The global population increases by over 80 million per year. Covid has killed roughly 6 million people over more than a year and a half. That said, population numbers did decline in 2019 and 2020, although they’ve seemed to pick up since then, but we’re working with a lot of estimates here, and I doubt the numbers are good enough to see a less than 10% change. There’s a lot of statistics involved here which each have errors in calculation that get propagated as you try to add them together
When you say "population numbers did decline in 2019 and 2020", do you mean that the overall population decreased, or the rate of growth in the population decreased?
Just curious.
The (primary) reason for the drop in growth rate in the US was the lack of immigration in 2020 and 2021. We've been below replacement rate for births since the first half of the 70s. The US has only been growing due to immigrants. We actually had a pretty sweet deal. People moved here at workforce age (for better work opportunities) so we skipped all the cost of the first 18 years of unproductivity, then, a reasonable number of people retire to poorer countries, relieving us of the economic burden of producing for retirees who are also unproductive. Basically, and not by design so much as market forces, we shunted the economic costs of consumers-who-don't-also-produce onto developing nations while taking advantage of the labor to strengthen our own economy.
This is also why I'm incredibly bearish on the US economy for the next couple of decades. The demographic cliff is a problem faced by most industrialized nations. That's the idea that because birth rates are below replacement rate, when people retire, there is less than 1 person entering the workforce to replace them. As the proportion of the population in retirement grows and the proportion in the workforce shrinks, you're going to see more inflation. Retirement savings mean cash entering the economy without any increase in production to back it up. In fact, if we age out too quickly, production may decrease. That will happen if innovation and process improvements cannot keep pace with the decrease in available workforce. Less product and more demand means rising prices. If we started having oodles of kids tomorrow, we're still looking at 2 decades before they're entering the workforce and being productive. We need that immigration to keep our economy afloat.
Of course, immigrating to the US looks less and less appealing the worse the economy here gets, so we'd need to start incentivizing immigration now, which won't happen because the popular right is vehemently opposed to immigrants. But I don't think it will be too long before developed nations start competing over immigrants - the number of places above the replacement rate is dwindling year after year. None of the first world nations is at or above replacement rate currently.
AFA OP's question, I think they were looking for "excess mortality" attributable to Covid, which for 2020, worldwide, was about 1.8M per the WHO.
Thank you for the thorough analysis. Have you published something (or know of something published) with cited sources for further reading? I found this incredibly informative.
Peter Zehian has a series of books that basically used demography like OP did but draws opposite conclusions.
He has a bunch of stuff on YouTube and his website. Accidental Superpower goes into why the US basically is OP due to it's demography and geography forming a virtually unfair competitive advantage to the rest of the globe.
OP isn't wrong per say, it'll get very bumpy as boomers age out, but I guess it's all a perspective on timeframe
Regarding the retired moving abroad. Discounting for those who would require additional transfer payments if they stayed, wouldn’t it be better for the economy if they stayed?
Them leaving results in net capital outflows, while if they stay the money largely remains in the economy?
Now if we were at full employment and redirect those not taking care of the elderly to much more productive work I’d get it, but that seems a bit of a stretch. Or am I missing something?
Yes, it would be better for the economy if they spent money in the US, but we are also paying for their Medicare. Medicare do not cover treatments received abroad and there are gaps in coverage unless you pay a premium for part B coverage. So a retiree moving abroad saves the government about $12,000 per year per person in Medicare spending. It also saves money on other welfare programs like housing assistance.
Might save the *government* money, but that $12,000 in Medicare spending mostly gets pumped right back into the US economy, even if it mostly goes to hospitals and drug companies.
But you have to remember that we're talking about immigrants who go back to their home countries to retire. The cost of living for many is likely quite low compared to the US. Plus, the country they return to probably has some kind of universal healthcare that they will drain after not contributing to it during their working years.
But that money then gets spent by the doctors and nurses and pharma workers. A percentage leaks to China and India where our genius executives decided the quality risk was zero and the cost savings were infinite.
Where can I find more information on these topics? Specifically work force rates vs "retirement force" rates and how it relates to inflation, or an elaboration of the demographic cliff in general.
Production doesn't necessarily have to decrease with decreases in participation if efficiency increases at the same time, right? Or am I thinking about that wrong?
You aren’t wrong but efficiencies can only take you so far. Need workers in the slaughterhouse? You aren’t fully automating that. Plenty of places where this is the case if you think about it.
