A sentence from The Economist that I don't understand

Here is a sentence from the magazine The Economist that I don't understand.

Fully 5.8m more Americans are in work than in December of that year, when the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates. That is two-thirds as many as lost their jobs during the Great Recession.

The italicized sentence is the one that confuses me. Shouldn't it be "That is two-thirds as many as those who lost their jobs during the Great Recession?"

I hardly believe The Economist made a mistake in that sentence. Can anyone tell me why the sentence is correct as it is and, if there is any, what words might have been omitted from that sentence?

Thank you.

The Economist did not make a mistake.

This sentence is short for

That is two-thirds as many [Americans] as lost their jobs during the Great Recession.

The Cambridge Dictionary explains this:

Much, many, a lot, lots: without a noun
We usually leave out the noun after much, many and a lot, lots when the noun is obvious.

Looking in dictionaries, it appears that some classify many in this usage as a pronoun and some as an adjective. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary has the following example sentence under the adjective definition of many:

Not everyone could get a seat, and many were unhappy with having to stand,

while the OED has the following example under the pronoun definition:

To most people he was only one knave of many.