Although it might not be entirely insignificant, it seems a lot less significant than it would appear. Eyeballing it, there seems to be about 100k excess deaths in the 25-44 age group (usually, it’s about 300k total deaths for 104 weeks) out of a total of 950k excess deaths. That’s a 25% increase of excess deaths compared to the baseline, but nowhere the near 40 to over 60% peaks that an uncritical reading of OWID’s chart would suggest. Also, the 25-44 group is about 26% of the US population, yet has suffered only 10% of the deaths, whereas the 45+ groups (harder to eyeball just the 45-64 group) are 41% of the pop and have suffered from 90% of the deaths. And since covid mortality increases the older one gets, a person in their late 20s would likely have less chance of dying than a person in their early 40s.
This is perhaps clearer in terms of risk of death due to covid by age group (compared to 18-29 year olds):
Florin’s right that the 15-64 age group doesn’t pain a clean picture of the actual numbers since it combines very different excess death rates, but even the 25-44 group experienced a serious increase. Rather than Katja being “wrong,” they are very much right.
”For the next 2 years, you will have a 25% higher risk of death than usual” is not a high absolute risk of death, but that shift from baseline is not just “not entirely insignificant” either.
I think we mostly agree, although I still think using the OWID chart is wrong or at least very misleading.
While the 25% is okay in aggregate, there does seem to be a 60% peak in mortality in 2021 at week 35 for the 25-44 group. So, I was wrong about that. However, the 45-64 group has only a 37% peak in mortality in 2021 at week 36, and using the raw data, I calculated (just averaged and didn’t do any fancy weighting) that there was only a 18% increase in excess death overall.
But that’s not the end of the story.
2020-2021, 25-44: 757,645 (single year average) 2015-2019, 25-44: 542,284 (single year average) Difference: 215,361 (2x what eyeballing the chart suggests, but whatever), 28% increase in excess deaths
2020-2021, 45-64: 2,632,764 (single year average) 2015-2019, 45-64: 2,162,344 (single year average) Difference: 470,420, 18% increase in excess deaths
Each age group makes up about 26% of the US population, but the 45-64 group has more than double the risk of death, even though it has a lower increase (relative to pre-2020 years) in excess deaths. So, the focus on the relative (what the OWID chart is about) rather than the absolute increase in death is misleading.
The IFR data (mentioned in another comment) also seems to suggest this.
Although it might not be entirely insignificant, it seems a lot less significant than it would appear. Eyeballing it, there seems to be about 100k excess deaths in the 25-44 age group (usually, it’s about 300k total deaths for 104 weeks) out of a total of 950k excess deaths. That’s a 25% increase of excess deaths compared to the baseline, but nowhere the near 40 to over 60% peaks that an uncritical reading of OWID’s chart would suggest. Also, the 25-44 group is about 26% of the US population, yet has suffered only 10% of the deaths, whereas the 45+ groups (harder to eyeball just the 45-64 group) are 41% of the pop and have suffered from 90% of the deaths. And since covid mortality increases the older one gets, a person in their late 20s would likely have less chance of dying than a person in their early 40s.
This is perhaps clearer in terms of risk of death due to covid by age group (compared to 18-29 year olds):
30-39: 4x
40-49: 10x
50-64: 25x
65-74: 65x
75-84: 150x
85+: 370x
Florin’s right that the 15-64 age group doesn’t pain a clean picture of the actual numbers since it combines very different excess death rates, but even the 25-44 group experienced a serious increase. Rather than Katja being “wrong,” they are very much right.
”For the next 2 years, you will have a 25% higher risk of death than usual” is not a high absolute risk of death, but that shift from baseline is not just “not entirely insignificant” either.
I think we mostly agree, although I still think using the OWID chart is wrong or at least very misleading.
While the 25% is okay in aggregate, there does seem to be a 60% peak in mortality in 2021 at week 35 for the 25-44 group. So, I was wrong about that. However, the 45-64 group has only a 37% peak in mortality in 2021 at week 36, and using the raw data, I calculated (just averaged and didn’t do any fancy weighting) that there was only a 18% increase in excess death overall.
But that’s not the end of the story.
2020-2021, 25-44: 757,645 (single year average)
2015-2019, 25-44: 542,284 (single year average)
Difference: 215,361 (2x what eyeballing the chart suggests, but whatever), 28% increase in excess deaths
2020-2021, 45-64: 2,632,764 (single year average)
2015-2019, 45-64: 2,162,344 (single year average)
Difference: 470,420, 18% increase in excess deaths
Each age group makes up about 26% of the US population, but the 45-64 group has more than double the risk of death, even though it has a lower increase (relative to pre-2020 years) in excess deaths. So, the focus on the relative (what the OWID chart is about) rather than the absolute increase in death is misleading.
The IFR data (mentioned in another comment) also seems to suggest this.