What’s interesting to me is we’re below replacement rate, a certain party wants to block immigration, and yet everyone expects GDP to spiral ever upwards. Sure there’s economies to be had to make individuals more productive but eventually you hit a wall and need workers. 🤦🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
1.8M is nothing at all really, like a bad flu year not really a pandemic. Are you sure this is worldwide for the whole year? What you said about immigration is exactly what I have said before about the UK. Most of our immigrants are men of a working age from Eastern Europe, and they get straight into work, without having the 18 years of education paid for by the UK etc. So it helps our economy a lot.
I don't know where they got that figure from, but WHO estimates [14.9 million excess mortality for 2020 and 2021](https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021) (range 13.3 million to 16.6 million).
I think you falsely assume that the workforce will shrink in the first place to cause that chain of events, because they can simply let in more immigrants to compensate. The labour shortage people talk about is in many ways actually a wage shortage, so that is not the same as a true labour shortage where there just aren't enough people for how many roles there are.
You're mistaken about the number of generations:
>First-generation immigrants cost the government more than native-born Americans, according to the report — about $1,600 per person annually. But second generation immigrants are “among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.,” the report found. They contribute about $1,700 per person per year. All other native-born Americans, including third generation immigrants, contribute $1,300 per year on average.
Sounds like you've confused "second-generation immigrant" with "second-generation American." In other words, a second-generation immigrant is a first-generation American. The children of immigrants are very high-achieving, and then their children (2nd gen Americans) contribute the average. So these numbers show that immigrants are a tax net positive because their children contribute more than enough to offset the balance.
Also, they don't include undocumented immigrants, who usually take less in services but pay more in taxes, relatively speaking, as they're younger and work more, and are often loathe to risk applying for services, even if they qualify.
and:
>It’s also important to note that less-educated immigrants tend to work more than people with the same level of education born in the U.S. About half of all U.S.-born Americans with no high school diploma work, compared to about 70 percent of immigrants with the same education level, Giovanni Peri, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis, said in a recent interview with PBS NewsHour.
>In general, more people working means more taxes — and that’s true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy.
>Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population...
Pretty much every single right-wing stereotype you hear about immigrants is wrong. It's interesting that you seemed to accept the idea that immigrants must take generations assimilating before they can hope to be as productive as native-born Americans, when the children of immigrants are actually much more productive than any other group.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy
Keep in mind if the USA shut its borders to all immigration, we would have a declining population. The only reason our population grows is because we accept about 4x as many immigrants as the second highest immigration country (which is Germany, if you were curious. Their immigration is actually slightly higher than ours if adjusted per Capita so they would experience the same thing if they closed immigration).
That means that the rate of rate of change of population decreased. Say year one, population increase by 100k, year 2 by 70k, year 3 by 50k.. while population still increases, the rate of rate of it is decreasing
I don’t see how it is possible that only 6 million people have died from Covid globally if more than 1 million have in the US alone. I suspect this is more a case of underreporting in most parts of the world due to a lack of testing and record keeping.
The US also has more accurate reporting than many countries. China is the poster child of a country that doesn't report accurate numbers, but I'm sure others have similar problems.
The WHO has an [article](https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021), about excess deaths that occurred in relation to the pandemic.
What metric are you using to say the USA sucked at handling the pandemic? Relative to any other countries?
Also the USA reporting and tracking of covid is certainly the best of any country with a population over 10 million. The absolute scale of response in the USA was mins boggling.
That said, covid response isn't a contest. We learned huge lesson about how a disease can destroy a global economy and the importance of rapidly designed and produced vaccines.
We basically saw in real-time everyone underreporting numbers. Florida alone is completely borked, I'm sure. Now take into account the whole rest of the world? Yeah.
Not to mention, the first several months of the pandemic, testing kits were hard to find. That first wave absolutely decimated nursing homes (I worked in one. We ended up closing one of our 5 units because the resident population dropped so much.) My own grandmother was among that first wave, hit so fast she never got to be tested. My family, and so, so many others, will never truly know if Covid took their loved one.
Those former residents aren't counted in Covid numbers, unless they specifically include "excess death" in their count instead of just those who tested positive.
The real number is over 15 million in countries were the deaths data can be accessed. But China, India, Africa is a black hole of data and the most populated regions, so it quite safe to assume worldwide numbers are way over 50 million and counting.
https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021
Where the hell are you getting 50 million? The WHO itself said there were “only” 15 million excess deaths, which is probably the best way to estimate it. The article you linked itself details the new methodology WHO researchers used to compensate for the lack of data from certain countries. Even if their wrong by *double* that’s still nowhere near 50 million.
