Stats Update on COVID-19 vs Influenza

a reply to: carewemust

From your source...

hospitalisation rate is now doubling every 4.7 days compared to the rate doubling every two days from data on Sunday. 

...SMH


Is it your argument that Covid-19 isn't as deadly as the flu?

originally posted by: carewemust
In New York, the number of Covid-19 hospitalizations is steadily declining.

www.independent.co.uk...

But New York still loses about 375 people PER MONTH to the Flu.

www.cdc.gov...

The first death from covid-19 was on 03/01/2020 and now today 26 days later there are 1,304 deaths....with cases and deaths on an exponential growth pattern it looks like covid-19 is vastly outdoing the flu even though it is still in its baby stage.

In a few months comparing these two would be akin to comparing apples to.....elephants.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

And someone will still be trying to tell us that the flu is worse..

a reply to: infolurker

Yes. It seems to escape some people that the Covid figures are for weeks while the Flu figures cover a year.

1000 died of H1N1 in six months when Obama was president they cry. Shame they say...
Well a thousand have died in two weeks with Corona.
Then they say oh it's just the flu. Most will get over it.

But it's not playing out the way they wish it will.

Ta reply to: iammrhappy86

They are taking the figure from known cases and those who die.
They have the right figures.
The death rate would be the same even if the cause is unconfirmed because the person never got tested.

a reply to: carewemust

No it's not. It's climbing.

It's just begun.

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Alien Abduct

And someone will still be trying to tell us that the flu is worse..

Because someone has an agenda.

a reply to: iammrhappy86

I am rounding to make this simple.

80% of the population shows little to no symptoms. That means at least 80% go untested and are therefore unconfirmed.

For the US

80,000 confirmed case
1,200 confirmed deaths

That means there are likely at least 400,000 cases of Coronavirus. 80,000 is 20% of 400,000.

1200/400,000 =.003
Move the decimal 2 places and you end up with .3% death rate.

This is the math that has been running through my head since the numbers were first reported and why I was so irritated by the lockdowns.

I have apologized for being wrong about needing mitigation to slow the flow of patients into our hospitals as this disease is much longer lasting and requiring much more medical attention and supplies.

But the numbers still don’t show the extreme mortality rates that we were hearing at first. And the creator of the model that panicked the world has recently walked back his predictions likely based on looking at numbers like the ones I just posted.

We should still be mass producing everything we need, like we would in a war time situation, because we were woefully unprepared for this. We need to keep the at risk safe and ask them to self quarantine.

But the rest of us need to return to work now that we fully understand what is happening and what supplies and equipment is needed.

a reply to: iammrhappy86

You forgot that Coronavirus lives longer and have a longer incubation period.

Lots of great points have been made here already. This is the topic that really needs discussion so Thank You for the OP.

From the data I've been going through, these things seem true:

- Hospitalization rates and durations appear to be greater for CV19 than typical influenza.

- Mortality rates so far are similar between the two when comparing positive tests to deaths. The MSM has wrongly compared influenza ESTIMATED cases vs. deaths to CV19 positive tests vs. deaths. When we look at positive tests vs. deaths influenza this year (dominated by H1N1 BTW) the death rate is slightly higher than CV19.

- Summer heat will knock both down significantly and is coming soon, buying us time to find better treatments and possibly vaccines.

- It is bullet #1 that should concern us the most and what the current isolated conditions are all about. Trying to make sure that there are enough resources available to treat the critical CV19 patients so that the death rate doesn't artificially increase due to lack of proper care available. The 'panic' has always been more about the potential (due to the unknown) of overriding the current hospital capability, not about deaths rates.

IMO, the "flattening the curve" actions that have taken place were/are good things to do while we learn more about CV19 and loosening the "shelter in place" restrictions should be able to start by the end of April as the weather warms up. Though it should start with those least likely to need hospitalization returning to normal life, ending with those at high risk. The high risk category may need to self quarantine through next winter as well as we should expect CV19 to return next fall.

One last opinion: Blood type should be considered when determining hospitalization risk. Type A+ or AB+ are at higher risk than type O, with O- being the lowest. A 40 year old with A+ may have the same risk as a 65 year old with O- (baring any other underlying conditions). Not a lot of data on this for CV19 specifically, but there is some that supports it and when taking into account blood type vs. risk of other virus related diseases, it seems like a logical theory.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: iammrhappy86

I am rounding to make this simple.

