data. But the claims that this vaccine carries no risks at all are ignoring Vaers.

    Absolutely not in my case- the problem is anti-vaxxers attempt to claim ANY data in the VAERS data is proof positive of a vaccine complication- which it decidedly is not. Their claims are just fabrications- the VAER system exist as a surveillance tool to ensure no possible complications are missed. Much of the data entered are NOT vaccine related complications but just coincidental occurrences- when you vaccinated ~200 million people and follow them for months many healthcare events will occur (especially when you preferentially vaccinated the most high risk people in your population). As an example, there have been reports of Graves’ disease post vaccination- but it isn’t clear it is related to the vaccine since the rate of Graves is 0.5% and we have vaccinated 200 million people- so you expect a millions cases of Graves’ disease in the vaccinated population. It will take time & sophisticated analysis to sort out whether the vaccine has any influence on the rate of Graves’ disease.

    Yes, in a population of 200 million you’d expect a million cases of Grave’s Disease OVER THEIR LIFETIMES. But what number of people turning up with previously-missing Grave’s Disease shortly after getting vaccinating, would you call “unusual?” Would it have to be over a million, to get your attention?

    Yes- that means ~15,000 cases a YEAR- yet antivaxxers have a handful of cases therefore the vaccine is DEADLY……the vax maybe the cause but it is premature to be sure

    • #189
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.