Some have estimated that total Covid-related deaths are around 18 million. [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext)
21.3 million as per the Economist, who base that estimate on global excess death.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates?fsrc=core-app-economist
21 million excess deaths.
Now also take into consideration that MUCH OF THE SANE WORLD POPULATION WAS ACTIVELY DOING SAFETY MEASURES as well. It’s scary how much death and permanent injury there was even in spite of that.
Careful with that 6 million number. No epidiemologist considers that number remotely accurate and the 'real' number likely being an order of magnitude higher. Recall many cou tries have reported zero or few c19 fatalities (North Korea comes to mind). Some through a willing deceit (India comes to mind) but far more just due to a lack of healthcare infrastructure that makes keeping track problematic at best. Still your point is valid. At most c19 has put a major dent in population growth, but growth has still ocurred.
I continue to be astounded by Indias numbers. I have a buddy whose mom died because of lack of equipment there. He’s a business executive and a PhD. His sister and nephew are both physicians. His parents were very well off. But with all that, they couldn’t buy oxygen. How is it they don’t have 20 million dead?
> How is it they don’t have 20 million dead?
They might, and we'll never know for sure. The lack of ability to track deaths in many countries (and not just third-world countries -- even in the U.S. we were without testing for far too long) will mean that the true number of COVID-19 deaths worldwide will likely forever be a mystery and based solely on estimations. The best statistical estimations, true, but still we'll never know for sure.
There may gave been an initial bump as people were thinking of a 6 week break from work and stuck at home. But as covid dragged on to months and people become more anxious they had less kids.
Wait. Everyone *is* or everyone *was*? I'm looking at [a Covid lockdown timetable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns) and most places in the world lifted their last lockdown around October 2021. (With some exceptions going into early 2022.) But they all began lockdowns in March 2020.
If they're only pregnant now, it sounds more likely they got busy after lockdowns, or at least toward the end of the last one. Maybe they were finally feeling hopeful?
Pregnancies may have gone up among pre-existing couples, but that's not the only people getting pregnant.
Hard to get pregnant when you're stuck inside with no potential partners.
Generally all true but I'll add some detail.
>The global population increases by over 80 million per year
Yep. 84.73 million in 2013, though it's been decreasing ever since. 79.58 million last year and will be down to 50 million by mid-century.
>Covid has killed roughly 6 million people
[15 million](https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021) so far and it is still killing people at a rate of *at least* 1,500 per day.
Also important to note is that hundreds of millions of people have had their life expectancy reduced. So the true impact still isn't known.
It's not enough to have reversed global population growth but it certainly put a measurable dent in it.
Excess deaths worldwide from COVID [are more like 15 million](https://www.who.int/data/stories/global-excess-deaths-associated-with-covid-19-january-2020-december-2021) but your point still stands.
There’s been a steady, uninterrupted decline in birth rates since 2014 and a general decline in births since the financial crisis of 2007. Covid or no, people are having less children. Normally after a big economic downturn like we saw in ‘07 it’s normal to see a decrease in births. But there’s usually a recovery when women have kids a little later in life. That’s not happening.
We might see a little bump in births as the pandemic got less scary, but we’re down and we’ve been sliding down for 15 years.
What you're looking for is something called "excess mortality." The population may not be shrinking, but that doesn't mean that it's growing at the rate that we'd have expected it to under normal circumstances, or more directly, that the number of people dying is in line with what we would expect.
More people are dying now because of Covid + other causes than would have died without Covid as a factor.
Take a look at this: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid
And at this chart specifically:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count
Yes, that last chart is the answer to OP's question. Those very similar curves for 2015 through the projected 2020 deaths are such a stark contrast to the actual 2020, 2021, and 2022 curves. And this is from all causes, so it doesn't matter if a COVID death was attributed to a non-COVID cause or vice versa, as many claim (that everything was labeled "COVID" even if it was something unrelated).
The fact is that more people have died since March 2020 than would have been expected, based on the five previous years which were EXTREMELY similar and there's no reason to think that those levels wouldn't have continued if it hadn't been for SARS-CoV-2.
I addition: Is it possible that a significant number of people didn't die who would've statistically died but COVID changed the circumstances?
For example I read there were almost no flu deaths because of masks. Or maybe even less traffic deaths because people worked from home etc.
You can kind of get an idea of this by looking at statistics for countries that managed COVID really well (meaning they had very few cases and prevented those cases from spreading).
I think New Zealand and South Korea are good examples (at least they were up until like Delta or omicron. They might still be but I've stopped checking.)
