Covid-19 vaccines prevented nearly 20 million deaths in a year, study finds

[Still Waters]

Covid-19 vaccines cut the potential global death toll by more than half in the first year they were available, according to a study published Thursday in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

The study modeled the spread of the disease in 185 territories and countries and found that without Covid vaccines, 31.4 million people would have died of the disease between December 2020 and 2021. While the pandemic has taken a devastating toll around the globe, with more than 3.5 million deaths since the first vaccine was administered in December 2020, the study estimated that vaccinations also prevented 19.8 million deaths.

However, millions more deaths could have been prevented. The team found that one in five of the deaths that occurred due to Covid-19 in low-income countries could have been prevented if the World Health Organization’s global vaccine targets were met.

https://www.statnews.com/2022/06/23/covid19-vaccines-prevention-global-deaths/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/06/23/vaccines-prevented-nearly-20-million-covid-deaths-worldwide-in-one-year-study-finds/

[stereologist]

Here is a link to the Lancet article.

Notice that the modeling is based on examining excess deaths.

Quote

 In many countries, vital registration systems are incomplete and therefore only a fraction of deaths are routinely reported. However, even in countries with complete vital registration systems, it is difficult to accurately define the cause of death in individuals who present with multiple morbidities. Excess all-cause mortality (the difference between the observed and expected number of deaths in non-pandemic years) has therefore been used to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

 Although the exact contribution of COVID-19 to excess mortality is unknown, the strong temporal correlation observed globally between reported COVID-19 mortality and excess mortality provides evidence that excess mortality is an informative indicator of pandemic-related mortality.

This makes a lot of sense and for the reasons given in the article

[the13bats]

Oh dear, what will the anti vaxers do, i feel an unhinged meltdown braying of misinformation coming.

Edited June 27, 2022 by the13bats

[Fraust]

This disease killed 6.3 million people in 3 years, 2 of which no vaccine was available,  but somehow the vaccine stopped 20 million deaths in a single year?  That's 3 times the total people that died in the entire time the disease was out. That math sounds off to me. They expected deaths to increase 500% last year or what?

[+DieChecker]

Did they take into account the virulentness differences between the variants? The Omnicron variant that came through had a LOT of cases, but relatively fewer hospitalizations, and fewer deaths.

Also since those most likely to die mostly died in the first wave and the Delta variant wave, I wonder if there was variability included for that?

[Doug1066]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Did they take into account the virulentness differences between the variants? The Omnicron variant that came through had a LOT of cases, but relatively fewer hospitalizations, and fewer deaths.

Also since those most likely to die mostly died in the first wave and the Delta variant wave, I wonder if there was variability included for that?

Read the article.  It might tell you.

Omicron BA.5 has managed to partly evade the vaccines.  We may be starting from Ground 0 in a few more months.

At any rate, I am getting my second booster on Friday.

Doug

[OpenMindedSceptic]

Is that the net figure they've estimated or the gross figure?

And why the narrow date bands?

And how have they measured the deaths? The death certificates? Or the equally dodgy tests? 

lol

[stereologist]

On 6/27/2022 at 6:48 AM, Fraust said:

This disease killed 6.3 million people in 3 years, 2 of which no vaccine was available,  but somehow the vaccine stopped 20 million deaths in a single year?  That's 3 times the total people that died in the entire time the disease was out. That math sounds off to me. They expected deaths to increase 500% last year or what?

Your math is a bit off. The first vaccines were approved in late 2020 in the US. So in 9 months there was approval. All of 2021 and into 2022 vaccines were available.

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee October 22, 2020 Meeting Announcement - 10/22/2020 - 10/22/2020 | FDA

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee December 10, 2020 Meeting Announcement - 12/10/2020 - 12/10/2020 | FDA

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee December 17, 2020 Meeting Announcement - 12/17/2020 - 12/17/2020 | FDA

Don't forget that there are other places with other vaccines some of which were used earlier.

List of COVID-19 vaccine authorizations - Wikipedia

[stereologist]

On 6/27/2022 at 9:03 AM, DieChecker said:

Did they take into account the virulentness differences between the variants? The Omnicron variant that came through had a LOT of cases, but relatively fewer hospitalizations, and fewer deaths.

Also since those most likely to die mostly died in the first wave and the Delta variant wave, I wonder if there was variability included for that?

Read the paper and your question will be answered

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Is that the net figure they've estimated or the gross figure?

And why the narrow date bands?

And how have they measured the deaths? The death certificates? Or the equally dodgy tests? 

lol

You might try reading for a change. Then your questions would be answered.

[+DieChecker]

On 6/27/2022 at 2:38 PM, Doug1066 said:

Read the article.  It might tell you.

Omicron BA.5 has managed to partly evade the vaccines.  We may be starting from Ground 0 in a few more months.

At any rate, I am getting my second booster on Friday.

Doug

 

11 hours ago, stereologist said:

Read the paper and your question will be answered

Just saying. Because sometimes these articles are dodgey political click bait.

[Doug1066]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Just saying. Because sometimes these articles are dodgey political click bait.

If you want the best information available, stick to peer-reviewed articles, but remember that even in them, mistakes get by.

I just found a math mistake in one of my papers.  The reviewer had missed it.  I think he didn't want to go through all that math.

Doug

[stereologist]

13 hours ago, DieChecker said:

 

Just saying. Because sometimes these articles are dodgey political click bait.

I don't associate with that sort of trash. But good thinking on your part

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

If you want the best information available, stick to peer-reviewed articles, but remember that even in them, mistakes get by.

I just found a math mistake in one of my papers.  The reviewer had missed it.  I think he didn't want to go through all that math.

Doug

Good call. The goal of peer review is to make sure that things like the experiment is well thought out, the conclusion follows from the hypothesis, the statistical work makes sense.

[Doug1066]

11 hours ago, stereologist said:

Good call. The goal of peer review is to make sure that things like the experiment is well thought out, the conclusion follows from the hypothesis, the statistical work makes sense.

If you're looking for objectivity in the popular press, you could do worse than Mother Jones.  They're a magazine and don't do a whole lot of political stuff.  They're more into muck-raking, but they're pretty accurate.

Doug