Math is hard. We should leave it to the experts.
There are deaths. And then there are “excess deaths.“ The math is exponentially complicated. Here’s why you shouldn’t even attempt to calculate it yourself.
Excess deaths are a lot like a certain much-maligned presidential hopeful: They’re loud, you can’t ignore them if you try, and they’re not going away.
Former Blackrock analyst Ed Dowd’s been shouting about them for a couple years now. Dr. Pierre Kory and Mary Beth Pfeiffer boldly broached the untouchable topic in an op-ed that USA Today actually ran (and while they they didn’t invoke the word vaccine even a single time, they didn’t have to; “Life insurance data suggests something happened in the fall of 2021 in workplaces, especially among white-collar workers. These are people whose education, income level and access to health care would predict better outcomes,” speaks for itself). The global increase in all-cause mortality is one of most frequently recurring topics on Dr. John Campbell’s popular YouTube channel, one that boasts more than 3 million subscribers. And now, a vocal mob of UK Members of Parliament have openly accused their country’s Health Secretary of withholding data that could link the deadly you-know-what with surplus you-know-whats.
Fortunately, now that that mangy cat’s out of tattered old bag, here comes the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) to explain it all! (Spoiler: It’s just a silly math mix-up. But they’ve fixed it. Phew!)
The HighWire aired a helpful little video press release the ONS put out last month explaining the new math they’re using to explain (away) old deaths. It’s worth watching for its super creepy resemblance to the text-to-movie platform xtranromal* from back in the day, but I’ve taken the liberty of transcribing it for you here as well:
“During and since the coronavirus pandemic, we’ve generally seen more people die than we would expect. We call these deaths above average excess deaths. Different organizations have used different ways to calculate this, each with merit and particular uses, for example for planning health interventions and identifying emerging threats. In the spirit of continuous improvement, we’ve been working with independent experts and those across government and the devolved nations to develop a common UK-wide approach. Using our new approach, today’s release estimates 11,000 excess deaths in 2023. While this is lower than our previous estimate, our new method accounts for the growth and aging of the population. These are key factors in understanding how many deaths we’d expect to see and whether the number of deaths is below or above this estimate. Looking more closely at the last months of 2023, there were actually negative excess deaths… meaning fewer deaths than average being registered.”
As a polyglot (I speak near-perfect English, my dusty French minor routinely gets me around Paris without a guide, and not to brag but people often mistake me for a native when they hear me pontificating in Pig Latin. Most importantly, I’m exceptionally fluent in bullshit), I am happy to break this dialogue down for you:
“During and since the coronavirus pandemic, we’ve generally seen more people die than we would expect. Believe us, we tried not to see it. We literally ignored it for years! But those MPs are making quite a stink, so there, we said it. We saw it. And we can explain it! Watch!
We call these deaths above average excess deaths. Other people call them that, too. Because, well, that’s what they are. In fact, there’s not really another term for them. That’s why we are among the many people who refer to them thus. [*polishes monocle patronizingly*]
Different organizations have used different ways to calculate this, each with merit and particular uses, for example for planning health interventions and identifying emerging threats. So here we are introducing the idea that numbers are not actually static but fluid, and further that their computation depends on not only who is doing the accounting but by which method and for what purpose. And each has merit—don’t get us wrong!—but it’s complicated and math-y and we have Statistics in our title and you don’t, now do you?
In the spirit of continuous improvement, we’ve been working with independent experts and those across government and the devolved nations to develop a common UK-wide approach. We told Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland they’d better use the very same, very meritorious new math as we do or else. In the spirit of continuous improvement, of course.
Using our new approach, today’s release estimates 11,000 excess deaths in 2023. It was like four times that yesterday! You can’t imagine how many different algorhythms our programmers had to try before we got that number. Literally, we’ve been working on this for weeks. Keep calm and carry on!
While this is lower than our previous estimate, our new method accounts for the growth and aging of the population. Sure, it’s our job—essentially, our reason for existing—to estimate how many people will die each year and we’ve done it forever. And fine, probably the single greatest contributing factor to death rates, historically speaking, is age. But—cottonheaded ninnymuggins alert—we forgot to account for the fact that people are continually getting older and therefore becoming more likely to die with each sweep of the second hand. We feel stupid enough already; please don’t rub it in.
These are key factors in understanding how many deaths we’d expect to see and whether the number of deaths is below or above this estimate. You heard that right; above or below. You never really know which side the excess death toll is going to fall on—even in a deadly pandemic! It’s anyone’s guess, really.
Looking more closely at the last months of 2023, there were actually negative excess deaths… meaning fewer deaths than average being registered. You’re shocked, right? I mean, so were we. We were expecting a lot MORE deaths than usual, on account of the deadly pandemic and all. Did you guys start exercising and stop eating crumpets all day and lay off the smokes or something LOL? Anyway, good job UK!“
Call it fudging the numbers, cooking the books, Enron Accounting, or full fledged fraud; a festering pile of skunk carcasses by any other name stinks just the same.
*xtranormal, for those not in the know, was a site that enabled user-generated and created animation. You got to pick and dress your avatars (from a modest, mostly awful field of choices) and then you could add “gestures” that sort of lined up with the audio—which was choppy and mechanical and you know what? It’s really hard to explain so here’s one I made a million years ago called How to Piss off Your Wife. You’re welcome. (It’s admittedly awful but doesn’t it remind you of the ONS clip?)
I love transmath. Four is identifying as three when calculating excess deaths. Humpty Dumpty has moved from grammar to arithmetic.
Jenna, you're far more than a polyglot altho' your skill w languages is impressive. After going thru this post I'd call you a polymath for within is evidenced multiple skills within a short blog and I'm sure your hairdresser could add to these. Ability to diagnose & interpret serious, complicated news into language a child could understand. Ability to embrace humor under severe conditions. Superb understanding of math equations. Finding great pics like the one w Einstein. And so much more that you are mind-boggling. And wonderfully funny.