For those under 75 the study actually found Republicans were LESS likely to die than Democrats. Excess Republican deaths only occurred in those over 75.
Yes, in general it's a huge confounder. In this case, because the focus is on excess deaths in the paper (or in my post, % increase of deaths which would be roughly equivalent), the age factor should be somewhat baked in... i.e. how many deaths you expect depends on the age of the population. If the paper (or my post) had focused on death rates generally, then age would almost certainly be the most important factor.
For those under 75 the study actually found Republicans were LESS likely to die than Democrats. Excess Republican deaths only occurred in those over 75.
My source for this is Alex Berenson:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/why-are-reporters-hyping-a-deeply
Thanks, I read that as well... this spurred me, however, to look more deeply at the paper and I will be doing another post shortly.
Thanks for your work.
at this point, I would say poorer areas were targeted if only to retain the 'correct' demographics...
Yes, in general it's a huge confounder. In this case, because the focus is on excess deaths in the paper (or in my post, % increase of deaths which would be roughly equivalent), the age factor should be somewhat baked in... i.e. how many deaths you expect depends on the age of the population. If the paper (or my post) had focused on death rates generally, then age would almost certainly be the most important factor.