Where is the Flu?

[SiSePuede419]

The 1917/18 Flu mutated.

 

After the first wave subsided, restrictions were lifted, masks were discarded.

 

Then the second wave was deadlier than the first. ????

 

 

[phantomfiddler]

Alas the flu is back, and has been back all winter, but the old one was not generating much money due to it being old hat. A new suit was needed, plus an impressive media backing, and......Eureka !!! 

[LomSak27]

57 minutes ago, mrfill said:

For a start, the '1917' flu. I assume you mean the so called 'Spanish flu' outbreak in January 1918.

 

"However, compare the Wuhan virus and common flu using the 2017/18 flu season statistics from the US."
 "61,000 dead / 45,000,000 infected by the flu 2017/18 flu season.  figures rounded down(!)"

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As I stated twice, it was the last major flu season we have had in the US, the 2017/2018 flu season.

 

 

 

 

 

[RJRS1301]

I am amazed how many social and medical scientists, epidemiologists, virologists and researchers have retired to Thailand.

 

[LomSak27]

Just now, RJRS1301 said:

I am amazed how many social and medical scientists, epidemiologists, virologists and researchers have retired to Thailand.

 

[mauGR1]

48 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I am amazed how many social and medical scientists, epidemiologists, virologists and researchers have retired to Thailand.

 

That's a bit lame isn't it ?

So according to you, we should sheepishly listen to the experts.

Given that there are disagreements among the experts, i have some doubt that you can tell us who is right and who is wrong, yet trying to understand and discuss the issues is not forbidden yet, i hope.

[RJRS1301]

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's a bit lame isn't it ?

So according to you, we should sheepishly listen to the experts.

Given that there are disagreements among the experts, i have some doubt that you can tell us who is right and who is wrong, yet trying to understand and discuss the issues is not forbidden yet, i hope.

I merely made a statement.

You are free to read into it whatever you wish, also to place any interpretation onto it that suits you. Be my guest.

 

 

 

[HHTel]

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I merely made a statement.

You are free to read into it whatever you wish, also to place any interpretation onto it that suits you. Be my guest.

 

 

 

Haha.  Some people just can't see a joke when it's staring them in the face.  Your cartoon you included was a bit of a give away.

[timendres]

13 hours ago, LomSak27 said:

61,000 dead / 45,000,000 infected by the flu 2017/18 flu season.  figures rounded down(!)
To ---
45,297 dead / 824, 698 infected by the Wuhan virus, yesterdays count --- (US Statistics)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

If the Wuhan virus infected as many people as the common flu did in 2017/18, you would have a death toll of 2,454,000.  As the Wuhan virus is easily transmittable, it could happen. Yes, It is ok to say Holy Excrement now. 

The number of 824,698 infected in the US is without question an understatement. In fact, it could very easily be an order of magnitude greater. This would shift your death toll dramatically. Influenza is a virus we have known and studied for years. Wuhan is not. So we will not really know the true numbers for some time. It is quite possible that it is not at all as lethal as we think at this moment, because we are finding more and more that large numbers of people are asymptomatic, or simply do not seek treatment.

[timendres]

20 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's a bit lame isn't it ?

So according to you, we should sheepishly listen to the experts.

Given that there are disagreements among the experts, i have some doubt that you can tell us who is right and who is wrong, yet trying to understand and discuss the issues is not forbidden yet, i hope.

I think it is great that people are kicking around the numbers. It is improving their math skills, and educating them about epidemiology and statistics. Just don't put them in charge of the WHO or the CDC.

[bartender100]

Seasonal flu does not do this

 

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927976

 

In Memoriam: Healthcare Workers Who Have Died of COVID-19

[Lacessit]

13 hours ago, Retarded said:

So is global warming. Don't you think it is colder than last year?

If it's colder, it could be because power generation, private vehicle, and airline use has declined dramatically. All those activities produce heat. Basic thermodynamics.

[chessman]

4 minutes ago, timendres said:

The number of 824,698 infected in the US is without question an understatement. In fact, it could very easily be an order of magnitude greater.

