What makes COVID-19 worse than Seasona Influenza in one pic

a reply to: face23785


Maybe this will help it was a study done in influenza. And one thing the study found is they were underestimating the number of deaths caused by the flu globally. Problem is its expected so no one was tracking it

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: Aallanon
Try this then...
Out of 13000 with the flu you might expect 13 to die.
Out of 13000 with Covid-19 200 have died.
Does that wake you up?

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

No... sorry but no.

a reply to: Edumakated
So let me get this straight...This is all a hoax? It's not really happening because it's not playing out the way you think it should???

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Aallanon
Try this then...
Out of 13000 with the flu you might expect 13 to die.
Out of 13000 with Covid-19 200 have died.
Does that wake you up?

For the umpteenth time, we don't know if only 13,000 people have Covid. The death rate you sheep keep throwing around is based on KNOWN cases. They have no actual idea how many people have actually been infected which even according to the NYTs is probably 5-10x higher than what is being reported.

a reply to: Aallanon

There was no casualty rate on that chart.

a reply to: Aallanon

Says you.
Do you have a valid reason not to trust those agencies?
One that doesn't balance in the head of a conspiracy?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Edumakated
So let me get this straight...This is all a hoax? It's not really happening because it's not playing out the way you think it should???

It is mass hysteria on an unprecedented level. We will look back on this and be like WTF were we thinking? This will be studied for centuries in the history books.

a reply to: Edumakated

Millions? There have only been a few hundred thousand confirmed cases around the world at this time.

a reply to: carewemust

Low?
Sure okay.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Killeonidas

The Great Depression killed 7 million people

Looks like that is the path we are more willing to take to take precautions against this flu

Oh, and of course laying the ground work for tyranny form the gov anytime they can announce a threat

Not likely to be true.

The 7 million claim seems to come from a Russian propaganda piece. Mortality rates did not actually increase during the depression period.

a reply to: carewemust

Yeah it's all made up. Pay no attention to this at all.
It will be gone come April right? Isn't that what you said?
So next week some time this will all be over. Good to know I won't be reduced to wiping my butt with coffee filters.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aallanon

While I can understand why people are concerned about the fatality rate, it's a mistake to focus only on that.

I agree - the hospitalisation rates and the incubation period are just as concerning. The first, if this thing gets even close to flu like spread, is devastating to health services and will impact not just Corona treatment but many other treatments. The second maks it abundantly clear that measures to limit contact, epsecially in large groups, is a MUST.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Aallanon
Try this then...
Out of 13000 with the flu you might expect 13 to die.
Out of 13000 with Covid-19 200 have died.
Does that wake you up?

For the umpteenth time, we don't know if only 13,000 people have Covid. The death rate you sheep keep throwing around is based on KNOWN cases. They have no actual idea how many people have actually been infected which even according to the NYTs is probably 5-10x higher than what is being reported.

Take a step back and listen to what you are saying.

We have a known (confirmed cases and death rate) and and unkown (number of people who might have the virus but are not reported) and you are using the unkown to diminish the seriousness. Not wise.
Let's work with what we know and as that evolves we can make adjustments.

a reply to: Edumakated

That was the figure from last night. It's up over 15K this morning.
More than 200 dead.

a reply to: Edumakated

That would be great. Let's all hope for that.
But let's also plan for that not happening.

a reply to: Sillyolme

If I had all the symptoms; but stayed home and got better and was never tested.
Then the “known” cases wouldn’t rise..... and the “recovery” rate wouldn’t change... BUT the death rate ( because deaths are ALWAYS reported) stays the same or goes up.....

There could be 10s of millions that have had this since December and not even known.
If the R0 is 2.3 and it’s been through almost 8; 14 week cycles than why isnt New York a city of 18+ million not over crowding the hospitals by now???? That would of already spread like the wind through there. However, based on the “current data” we have 13k deaths WORDWIDE OUT OF 7+ BILLION. In almost 4 MONTHS!!!! It is clearly overemphasized and inflated. Not saying it isn’t serious.... but the panic and hysteria are 100000000000% worse and we are seeing it unfold

originally posted by: SeektoUnderstand
a reply to: Sillyolme

If I had all the symptoms; but stayed home and got better and was never tested.
Then the “known” cases wouldn’t rise..... and the “recovery” rate wouldn’t change... BUT the death rate ( because deaths are ALWAYS reported) stays the same or goes up.....

There could be 10s of millions that have had this since December and not even known.
If the R0 is 2.3 and it’s been through almost 8; 14 week cycles than why isnt New York a city of 18+ million not over crowding the hospitals by now???? That would of already spread like the wind through there. However, based on the “current data” we have 13k deaths WORDWIDE OUT OF 7+ BILLION. In almost 4 MONTHS!!!! It is clearly overemphasized and inflated. Not saying it isn’t serious.... but the panic and hysteria are 100000000000% worse and we are seeing it unfold

This is what makes me think this is over blown. We aren't actually seeing anything near what is being predicted. The hospitals all over the country should have been over run by now.

I believe Covid has been here far longer and many have been infected / recovered without a clue in the world.

I will say that it does seem a bit more dangerous for the most vulnerable but not to the point it was worth destroying the global economy over.

a reply to: UKTruth

Use of raw numbers really is not of much use in determining absolute fatality rate or infection rate or hospitalization rate.

A stab at that unknown can actually be taken by looking at the ratio between positive and negative tests though. The more of each (in a given area), the more reliable the numbers become. There is always an uncertainty factor, but that can be reduced.

a reply to: Phage

But then you have to factor in the time it's taken to get people tested...

Quite a few might test negative *now*... But could have been spreading it for 2 weeks while waiting on testing to come online.