COVID-19 and Influeza Mortality Rates - US Example

[SMEinBangkok]

Nothing makes the catastrophe ghouls more angry than comparing the coronavirus to the flu because it flies in the face of their confirmation bias and would basically mean this entire experiment in trashing the world's economy was a mistake, but here goes:

 

Here's a few links.  Please note the sources:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Johns Hopkins University graph showing US mortality from the coronavirus at 17.84 per 100,000

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374803/
American Journal of Public Health May 2008 showing deaths per 100,000 from seasonal flu.  There are over a dozen months between 1941 and 1976 when the mortality rate far exceeded the coronavirus' death rate per 100,000

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
New England Journal of Medicine, March 26, 2020 (Lead author Dr. Fauci)
"If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively."

You can draw your own conclusions, but there's no need to argue with me.  I didn't write the academic, peer-reviewed articles for these professional medical journals.  Argue with the people who wrote them.

[TommyBlue]

Good stuff - thanks you. Facts and reason beat emotion in the end all the time.

 

WHO based their initial predictions on MERS/SARs with the infectious rates of Influenza. They got it wrong, but they did that for the right reasons.  But what is wrong is that they wont back down and admit they wrong. That is why bureaucrat must never be allowed to do this ever again. And that is what WHO are - medical people who have become bureaucrats - they are not in the field anymore - they are in the office - and they got it wrong but wont back down - claiming they might be wrong if they do. The only way to move economy forward is to force the WHO out - they wont go themselves. 

[uwe_rayong]

If we want to know the real fatality rate, we have to to Antibody tests.

Some people say, well those tests are not accurate yet, just 90% to 95 %.

 

 

I would say, to know something with a 90% chance of it being correct is a lot better compared of not knowing it at all.

 

Prof. Streeck in Germany did an Antibody Test in Gangelt (3 weeks ago!), result was death fatality rate in Gangelt was 0.37%.

Stanford University calculated also between 0.2% to 0.3%, published a couple of days ago.

 

 

Still a scary number.

 

Population 70 Million. Lets say 60% get infected before it fades out, you have 42 Million.

42 Million at 0.4% death rate is 168000 death in a short time. Flu season 2017 in Thailand - death by flu and pneumonia 60.000 spread over the year.

168000 in 2-3 month would be painful, the health system would collapse.
Sure less people would die if we flatten the curve.

On the other hand, in the USA the chances of surviving, once on a ventilator,  are not that great. Maybe 10%-20% will survive. 

 

 

Still the average age of a Covid 19 related death in Italy is 79 years, in Germany it is around 81 years. That age is already above the average life expectancy in those countries.

 

The news loves to mention that also "healthy 24 year old men with no known pre-existing conditions" are dying of this sickness, but if the average age is 81 years there must also some "healthy 96 years old men" die because of Covid 19, otherwise it would not be possible to have an average 81. 

 

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

 

 

 

 

 

[chessman]

1 hour ago, SMEinBangkok said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374803/
American Journal of Public Health May 2008 showing deaths per 100,000 from seasonal flu.  There are over a dozen months between 1941 and 1976 when the mortality rate far exceeded the coronavirus' death rate per 100,000

Am not sure these papers are really making your case.

 

look at the following graph from the above source.

 

first, we should say that the number of reported cases at the time is much lower than the adjusted figure. This will likely happen with Covid 19 too. Preliminary data from the USA suggests that overall mortality if going up by much more than what can be accounted for by reported Covid 19 deaths. So the official number of 63,000 deaths in the USA is similar to the low line line on the graph. It will be adjusted to a higher number. 
 

Secondly, it seems that the worst 12 month period for flu, using the post-virus adjusted-up estimates are about 50,000 deaths. Well, in 2 months in the US, despite extreme social distancing rules, it’s already killed more than that. And it continues to kill.

[SMEinBangkok]

18 minutes ago, chessman said:

Am not sure these papers are really making your case.

 

look at the following graph from the above source.