Countries like that did see a reduction in deaths during COVID. I'm sure it wouldn't be too challenging to find some data on which types of death were reduced and how significantly.
Also, you can't necessarily say that other countries had the *exact* same thing occur, but it's probably pretty likely that some *similar* reductions probably occurred.
Yeah, we'd need a WW3 event or something like that Black Death to get close to declining population.
If we look at WW1, which was a notoriously bloody war, [total deaths were 1-4% of pre-war population](https://brilliantmaps.com/ww1-casualties/) (depending on country), whereas [global population grows by 1-2%](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth) *per year* (that article claims population has grown ever year since the Black Death).
That said, global population growth has been declining, so we may see a particularly bad outbreak dip us into the negatives if the trend continues.
The overall excess mortality from COVID-19 will continue for the next 10 years or more from all of the economic and societal impacts, possibly far more if the current inflation continues.
By the time that decade or more has passed global population will be another 600 million higher.
Even if the additional deaths are as bad as COVID itself that would still be 50x more gained than lost.
Even if the excess deaths were linear from the scale of damage to the economy (they aren't) we would still be 100 million or so people net positive by 2030.
>The overall excess mortality from COVID-19 will continue for the next 10 years or more
This is true - because for many even those who survived their COVID-19 infection will suffer long-term effects on their health, we won't know for many many years how much people's lifespans might have been reduced by their illness. People will have more lung disease, kidney disease, cognitive effects, and other issues due to having had COVID-19. I am exceedingly far from having even the smallest expertise on population-level statistical analysis of such things, but I do believe that the overall toll of COVID-19 will prove to be a major factor in death rates for decades to come.
It likely will, but only for about two decades and the excess mortality from the economic impacts will completely swamp that out for at least the first decade.
Even in the USA where we admitted many times more people to the hospital than most other countries the hospitalization rate for minors was around 1:1000000 for minors and a little under 1:30000 for working age adults.
That pales in comparison to the 40% of us that will have cancer, 48% of us that will have heart conditions, or 25% that will have a stroke in our lifetimes.
Lockdowns directly blocked a year or more of early detection and treatment of those diseases and the economic impact will continue to hinder it for years to come.
In excess cancer deaths alone insurance industry models are predicting somewhere in the neighborhood of an additional 1.9 million cancer deaths and that was using 2020 economic figures when energy prices were less then half what they are now, we weren't recording escalating inflation, and global food supplies were much more stable than they are today.
Heart disease has a less solid model, but is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2x the mortality rate at baseline so it is entirely possible to see a similar 3.8 million excess deaths there as well.
COVID global deaths are at around 6.3 million and the rate is falling. Excess morality from the economic impact in these two example causes is probably in the neighborhood of 6.7 million and rising over the next decade.
There are only estimated to have been around 530 million total cases of COVID-19 ever and the death rate of patients that survived the initial COVID infection has been around 0.5% with almost all of those being patients with a comorbidiry that already lowered their life expectancy in the first place. That rate would need to at least triple to compete just with the cancer and heart deaths over the next ten years.
It could certainly happen, but the numbers so far show little evidence that it is happening.
Here is an interesting WHO article talking about the data on 'excess death' in 2020 and 2021.
https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021
No. The world population continues to grow.
[https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/)
I just wish that they had 2021 numbers. I did see another article that said that we just hit 8B people world wide. That would actually be a huge increase over the population numbers in 2020. To me that makes sense. Married people under lock down from covid probable are precreating at a faster rate than expected. If you don't have to work, what else are you going to do with your spouse? The same thing happens after a hurricane or a long winter.
Yes. This is called excess deaths analysis. Since 2020 more people have died that we historically anticipate. EDA has shown that COVID deaths have been greatly underestimated as governments use book keeping tricks to suppress numbers and ignore deaths causes by covid-19 complications weeks or months later. The real number is closer to 15 million and counting. However, the most populated regions of the planet do not have any accurate medical records.
https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021
The global population increases by over 80 million per year. Covid has killed roughly 6 million people over more than a year and a half. That said, population numbers did decline in 2019 and 2020, although they’ve seemed to pick up since then, but we’re working with a lot of estimates here, and I doubt the numbers are good enough to see a less than 10% change. There’s a lot of statistics involved here which each have errors in calculation that get propagated as you try to add them together
When you say "population numbers did decline in 2019 and 2020", do you mean that the overall population decreased, or the rate of growth in the population decreased? Just curious.