80% of the population shows little to no symptoms. That means at least 80% go untested and are therefore unconfirmed.

For the US

80,000 confirmed case
1,200 confirmed deaths

That means there are likely at least 400,000 cases of Coronavirus. 80,000 is 20% of 400,000.

1200/400,000 =.003
Move the decimal 2 places and you end up with .3% death rate.

This is the math that has been running through my head since the numbers were first reported and why I was so irritated by the lockdowns.

I have apologized for being wrong about needing mitigation to slow the flow of patients into our hospitals as this disease is much longer lasting and requiring much more medical attention and supplies.

But the numbers still don’t show the extreme mortality rates that we were hearing at first. And the creator of the model that panicked the world has recently walked back his predictions likely based on looking at numbers like the ones I just posted.

We should still be mass producing everything we need, like we would in a war time situation, because we were woefully unprepared for this. We need to keep the at risk safe and ask them to self quarantine.

But the rest of us need to return to work now that we fully understand what is happening and what supplies and equipment is needed.

So you are saying all major medical institutions around the world has their numbers wrong and yours are right. Got it, thanks.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

I am using the numbers that are coming directly from the major medical institutions.

Maybe you have a reading or math comprehension problem?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Alien Abduct

I am using the numbers that are coming directly from the major medical institutions.

Maybe you have a reading or math comprehension problem?

I'm glad you are offended, you should be...at yourself. Look inward.

Now, you say you are using numbers directly from the major medical institutions, therefore please cite the medical institution where you got your number of .003 death rate for covid-19.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

www.who.int...

A majority of patients with COVID-19 are adults. Among 44 672 patients in China with confirmed infection, 2.1% were below the age of 201. The most commonly reported symptoms included fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath, and most patients (80%) experienced mild illness.Approximately 14% experienced severe disease and 5% were critically ill. Early reports suggest that illness severity is associated with age (>60 years old) and co-morbid disease.

I bolded the important part which is directly from the WHO. We are/were not testing mild cases. So it’s safe to assume that if we tested 80,000 cases that were not mild as positive because they had more severe symptoms than there is another 80% that were not tested.

That would mean there are a total of 400,000 both tested and untested who have Coronavirus if the WHO numbers are accurate. With only 1200 deaths that is .003.

I’m not the media I don’t pull numbers out of thin air and I don’t say things that are intellectually dishonest and mathematically ignorant.

If you still can’t understand then you don’t understand math enough for me to help you.

BTW I am not offended by your lack of understanding.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Alien Abduct

www.who.int...

A majority of patients with COVID-19 are adults. Among 44 672 patients in China with confirmed infection, 2.1% were below the age of 201. The most commonly reported symptoms included fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath, and most patients (80%) experienced mild illness.Approximately 14% experienced severe disease and 5% were critically ill. Early reports suggest that illness severity is associated with age (>60 years old) and co-morbid disease.

I bolded the important part which is directly from the WHO. We are/were not testing mild cases. So it’s safe to assume that if we tested 80,000 cases that were not mild as positive because they had more severe symptoms than there is another 80% that were not tested.

That would mean there are a total of 400,000 both tested and untested who have Coronavirus if the WHO numbers are accurate. With only 1200 deaths that is .003.

I’m not the media I don’t pull numbers out of thin air and I don’t say things that are intellectually dishonest and mathematically ignorant.

If you still can’t understand then you don’t understand math enough for me to help you.

BTW I am not offended by your lack of understanding.

So which medical institution claims that covid-19 has a death rate of .003? Can you cite it?

Oh you can't? Because your numbers didn't come from a credible source? Because you pulled that number out of your own ass? Yes, yes that is obviously the case.

Hilarious.

originally posted by: infolurker
Spain and Italy are not treating patients over 60 or those with pre-existing conditions. Our hospitals are out of PPE and not enough ventilators. They are already discussing "do not resuscitate" as a default.

This is going to be a S#it-Storm

Yes, what this bug/event is revealing is just how pathetic existing hospital/medical infrastructures are and have been for a long time, especially in countries utilizing socialized medicine to any degree.

What needs to happen is circling back to what works - building and maintaining a healthy immune system, and for cases where things go south, utilizing safe, natural treatments that work, and work well (like high dose IV Vitamin C).

TANSTAAFL.