SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
U.S. Life Expectancy Fell By 1.5 Years In 2020, The Biggest Drop Since WW II:
Life expectancy in the United States declined by a year and a half in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which says the coronavirus is largely to blame.
COVID-19 contributed to 74% of the decline in life expectancy from 78.8 years in 2019 to 77.3 years in 2020, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
It was the largest one-year decline since World War II, when life expectancy dropped by 2.9 years between 1942 and 1943. Hispanic and Black communities saw the biggest declines.
[...] "The range of factors that play into this include income inequality, the social safety net, as well as racial inequality and access to health care," Curtis said.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @05:11PM (31 children)
>> "The range of factors that play into this include income inequality, the social safety net, as well as racial inequality and access to health care," Curtis said.
Sure, blame it on the colored people. Race is a social construct, a mask would have saved your life no matter what color you are.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday July 21 2021, @05:36PM (12 children)
Race is a social construct, but there are differences in genetics too - not a lot, but they're there. For example, even when you compensate for income disparity and access to medical care, blacks have a much higher chance of dying from a heart attack. They also have a 40% higher chance of dying from covid. Now, a part of that 40% is most certainly because they're on average less well-off.
Now, here's something interesting about that 40% extra for blacks. That number is from this site
https://covidtracking.com/race [covidtracking.com]
Let's compare that to CDC data
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/racial-ethnic-disparities/disparities-deaths.html [cdc.gov]
what we're looking at here is the difference between the red and blue bars.
15.1% of deaths, while 12.5% of the population. That only shows an extra 2.6% extra deaths for blacks. Not 40% as covidtracking.com says. So what's the deal here?
Now let's look at income inequality.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disparities-in-wealth-by-race-and-ethnicity-in-the-2019-survey-of-consumer-finances-20200928.htm [federalreserve.gov]
Whites have a mean net worth 10x what the blacks do. But when you get admitted to a hospital, they have to take you whether you have money or not, and no doctor looks at your color or paystub. And if you can't pay it, you get medicaid. And if you didn't apply for medicaid, you still don't pay the hospital and just get sent to collections. You definitely don't get denied a ventilator or a bed or a doctor. Which makes sense - because the difference between blacks and whites dying of covid, is only 2.6%.
It's funny they don't mention this in the article - that income inequality and race seem to not really matter at all. Well, they do I guess, to the grand total of 2.6%. But that doesn't make headlines or make people angry enough to riot, and we need our racial inequality riots, don't we.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @06:04PM (3 children)
Fuckface fucks the numbers again. The 15.1% share of deaths is 20.8% more than the 12.5% population share, not 2.6%. It gets worse in the age-standardized distribution.
(Score: 0, Troll) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday July 21 2021, @06:32PM (2 children)
I'm sorry, what now? 12.5% of the population should have 12.5% share of the deaths. To get to 15.1%, their share of the population needs to increase by 2.6%, of the entire population. What you did here is change what I was talking about - % of population share increase, to "percent of growth of that subpopulation." Which is not what I was comparing. So you made up something and called this thing only you said stupid. You do that a lot. Probably because of your incurable autism.
The reason we're not using the age-standardized graph here sherlock, is because we're comparing the first link to the second link, and while the second link shows both datasets, the first link only shows the non age standardized data. Fucking retard.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @07:26PM (1 child)
15.1% is 2.6 basis points higher than 12.5%, but 15.1% is 20.8% higher than 12.5% - aka 12.5*1.208=15.1
So that means blacks are dying at a rate 20.8% higher than their population numbers would indicate they should be.
(Score: 1, Troll) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday July 21 2021, @07:49PM
yes sherlock, (15.1-12.5)/12.5=20.8%. congratulations, you've clearly completed 8th grade.
>but 15.1% is 20.8% higher than 12.5%
yes, but you're comparing the wrong thing
>So that means blacks are dying at a rate 20.8% higher than their population numbers
which is comparing the black population baseline, to what the black population should be, if the population representation matched their covid death portion. which is not what we're talking about here. we are comparing it to the total population.
now go back, read the original post, and reply on topic. In fact, the fist link clearly states what we're comparing, in the fucking title.
but I get it. you're one of those people that doesn't even bother looking at what we're discussing, and just like to spam "gotchas" with preschool arithmetic. good for you. we all need to be entertained by people making fools of themselves.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Immerman on Wednesday July 21 2021, @06:29PM (1 child)
Not commenting on anything but your own math error - that 2.6% is not the increase in rate at which blacks die - in fact I don't believe it tells you anything meaningful.
As an extreme example - assume some group were only 0.01% of the population, but died at 10x the normal rate - they're such a small fraction of the population that they'd still only be about 0.1% of the total deaths (=0.01% of the population * 10x the death rate). Subtracting the two percentages as you did would get 0.09% - which by your logic would suggest that they were dying at almost the exact same rate as everyone else.
To get the death rate compared to the average you need to divide by their fraction of the population, rather than subtract: 15.1%/12.5% = 1.208, or in other words assuming those numbers are accurate, they're dying at 20.8% higher rate than the average.
Basically, to get the total death rate for a population from the subgroup death rates you'd have to add the proportional rates for each group, e.g.
Group 1 size * group 1 rate
+ size 2 * rate 2 + ...
+ size N * rate N
etc. = total number of deaths
The same math works if you're dealing with percentages rather than absolute numbers - in that case you're essentially just pre-scaling all the sizes (and the total) to a representative population of size 100.
