Measuring Covid Mortality

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
S. Subramanian
{"title":"Measuring Covid Mortality","authors":"S. Subramanian","doi":"10.1080/19452829.2022.2087606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The most widely used measure of covid mortality is a headcount ratio of deaths due to covid, as captured by the case fatality rate, which is the ratio of covid deaths to covid cases. This is a relative measure of mortality, in contrast to the absolute measure of an aggregate headcount, as captured by the gross or aggregate fatality, which is just the raw (non-normalized) number of covid deaths. The present note examines two elementary principles which a measure of mortality (like one of poverty or urbanisation or unemployment) might be expected to satisfy. These are what are called the probability principle and the subgroup consistency principle respectively. Headcount ratios are found to satisfy the first principle but not the second, and aggregate headcounts to satisfy the second principle but not the first, which makes neither variety of a headcount measure satisfactory on its own, and by itself. This note advances the case of a “mixed” measure, as intermediate between ratio and aggregate measures, expressed as a geometric mean of the case fatality rate and the gross fatality. The ranking of countries by mortality is found to be a variable function of the precise mortality indicator employed.","PeriodicalId":46538,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities","volume":"23 1","pages":"630 - 638"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2022.2087606","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The most widely used measure of covid mortality is a headcount ratio of deaths due to covid, as captured by the case fatality rate, which is the ratio of covid deaths to covid cases. This is a relative measure of mortality, in contrast to the absolute measure of an aggregate headcount, as captured by the gross or aggregate fatality, which is just the raw (non-normalized) number of covid deaths. The present note examines two elementary principles which a measure of mortality (like one of poverty or urbanisation or unemployment) might be expected to satisfy. These are what are called the probability principle and the subgroup consistency principle respectively. Headcount ratios are found to satisfy the first principle but not the second, and aggregate headcounts to satisfy the second principle but not the first, which makes neither variety of a headcount measure satisfactory on its own, and by itself. This note advances the case of a “mixed” measure, as intermediate between ratio and aggregate measures, expressed as a geometric mean of the case fatality rate and the gross fatality. The ranking of countries by mortality is found to be a variable function of the precise mortality indicator employed.
测量Covid死亡率
covid - 19死亡率最广泛使用的衡量标准是因covid - 19死亡的人数比率,由病死率捕获,病死率是covid - 19死亡与covid - 19病例的比率。这是死亡率的相对衡量标准,与总死亡人数的绝对衡量标准相反,总死亡人数是由总死亡人数或总死亡人数获得的,总死亡人数只是新冠肺炎死亡的原始(非标准化)人数。本说明审查了两项基本原则,这两项原则是死亡率的衡量标准(如贫穷、城市化或失业的衡量标准)可望满足的。这就是所谓的概率原理和子群一致性原理。员工人数比率满足第一个原则,但不满足第二个原则,总员工人数满足第二个原则,但不满足第一个原则,这使得任何一种员工人数测量方法本身都不能令人满意,也不能单独令人满意。本说明提出了“混合”措施的情况,作为比率措施和汇总措施之间的中间措施,以病死率和总病死率的几何平均值表示。按死亡率对各国的排名是所采用的精确死亡率指标的可变函数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Journal of Human Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development is the peer-reviewed journal of the Human Development and Capabilities Association. It was launched in January 2000 to promote new perspectives on challenges of human development, capability expansion, poverty eradication, social justice and human rights. The Journal aims to stimulate innovative development thinking that is based on the premise that development is fundamentally about improving the well-being and agency of people, by expanding the choices and opportunities they have. Accordingly, the Journal recognizes that development is about more than just economic growth and development policy is more than just economic policy: it cuts across economic, social, political and environmental issues. The Journal publishes original work in philosophy, economics, and other social sciences that expand concepts, measurement tools and policy alternatives for human development. It provides a forum for an open exchange of ideas among a broad spectrum of academics, policy makers and development practitioners who are interested in confronting the challenges of human development at global, national and local levels.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信