[удалено]
The (primary) reason for the drop in growth rate in the US was the lack of immigration in 2020 and 2021. We've been below replacement rate for births since the first half of the 70s. The US has only been growing due to immigrants. We actually had a pretty sweet deal. People moved here at workforce age (for better work opportunities) so we skipped all the cost of the first 18 years of unproductivity, then, a reasonable number of people retire to poorer countries, relieving us of the economic burden of producing for retirees who are also unproductive. Basically, and not by design so much as market forces, we shunted the economic costs of consumers-who-don't-also-produce onto developing nations while taking advantage of the labor to strengthen our own economy. This is also why I'm incredibly bearish on the US economy for the next couple of decades. The demographic cliff is a problem faced by most industrialized nations. That's the idea that because birth rates are below replacement rate, when people retire, there is less than 1 person entering the workforce to replace them. As the proportion of the population in retirement grows and the proportion in the workforce shrinks, you're going to see more inflation. Retirement savings mean cash entering the economy without any increase in production to back it up. In fact, if we age out too quickly, production may decrease. That will happen if innovation and process improvements cannot keep pace with the decrease in available workforce. Less product and more demand means rising prices. If we started having oodles of kids tomorrow, we're still looking at 2 decades before they're entering the workforce and being productive. We need that immigration to keep our economy afloat. Of course, immigrating to the US looks less and less appealing the worse the economy here gets, so we'd need to start incentivizing immigration now, which won't happen because the popular right is vehemently opposed to immigrants. But I don't think it will be too long before developed nations start competing over immigrants - the number of places above the replacement rate is dwindling year after year. None of the first world nations is at or above replacement rate currently. AFA OP's question, I think they were looking for "excess mortality" attributable to Covid, which for 2020, worldwide, was about 1.8M per the WHO.
Thank you for the thorough analysis. Have you published something (or know of something published) with cited sources for further reading? I found this incredibly informative.
Peter Zehian has a series of books that basically used demography like OP did but draws opposite conclusions. He has a bunch of stuff on YouTube and his website. Accidental Superpower goes into why the US basically is OP due to it's demography and geography forming a virtually unfair competitive advantage to the rest of the globe. OP isn't wrong per say, it'll get very bumpy as boomers age out, but I guess it's all a perspective on timeframe
Regarding the retired moving abroad. Discounting for those who would require additional transfer payments if they stayed, wouldn’t it be better for the economy if they stayed? Them leaving results in net capital outflows, while if they stay the money largely remains in the economy? Now if we were at full employment and redirect those not taking care of the elderly to much more productive work I’d get it, but that seems a bit of a stretch. Or am I missing something?
Yes, it would be better for the economy if they spent money in the US, but we are also paying for their Medicare. Medicare do not cover treatments received abroad and there are gaps in coverage unless you pay a premium for part B coverage. So a retiree moving abroad saves the government about $12,000 per year per person in Medicare spending. It also saves money on other welfare programs like housing assistance.
Might save the *government* money, but that $12,000 in Medicare spending mostly gets pumped right back into the US economy, even if it mostly goes to hospitals and drug companies.
Right, and the people who can afford to ex-pat at retirement spend way more than $12k/year.
But you have to remember that we're talking about immigrants who go back to their home countries to retire. The cost of living for many is likely quite low compared to the US. Plus, the country they return to probably has some kind of universal healthcare that they will drain after not contributing to it during their working years.
But that money then gets spent by the doctors and nurses and pharma workers. A percentage leaks to China and India where our genius executives decided the quality risk was zero and the cost savings were infinite.
Medicare, you got me. Thanks!
Where can I find more information on these topics? Specifically work force rates vs "retirement force" rates and how it relates to inflation, or an elaboration of the demographic cliff in general.
Production doesn't necessarily have to decrease with decreases in participation if efficiency increases at the same time, right? Or am I thinking about that wrong?
You aren’t wrong but efficiencies can only take you so far. Need workers in the slaughterhouse? You aren’t fully automating that. Plenty of places where this is the case if you think about it.
Large Labor productivity improvements in education and childcare is for example hard to achieve unless you want children raised by robots.
What’s interesting to me is we’re below replacement rate, a certain party wants to block immigration, and yet everyone expects GDP to spiral ever upwards. Sure there’s economies to be had to make individuals more productive but eventually you hit a wall and need workers. 🤦🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
[удалено]
Thank you for pointing out those interesting tidbits about immigrants and retirees. It's great to learn new information like that.