Number of dead will be significantly higher too, but yes the number of infected will be much much higher.

it is interesting that every single serious article I read, over time, is nudging down the mortality rate... at first people were thinking 2-3% or more. Now nobody seems to be saying that. 1% mortality rate has become more commonly used but even that seems high if you look at the latest research... 

 

this is not to say that the lockdowns weren’t necessary. They bought time to do research, organise testing, prepare hospitals and PPE. 

[Pilotman]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If it's colder, it could be because power generation, private vehicle, and airline use has declined dramatically. All those activities produce heat. Basic thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.  So its still here somewhere. 

[chessman]

5 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.  So its still here somewhere. 

Maybe it can be found in all the hot air on this forum? ????

[elliss]

15 hours ago, torturedsole said:

All diseases and medical conditions have disappeared with C19.  No more cancer patients or ingrowing toenails have been reported for the past five weeks.  

        No more deaths from liver diseases , Aids, bad back ,etc.

          We have never had it so good ..

        

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by elliss

[gk10002000]

11 hours ago, owl sees all said:

In some states in US, hospitals who treat C-17 patients get a gov' handout of 30k USD. If they then die, that jumps up to 40k USD. Someone being admitted from the 'flu, is only worth 4k USD.

 

Best way to eradicate 'flu. Pay the hospitals not to record it.

I am not surprised that some money is involved.  If you say COVID 19 all sorts of billing things probably come into play.

[gk10002000]

1 hour ago, timendres said:

The number of 824,698 infected in the US is without question an understatement. In fact, it could very easily be an order of magnitude greater. This would shift your death toll dramatically. Influenza is a virus we have known and studied for years. Wuhan is not. So we will not really know the true numbers for some time. It is quite possible that it is not at all as lethal as we think at this moment, because we are finding more and more that large numbers of people are asymptomatic, or simply do not seek treatment.

And many people that died were NOT tested because test kits were short.  And even if they were tested, it may just have shown they had been exposed or had some 19 antibodies in their system, but would have died from a regular flu complications.  The percentage of deaths in each state by people in nursing homes stands out.  Some states had 30, 50, even 52 % of their deaths in Pennsylvania for example from people in Nursing homes.  Now of course many of those people were very old, weak, had many issues which is why they were in those sort of facilities.  So frankly, locking down every thing when the highest percentage of at risk people are a fairly narrow group is a poor solution 

[gk10002000]

4 hours ago, mrfill said:

Tripe.

For a start, the '1917' flu. I assume you mean the so called 'Spanish flu' outbreak in January 1918. That occurred during a world war where thousands of troops were closely packed in trenches with no sanitation, masks or social distancing. Rather unlike today. By August 1918, just as people thought it was finished, a second more powerful wave spread. This was helped by many infected troops being repatriated as the war was coming to an end and consequently it infected their home countries more. The armistice was signed in November 1918 after which the remaining infected troops returned home and the outbreak continued until late 1920. Actual figures for infections are vague to say the least. Wiki suggests a third of the world were infected (500m) and there were between 17 and 50 million deaths - that's about as vague as you can get!

 

The 1918 flu was particularly serious as it unusually affected young adults badly. Not as you suggest.

 

Covid may well have infected huge numbers - it could be 90% and if 89.9% are asymptomatic, it is not so important. Unfortunately even the best tests are not 100% accurate - 95% would be regarded as excellent but means 5% could be misdiagnosed as being clear when they are not. Cheaper tests have lower accuracy (I saw some were reckoned to be only 55% accurate which rather stretches the meaning of 'accurate' and would be worse than useless).

 

People are still dying of influenza and without proper testing, would be registered as an influenza or pneumonia death rather than a covid19 death, even if they were riddled with it. 

As flu and covid19 are transmitted the same way, precautions are similar except this year vast numbers are now wearing masks and washing hands frequently, which would slow any flu outbreak, just as it appears to slow covid19 spread, so I would certainly agree that the 2020 flu death figure is likely to be lower.

