The NY Times reported 574K excess deaths through February 2021 for the time window of COVID-19. I had previously seen 339K (i.e. over 300K) for calendar year 2020.

I would guess that expected deaths for 2021 and a few years beyond might actually decrease because premature COVID-related deaths among the elderly.

There is no natural immunity prior to getting COVID.

The NYT probably reported 574K Covid deaths; there are excess deaths beyond the number currently attributed to Covid. But I don't have a link to the NYT data and since it should have been based on something official like the CDC page, that's the data I worked with.

2021 deaths will still be affected by Covid, though far less than 2020. I agree that the yearly numbers will likely be lower for several years to come.

Right. But if you've already had Covid and have recovered from it then you do have natural immunity to it. The workers who were out there all along have already been exposed countless times to the virus, they have likely had the virus already and recovered from it. Most people, thankfully, do not get that sick from it.

No, the NYT article I was referring to had 574K excess death, not COVID deaths, through February 2021. I didn't bookmark the link. I also saw one report that estimated at 70% of excess deaths were COVID deaths. Presumably, some of the rest is COVID-related, such as not seeking medical help because of concerns about being exposed to the coronavirus.

Agreed. I am not sure how this is related to the economic impact of COVID.

But, I agree with your statement, with the condition that having recovered from one variant of COVID does not necessarily give you immunity to any other - the same is true with Vaccines.

Well then the NYT didn't use the data from the CDC site that I linked above. I have no idea what the NYT based their number on.

OR, they used that data but noted that their numbers may be undercounts since the data was still being updated.

What makes you think that our death rate would have been “exponentially higher”? We “flattered the curve” they took their hit upfront. In the end, the percentage was the same...

The targeted shutdowns were unnecessary and did more harm than good. Grocery store clerks could go to work but salons were shut down for whatever reason. You could get a fast food burger but there for awhile you couldn't get your eyes checked at the optometrist which never made much sense to me. It would have been better if people had been allowed to mitigate their own risks as they do with any other virus.

Is the increase in suicides considered COVID related deaths?
Almost all the folks that died "from" or "with" COVID would presumably have a limited time left anyway. Not to be crass, but regardless of whether they died last year, this year or next year, they were not expected to live indefinitely. Out of curiosity, I wonder how many of those deaths were of seniors over 65 and how that will effect Social Security and Medicare.

Okay, I am not sure how that relates to the thread, but I will agree with you life has a 100% fatality rate - sooner or later - so far. So, what's the point of living?

Unlike the rest of us who *are* expected to live indefinitely? You many not intend to be crass but it sounds a little like you are okay with the idea of culling the herd.

About 80% of the deaths were people 65 and over. This represents a bit less than 1% of the people drawing Social Security benefits for retirement (about 80% of the actual SS recipients). I doubt it will have much impact.

Apparently going to your cashier job at Walmart is "safe" but that same cashier spending a nice day at the beach is a "super spreader" event. Or at least that was the way it was only a year ago.

Ah, but some have a natural RESISTANCE to it, perhaps. I doubt I am immune to the Flu, but I must have a resistance to it since I have never had it.