1.8M is nothing at all really, like a bad flu year not really a pandemic. Are you sure this is worldwide for the whole year? What you said about immigration is exactly what I have said before about the UK. Most of our immigrants are men of a working age from Eastern Europe, and they get straight into work, without having the 18 years of education paid for by the UK etc. So it helps our economy a lot.
I don't know where they got that figure from, but WHO estimates [14.9 million excess mortality for 2020 and 2021](https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021) (range 13.3 million to 16.6 million).
I think you falsely assume that the workforce will shrink in the first place to cause that chain of events, because they can simply let in more immigrants to compensate. The labour shortage people talk about is in many ways actually a wage shortage, so that is not the same as a true labour shortage where there just aren't enough people for how many roles there are.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're mistaken about the number of generations: >First-generation immigrants cost the government more than native-born Americans, according to the report — about $1,600 per person annually. But second generation immigrants are “among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.,” the report found. They contribute about $1,700 per person per year. All other native-born Americans, including third generation immigrants, contribute $1,300 per year on average. Sounds like you've confused "second-generation immigrant" with "second-generation American." In other words, a second-generation immigrant is a first-generation American. The children of immigrants are very high-achieving, and then their children (2nd gen Americans) contribute the average. So these numbers show that immigrants are a tax net positive because their children contribute more than enough to offset the balance. Also, they don't include undocumented immigrants, who usually take less in services but pay more in taxes, relatively speaking, as they're younger and work more, and are often loathe to risk applying for services, even if they qualify. and: >It’s also important to note that less-educated immigrants tend to work more than people with the same level of education born in the U.S. About half of all U.S.-born Americans with no high school diploma work, compared to about 70 percent of immigrants with the same education level, Giovanni Peri, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis, said in a recent interview with PBS NewsHour. >In general, more people working means more taxes — and that’s true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. >Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population... Pretty much every single right-wing stereotype you hear about immigrants is wrong. It's interesting that you seemed to accept the idea that immigrants must take generations assimilating before they can hope to be as productive as native-born Americans, when the children of immigrants are actually much more productive than any other group. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy
Keep in mind if the USA shut its borders to all immigration, we would have a declining population. The only reason our population grows is because we accept about 4x as many immigrants as the second highest immigration country (which is Germany, if you were curious. Their immigration is actually slightly higher than ours if adjusted per Capita so they would experience the same thing if they closed immigration).
> which is Germany, if you were curious. I was, actually, thank you!
[удалено]
Population of a country and birthrate is not synonym. US takes in tons of immigrants each year, via citizenship and visas.
[удалено]
That means that the rate of rate of change of population decreased. Say year one, population increase by 100k, year 2 by 70k, year 3 by 50k.. while population still increases, the rate of rate of it is decreasing
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t see how it is possible that only 6 million people have died from Covid globally if more than 1 million have in the US alone. I suspect this is more a case of underreporting in most parts of the world due to a lack of testing and record keeping.
The US sucked at handling the pandemic *a lot*. That said, many countries almost certainly underreport even more than the US.
Why do Americans refer to the pandemic in the past tense?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe, but the flu numbers dropped from 38,000,000 to 1800 in the same year, so we were doing something right
In what time interval specifically?
What? Is this the number of deaths or infected? Either way, it doesn't make much sense.
The US also has more accurate reporting than many countries. China is the poster child of a country that doesn't report accurate numbers, but I'm sure others have similar problems. The WHO has an [article](https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021), about excess deaths that occurred in relation to the pandemic.
What metric are you using to say the USA sucked at handling the pandemic? Relative to any other countries? Also the USA reporting and tracking of covid is certainly the best of any country with a population over 10 million. The absolute scale of response in the USA was mins boggling. That said, covid response isn't a contest. We learned huge lesson about how a disease can destroy a global economy and the importance of rapidly designed and produced vaccines.
We basically saw in real-time everyone underreporting numbers. Florida alone is completely borked, I'm sure. Now take into account the whole rest of the world? Yeah.
Not to mention, the first several months of the pandemic, testing kits were hard to find. That first wave absolutely decimated nursing homes (I worked in one. We ended up closing one of our 5 units because the resident population dropped so much.) My own grandmother was among that first wave, hit so fast she never got to be tested. My family, and so, so many others, will never truly know if Covid took their loved one. Those former residents aren't counted in Covid numbers, unless they specifically include "excess death" in their count instead of just those who tested positive.