(Score: 2, Troll) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday July 21 2021, @06:41PM
hold on, I get your basic arithmetic, but we're comparing the two links here - that's the whole point of my comment. Did you look at the links? No, so let me paste this here:
1st link:
"Nationwide, Black people have died at 1,4 times the rate of white people."
the numbers it lists are "Deaths per 100 000 people by race"
those are not deaths that need to be standardized to the size of that group - the group size is already 100k people for any race. So why would "assume some group were only 0.01% of the population" matter, since the sample we're looking at is 100k for each race?
>The same math works if you're dealing with percentages rather than absolute numbers
you're doing that math twice. you're taking the number adjusted for that race's % of the total population, and adjusting it again.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 22 2021, @10:52AM (5 children)
As you later acknowledge that was actually 20% greater deaths per capita than the mean (which in turn is somewhat greater than the white only deaths per capita. After all, per capita deaths is a better comparison right?
What's missing here is that the black population as a whole is much more urban than the white population. While there are some occasional rural exceptions, the urban regions tend to be much more heavily hit than rural areas. Thus, even in the complete absence of any sort of racial bias, one would expect more covid deaths in the black population per capita.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:11AM (4 children)
>20% greater deaths per capita than the mean
I acknowledge it in the way where I tell a retard that's not what the first link is talking about, since the title is comparing blacks to whites, not blacks to blacks.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:36AM (3 children)
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:46AM (2 children)
you should fix yourself buddy. you are comparing blacks to blacks. I don't know how much more clear i can make that for you. it's clearly something your brain is unable to comprehend.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday July 22 2021, @12:34PM (1 child)
I've already corrected your incorrect statement. Time to get with it.
Repetition doesn't make erroneous statements less erroneous.
(Score: 1, Troll) by fakefuck39 on Thursday July 22 2021, @07:24PM
>I've already corrected your incorrect statement. Time to get with it.
autism
>Repetition doesn't make erroneous statements less erroneous.
is not curable
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @06:08PM (17 children)
> Race is a social construct
No data, but along with the social construct comes differences in services. Just a guess, but the hospitals that serve our minority populations (in USA) may not offer the same actual level of care that suburban hospitals offer?
This is certainly true for grocery stores and other kinds of stores--the inner city stores don't have nearly the same quality/variety of food and goods as can be found out in the wealthier and whiter burbs.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @06:14PM (16 children)
Businesses (both grocery stores and hospitals) can better take the risk of providing additional goods and services in areas filled with people who pay their bills and don't steal, than in areas filled with people who don't pay their bills and do steal.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @06:47PM (6 children)
No businesses or other customers should have to deal with blacks. They are a burden that is not ours to bear. send them back home so Whitey can't oppress them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 21 2021, @07:41PM (5 children)
Pop quiz, fuccboi! Who brought them to the US in the first place?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @07:51PM
That is the worst troll feeding I've ever seen Azuma, and you left the racist gate wide open.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @08:30PM
Let me guess... the White savior? Saving civilization with his superior knowledge of pickup trucks.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @08:52PM (2 children)
Jews, mostly, but you already knew that.
Go on, then. Spam me, baby!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:41AM (1 child)
Given how capable Jews are, one wonders why we bother having any other ethnicities at all.
So what of all the other ethnicities involved in the slave trade? Do they not count if there are Jew cooties around?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 27 2021, @07:36PM
"We?"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @08:27PM (8 children)
Not to mention the risk of businesses getting looted and burned to the ground, like what can happen when there are "mostly peaceful" protests.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 21 2021, @09:01PM (7 children)
True, but I reckon the first group--you know, the vulture capitalist types like Bain Capital and all the other "equity" firms?--do a lot more damage overall. We can deal with the looting on the ground after we go after the Romneys and Trumps of the world, I say.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @09:34PM
The ecosystem functions better when you have animals, plants, fungi and blood-sucking parasites all in balance. The Romneys and Trumps, like ticks, provide a repository for viruses and bacteria that would otherwise be lost, harming diversity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 22 2021, @10:56AM (5 children)
I think you probably ought to try to show that the vulture capitals do "damage" overall. For a glaring example of how this reckoning fails, I doubt the entirety of the vulture capitalist ecosystem has done as much damage as the 1967 Detroit riots.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 22 2021, @05:39PM (4 children)
Okay, but your gut feelings mean shit. Numbers. Back up that claim or shut the fuck up.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22 2021, @10:48PM (2 children)
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you want numbers so bad, why don't you start?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 23 2021, @01:22AM (1 child)
You make the claim, you back it up.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 23 2021, @08:42PM
Looking forward to you backing up your claim [soylentnews.org], then.
You've got no room to complain about people contradicting you when they provided just as much evidence as you (0=0), you toxic little dingbat.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 26 2021, @01:00AM
How about this? No city has dropped in population by almost a factor of three due to vulture capitalists. In fact, if someone had been recycling dying capital and property back in the 1960s and 1970s, Detroit might be in a lot better shape now (abandoned property is a large contributor to the problems of Detroit today).
While Detroit has been in decline [biggestuscities.com] since 1950, there were two decades in which Detroit lost 20% or more of its population (as measured by the US Census). The first was 1970-1980 when it dropped from 1.5 million to 1.2 million, right after those 1967 riots. (The second was 2000-2010 when it dropped from over 900k to a bit over 700k.)
Even more telling, the Detroit metropolitan area peaked in 1970 (with a second, lower peak in 2000). That coincides well with the riots and their aftereffects.