 

Comparing deaths by all reasons may give a slightly better insight. For example, Ecuador has reported only 530 deaths countrywide. However, the government said 6,700 people died in Guayas province in the first two weeks of April, far more than the usual 1,000 deaths there in the same period. (Guayas is home to Guayaquil - a key port and the part of the country worst-hit by Covid-19.). Without testing or even a half decent health system, the extra 5700 get reported as pneumonia or whatever. And that is just one province. Its a big mess...

Thank you for pointing out some of the details of the Spanish flu.  And opposite of COVID 19 it did affect severaly mostly the younger whose immune systems overreacted.  COV ID 19 seems to have no effect at all on the very young, and not surprising of course complications on old people affects them more.

[RJRS1301]

4 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

Thank you for pointing out some of the details of the Spanish flu.  And opposite of COVID 19 it did affect severaly mostly the younger whose immune systems overreacted.  COV ID 19 seems to have no effect at all on the very young, and not surprising of course complications on old people affects them more.

Covid19 is noted to cause a cytokine storm on many infected persons, and the recovery is very much longer for the immune system it seems. Not to mention the contagion rate and the impact on health systems, which are frequently under resourced.

Most infections are being noted in the 29-55 age group in many countries, with the standout exception of Italy which has one the largest populations over 50.

 Italy, with 23% of its population being 65 years of age or older. The country’s elderly population is known to have remained at around 20% in the period between 2005 and 2010, but has steadily been on the rise in the few years since. 

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-largest-aging-population-in-the-world.html

 

 

[Sharp]

4 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Keeping the old folk out of harm's way should be the No. 1 priority. They account for the vast majority of COVID 19 deaths. That's why the longer school's out, the better for Thailand, with so many generations often living under one roof.

 

The chances of contracting this coronavirus are low, so long as one behaves sensibly and defensively. In any case, the vast majority of folk under pensionable age who become infected are likely to suffer only mild symptoms - and the overall recovery rate is in excess of 90 percent. 

 

Be careful what you wish for in terms of a vaccine. History demonstrates they are not always safe or even totally effective against a rapidly-mutating virus such as this. Just look at how many people go down with influenza each year, despite countless millions across the world receiving annual flu vaccinations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sensible answer ..

[Sharp]

Oh And look for the link ' Joe Rogan live Mic White House vaccine...Interesting conversation.

 

Not allowed to link from Twitter

[runamok27]

15 hours ago, LomSak27 said:

Concerned about the common flu are you?

Why not compare it to the Wuhan virus. Note, I am using the 17/18 flu season which was a real bad one. Far worse than last years. 

 

The common flu has a huge death toll, BUT it infects massively huge number of people. The death rate or mortality rate is not so bad. BTW Its mortality is centered around but not exclusive too the elderly or very young. However, compare the Wuhan virus and common flu using the 2017/18 flu season statistics from the US.

 61,000 dead / 45,000,000 infected by the flu 2017/18 flu season.  figures rounded down(!)
To ---
45,297 dead / 824, 698 infected by the Wuhan virus, yesterdays count --- (US Statistics)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

If the Wuhan virus infected as many people as the common flu did in 2017/18, you would have a death toll of 2,454,000.  As the Wuhan virus is easily transmittable, it could happen. Yes, It is ok to say Holy Excrement now. 

 

 People who say; 'well look at how many die in flu deaths per year or how many died in car crashes, heart attacks, balcony jumps' ... whatever, are deliberately NOT mentioning the IF THEN part of the equation. IF you have an equal number of infections as the common flu, (or whatever you are comparing it to), THEN how many would the Wuhan virus kill? In this case; Two million four hundred and fifty-four thousand. Impressive. 

 

As for the common flu this year, I bet with self isolating and masks, flu numbers will be way down.

 

 

Stanford University and the University of Southern California completed 2 separate studies that puts the actual infected rate 50 to 80 times higher than the reported infection rates in 2 separate localities in the United States. On the low end you would have to increase the infected in the United States to 41,234,900‬ which would make the fatality rate comparable to your flu numbers but if you used the high end, the flu would be far deadlier than Covid-19 by percentage. In other words, you are using a fatality rate that is just not correct. How much it's off is clearly debatable but the current number of infected is obviously no where near correct given the testing criteria and the numbers of tests administered.