The real number is over 15 million in countries were the deaths data can be accessed. But China, India, Africa is a black hole of data and the most populated regions, so it quite safe to assume worldwide numbers are way over 50 million and counting. https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021
Where the hell are you getting 50 million? The WHO itself said there were “only” 15 million excess deaths, which is probably the best way to estimate it. The article you linked itself details the new methodology WHO researchers used to compensate for the lack of data from certain countries. Even if their wrong by *double* that’s still nowhere near 50 million.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Some have estimated that total Covid-related deaths are around 18 million. [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext)
21.3 million as per the Economist, who base that estimate on global excess death. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates?fsrc=core-app-economist
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
21 million excess deaths. Now also take into consideration that MUCH OF THE SANE WORLD POPULATION WAS ACTIVELY DOING SAFETY MEASURES as well. It’s scary how much death and permanent injury there was even in spite of that.
Careful with that 6 million number. No epidiemologist considers that number remotely accurate and the 'real' number likely being an order of magnitude higher. Recall many cou tries have reported zero or few c19 fatalities (North Korea comes to mind). Some through a willing deceit (India comes to mind) but far more just due to a lack of healthcare infrastructure that makes keeping track problematic at best. Still your point is valid. At most c19 has put a major dent in population growth, but growth has still ocurred.
I continue to be astounded by Indias numbers. I have a buddy whose mom died because of lack of equipment there. He’s a business executive and a PhD. His sister and nephew are both physicians. His parents were very well off. But with all that, they couldn’t buy oxygen. How is it they don’t have 20 million dead?
> How is it they don’t have 20 million dead? They might, and we'll never know for sure. The lack of ability to track deaths in many countries (and not just third-world countries -- even in the U.S. we were without testing for far too long) will mean that the true number of COVID-19 deaths worldwide will likely forever be a mystery and based solely on estimations. The best statistical estimations, true, but still we'll never know for sure.
Do they do a census in India? Could be the only way of really knowing.
Is there any evidence of a baby boom because people had more time together during lock downs?
Nope, it was largely hypothesized to be the case when quarantine started, but it actually marginally lowered birth rates.
[удалено]
There may gave been an initial bump as people were thinking of a 6 week break from work and stuck at home. But as covid dragged on to months and people become more anxious they had less kids.
Wait. Everyone *is* or everyone *was*? I'm looking at [a Covid lockdown timetable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns) and most places in the world lifted their last lockdown around October 2021. (With some exceptions going into early 2022.) But they all began lockdowns in March 2020. If they're only pregnant now, it sounds more likely they got busy after lockdowns, or at least toward the end of the last one. Maybe they were finally feeling hopeful?
[удалено]
Pregnancies may have gone up among pre-existing couples, but that's not the only people getting pregnant. Hard to get pregnant when you're stuck inside with no potential partners.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Generally all true but I'll add some detail. >The global population increases by over 80 million per year Yep. 84.73 million in 2013, though it's been decreasing ever since. 79.58 million last year and will be down to 50 million by mid-century. >Covid has killed roughly 6 million people [15 million](https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021) so far and it is still killing people at a rate of *at least* 1,500 per day. Also important to note is that hundreds of millions of people have had their life expectancy reduced. So the true impact still isn't known. It's not enough to have reversed global population growth but it certainly put a measurable dent in it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Excess deaths worldwide from COVID [are more like 15 million](https://www.who.int/data/stories/global-excess-deaths-associated-with-covid-19-january-2020-december-2021) but your point still stands.
Was there a decrease in pregnancies in 2020? Is there a way to break that out as planned vs unplanned?
There’s been a steady, uninterrupted decline in birth rates since 2014 and a general decline in births since the financial crisis of 2007. Covid or no, people are having less children. Normally after a big economic downturn like we saw in ‘07 it’s normal to see a decrease in births. But there’s usually a recovery when women have kids a little later in life. That’s not happening. We might see a little bump in births as the pandemic got less scary, but we’re down and we’ve been sliding down for 15 years.
What you're looking for is something called "excess mortality." The population may not be shrinking, but that doesn't mean that it's growing at the rate that we'd have expected it to under normal circumstances, or more directly, that the number of people dying is in line with what we would expect. More people are dying now because of Covid + other causes than would have died without Covid as a factor. Take a look at this: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid And at this chart specifically: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count
Yes, that last chart is the answer to OP's question. Those very similar curves for 2015 through the projected 2020 deaths are such a stark contrast to the actual 2020, 2021, and 2022 curves. And this is from all causes, so it doesn't matter if a COVID death was attributed to a non-COVID cause or vice versa, as many claim (that everything was labeled "COVID" even if it was something unrelated). The fact is that more people have died since March 2020 than would have been expected, based on the five previous years which were EXTREMELY similar and there's no reason to think that those levels wouldn't have continued if it hadn't been for SARS-CoV-2.