 

first, we should say that the number of reported cases at the time is much lower than the adjusted figure. This will likely happen with Covid 19 too. Preliminary data from the USA suggests that overall mortality if going up by much more than what can be accounted for by reported Covid 19 deaths. So the official number of 63,000 deaths in the USA is similar to the low line line on the graph. It will be adjusted to a higher number. 
 

Secondly, it seems that the worst 12 month period for flu, using the post-virus adjusted-up estimates are about 50,000 deaths. Well, in 2 months in the US, despite extreme social distancing rules, it’s already killed more than that. And it continues to kill.

 

It's not my case.  I didn't write the academic, peer-reviewed articles for these professional medical journals.  Argue with the people who wrote them.

 

I like how you cherry-picked a few odd facts there to extrapolate into a conclusion.  Are you a journalist?

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by SMEinBangkok
content

[chessman]

1 minute ago, SMEinBangkok said:

It's not my case.  

I didn't write the academic, peer-reviewed articles for these professional medical journals.  Argue with the people who wrote them.

Right but they don’t support your interpretation.

 

[SMEinBangkok]

1 hour ago, chessman said:

Right but they don’t support your interpretation.

 

I didn't offer an interpretation.  I didn't write the articles, I merely posted links to them.  Take your learned disagreements up with the authors.

[Throatwobbler]

30 minutes ago, SMEinBangkok said:

I didn't offer an interpretation.  I didn't write the articles, I merely posted links to them.  Take your learned disagreements up with the authors.

So can you please tell us all the point of this thread please? Because the graphs are showing that the flu deaths are less than the Covid 19 deaths. The article referenced by Chessman was written in 2008 way before Covid 19 was around. You are trying to use this to argue what? You say take it up with the authors? What does that mean? The authors were not trying to compare flu with Covid-19. That is you who are doing that?

 

I honestly don't know what you are trying to achieve with this thread? All it is showing is that Covid-19 has killed more than flu.

[chessman]

57 minutes ago, SMEinBangkok said:

I didn't offer an interpretation. 

Right, the 1st paragraph in your opening post is not an interpretation. 

[Throatwobbler]

I see the OP has now left this thread for dead. I really want to know from him though what point was he trying to make? 

[cmarshall]

I'll stick with my original prediction of 2.2 million dead in the US, all the more so with the states now beginning to relax social distancing, the Federal government still AWOL, and the only method to suppress (test, isolate, trace) being applied only spottily.  The cost in deaths and in damage to the economy will be maximized.

[SMEinBangkok]

I think that you two individuals are prime examples of how the hysteria behind this disease has been spread.  Your confirmation bias refuses to allow you to just look at the well-sourced and well-documented information that's out there and free to read.  Not some unqualified person's opinion about how everyone is going to die, but actual data and analysis from well-regarded, professional scientific journals.

 

So, Chessman....you intentionally chose a graphic from the AJPH that you think confirms your bias about how COVID-19 is more deadly than influenza.  Unfortunately, the graph you cherry-picked represents total deaths only.  You do realize that the population of the US increases each year, right?  So what sort of figures could one use to accurately compare numbers of deaths in previous years taking into account population increases?  Deaths per 100,000 population....which was contained in the graph below the one you picked, but the one you didn't use because it clearly shows over a dozen different MONTHS where influenza death rates per 100,000 far exceed COVID-19, which Johns Hopkins University is tracking at around 18 currently.  Any answers on why you did that?  Let me attach the graph for you:

 

 

Let me know if you have any trouble reading this part of the journal you chose to intentionally not reference in order to attempt to prove your already self-confirmed notions about the mortality of influenza and COVID-19  Here's a twist for you:  Do the same research and compare pneumonia deaths to COVID-19.  It's the 6th leading cause of death in the US each and EVERY year.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by SMEinBangkok
Content

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, SMEinBangkok said:

I think that you two individuals are prime examples of how the hysteria behind this disease has been spread.  Your confirmation bias refuses to allow you to just look at the well-sourced and well-documented information that's out there and free to read.  Not some unqualified person's opinion about how everyone is going to die, but actual data and analysis from well-regarded, professional scientific journals.