[JetsetBkk]

 

The below tweet has nothing to do with it. 

 

 

[timendres]

2 hours ago, chessman said:

Number of dead will be significantly higher too, but yes the number of infected will be much much higher.

it is interesting that every single serious article I read, over time, is nudging down the mortality rate... at first people were thinking 2-3% or more. Now nobody seems to be saying that. 1% mortality rate has become more commonly used but even that seems high if you look at the latest research... 

 

this is not to say that the lockdowns weren’t necessary. They bought time to do research, organise testing, prepare hospitals and PPE. 

I agree. I suspect the mortality rate comes in under 1%. Let's hope way under 1%. I also agree that we needed the initial lockdown, simply to provide the time to gear up and study, as well as provide our medical professionals some breathing room (no pun intended). Maybe it was too long, or two severe, only history can judge that. But let's hope it is a one-off event.

[seancbk]

Data charts and tables on COVID-19 in the UK. (OK not the US but the numbers will likely be fairly similar)

If your desire for statistics has not been satiated by that you can look through the whole website for data on everything in the UK. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases

 

 

[shy coconut]

6 hours ago, bartender100 said:

Seasonal flu does not do this

 

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927976

 

In Memoriam: Healthcare Workers Who Have Died of COVID-19

Nearly all NHS workers get the flu jab which makes quite a difference, and a few years 

ago there was a bad flu season in the UK and a polish health care assistant in my local

hospital sadly died from the virus.

 

I couldn't say for sure if she caught it at work, but it has happened before.

 

This is not to detract from the sadness of losing so many HCPs to this illness.

 

[chessman]

4 hours ago, JetsetBkk said:

The below tweet has nothing to do with it. 

The chart is made up (it’s certainly not a New York chart)  as for the money... read this fact check.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospital-payments-and-the-covid-19-death-count/

The minnesota state senator whose interview seemed to start this line of thinking doesn't actually think hospitals are misclassifying cases for financial reasons. Covid cases only earn hospitals 20% more than like-for-like similar non covid cases, and for hospitals the extra 20% doesn't make up for the elective surgeries they had to cancel.

 

It's true as well there are other countries in the world that have different medical systems and ways of financing them and they also are getting many cases. Some of these countries have a higher rate of infection than the US

 

Sadly, in America this has become a political issue and there is a small group of people trying to prove that the hospitals are empty and this is a made up virus. 
 

 

 

 

[JetsetBkk]

There are plenty of search results for this $13,000/$39,000 issue: https://bit.ly/2KvPjTs

 

As for the chart, the link at the bottom is:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/nyregion/new-york-coronavirus-deaths.html ...but I've no idea where the CDC mortality stats come from.

 

You talked about empty hospitals. I guess you saw this on Youtube: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pIMD1enwd4

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by JetsetBkk

[chessman]

1 hour ago, JetsetBkk said:

There are plenty of search results for this $13,000/$39,000 issue: https://bit.ly/2KvPjTs

 

As for the chart, the link at the bottom is:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/nyregion/new-york-coronavirus-deaths.html ...but I've no idea where the CDC mortality stats come from.

 

You talked about empty hospitals. I guess you saw this on Youtube: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pIMD1enwd4

Again, the chart was made up. It claims a source but the chart is not on that source. Nor are the figures that are on the chart mentioned in the article. Because you posted it, I thought you might want to know that someone made up the figures to manipulate people. 

Please read the fact check link about the money, it explains in detail about what is happening. It does not deny the money is being paid. Scott Jensen is quoted directly though so you can read what he thinks about the situation. Just as you allege there is an industry to inflate the number of deaths, there is an industry to spread lies and misinformation. Do you really think hospitals are empty? In 100s of countries in the world? 

It's up to you, but if you post made up graphs and selective quotes by people who then claim to not support they way their words were interpreted you should think carefully about where you got this information and why they wanted you to think this.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by chessman