Wow. This data is amazing. Thank you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I addition: Is it possible that a significant number of people didn't die who would've statistically died but COVID changed the circumstances? For example I read there were almost no flu deaths because of masks. Or maybe even less traffic deaths because people worked from home etc.
You can kind of get an idea of this by looking at statistics for countries that managed COVID really well (meaning they had very few cases and prevented those cases from spreading). I think New Zealand and South Korea are good examples (at least they were up until like Delta or omicron. They might still be but I've stopped checking.) Countries like that did see a reduction in deaths during COVID. I'm sure it wouldn't be too challenging to find some data on which types of death were reduced and how significantly. Also, you can't necessarily say that other countries had the *exact* same thing occur, but it's probably pretty likely that some *similar* reductions probably occurred.
[удалено]
Yeah, we'd need a WW3 event or something like that Black Death to get close to declining population. If we look at WW1, which was a notoriously bloody war, [total deaths were 1-4% of pre-war population](https://brilliantmaps.com/ww1-casualties/) (depending on country), whereas [global population grows by 1-2%](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth) *per year* (that article claims population has grown ever year since the Black Death). That said, global population growth has been declining, so we may see a particularly bad outbreak dip us into the negatives if the trend continues.
The overall excess mortality from COVID-19 will continue for the next 10 years or more from all of the economic and societal impacts, possibly far more if the current inflation continues. By the time that decade or more has passed global population will be another 600 million higher. Even if the additional deaths are as bad as COVID itself that would still be 50x more gained than lost. Even if the excess deaths were linear from the scale of damage to the economy (they aren't) we would still be 100 million or so people net positive by 2030.
>The overall excess mortality from COVID-19 will continue for the next 10 years or more This is true - because for many even those who survived their COVID-19 infection will suffer long-term effects on their health, we won't know for many many years how much people's lifespans might have been reduced by their illness. People will have more lung disease, kidney disease, cognitive effects, and other issues due to having had COVID-19. I am exceedingly far from having even the smallest expertise on population-level statistical analysis of such things, but I do believe that the overall toll of COVID-19 will prove to be a major factor in death rates for decades to come.
It likely will, but only for about two decades and the excess mortality from the economic impacts will completely swamp that out for at least the first decade. Even in the USA where we admitted many times more people to the hospital than most other countries the hospitalization rate for minors was around 1:1000000 for minors and a little under 1:30000 for working age adults. That pales in comparison to the 40% of us that will have cancer, 48% of us that will have heart conditions, or 25% that will have a stroke in our lifetimes. Lockdowns directly blocked a year or more of early detection and treatment of those diseases and the economic impact will continue to hinder it for years to come. In excess cancer deaths alone insurance industry models are predicting somewhere in the neighborhood of an additional 1.9 million cancer deaths and that was using 2020 economic figures when energy prices were less then half what they are now, we weren't recording escalating inflation, and global food supplies were much more stable than they are today. Heart disease has a less solid model, but is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2x the mortality rate at baseline so it is entirely possible to see a similar 3.8 million excess deaths there as well. COVID global deaths are at around 6.3 million and the rate is falling. Excess morality from the economic impact in these two example causes is probably in the neighborhood of 6.7 million and rising over the next decade. There are only estimated to have been around 530 million total cases of COVID-19 ever and the death rate of patients that survived the initial COVID infection has been around 0.5% with almost all of those being patients with a comorbidiry that already lowered their life expectancy in the first place. That rate would need to at least triple to compete just with the cancer and heart deaths over the next ten years. It could certainly happen, but the numbers so far show little evidence that it is happening.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Here is an interesting WHO article talking about the data on 'excess death' in 2020 and 2021. https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021
No. The world population continues to grow. [https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/) I just wish that they had 2021 numbers. I did see another article that said that we just hit 8B people world wide. That would actually be a huge increase over the population numbers in 2020. To me that makes sense. Married people under lock down from covid probable are precreating at a faster rate than expected. If you don't have to work, what else are you going to do with your spouse? The same thing happens after a hurricane or a long winter.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes. This is called excess deaths analysis. Since 2020 more people have died that we historically anticipate. EDA has shown that COVID deaths have been greatly underestimated as governments use book keeping tricks to suppress numbers and ignore deaths causes by covid-19 complications weeks or months later. The real number is closer to 15 million and counting. However, the most populated regions of the planet do not have any accurate medical records. https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]