 

So, Chessman....you intentionally chose a graphic from the AJPH that you think confirms your bias about how COVID-19 is more deadly than influenza.  Unfortunately, the graph you cherry-picked represents total deaths only.  You do realize that the population of the US increases each year, right?  So what sort of figures could one use to accurately compare numbers of deaths in previous years taking into account population increases?  Deaths per 100,000 population....which was contained in the graph below the one you picked, but the one you didn't use because it clearly shows over a dozen different MONTHS where influenza death rates per 100,000 far exceed COVID-19, which Johns Hopkins University is tracking at around 18 currently.  Any answers on why you did that?  Let me attach the graph for you:

 

 

Let me know if you have any trouble reading this part of the journal you chose to intentionally not reference in order to attempt to prove your already self-confirmed notions about the mortality of influenza and COVID-19  Here's a twist for you:  Do the same research and compare pneumonia deaths to COVID-19.  It's the 6th leading cause of death in the US each and EVERY year.

 

Comparison of peak monthly rates seems particularly inapt since we currently have no idea whether the death rate for Covid will persist for months or years or will drop to zero next month.  Even if Covid's mortality rate were less than that of the seasonal flu, which it is not, then it could kill a lot more people by persisting longer.

 

The other baseline fact that you are ignoring is that that Covid is a new and additional cause of elevated mortality.  It's like saying people shouldn't be upset at the American deaths in the Viet Nam War, because they were dwarfed by deaths from smoking during the same period.  So what?  Deaths from war, smoking, and Covid are all regrettable, cumulative, and preventable.

 

The US, now officially qualified as a sh*thole country, has failed in its most basic function to protect the people.  And the failure is ongoing.   Here's a post from a disaster preparedness expert in the Obama administration:

 

 

The social distancing initiatives undertaken so far have stopped the increase in the rate of infection, but are not sufficient to reduce it, which only the test, isolate, and trace regime can achieve.  So, as the states reduce their already inadequate measures the rate of infection will increase again at an exponential rate and we will be off to the races.  Two million US dead is my number.

[chessman]

4 hours ago, SMEinBangkok said:

Let me know if you have any trouble reading this part of the journal you chose to intentionally not reference in order to attempt to prove your already self-confirmed notions about the mortality of influenza and COVID-19  Here's a twist for you:  Do the same research and compare pneumonia deaths to COVID-19.  It's the 6th leading cause of death in the US each and EVERY year.

I see your game.

State your opinion forcefully, cherry pick parts from academic journals that vaguely back up what you say and then shout loudly that as you have chosen statements from academic journals what you say cannot be questioned. If people point out problems, be patronizing and query their intelligence.

 

Your 17.84 mortality rate from yesterday is now about 20 in the USA https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/. Why? because this virus is moving pretty quickly. When it reaches 30 in about a week, will you change your opinion? So your numbers of months with higher mortality rates will get less and less. You also didn't address the very important point that I showed in the graph I quoted. There are two death figures. The one counted at the time (always lower), the one created when death data in analyzed later (always higher). You are using the higher flu numbers (reached after analysis of death data) to compare with the current Covid numbers (the lower number - it will be a big underestimation). The graph in your piece shows how big that underestimation usually is.  I am not surprised you ignored this because it completely cuts across your argument.

 

Your Third quote that 'proves' your initial assertion also does nothing of the sort. Look at all the hedging language they use: "If one assumes...", "Maybe be considerable less", "May ultimately be". This is an early initial assessment of the virus, we can't use that to say that peer reviewed journals are saying it's just like the flu. All they are really sure about is that the mortality rate is less than SARS and MERS. Great. Unless the mortality rate is over 4.5% (it isn't) then it will be closer to flu than SARS or MERS. That doesn't mean it can't be much higher than the 0.1% mortality rate that is often quoted for seasonal influenza.