Flu Pandemic Statistics

[eagleseven]

CDC - Seasonal Influenza (Flu) - Weekly Report: Influenza Summary Update

 

[catzmeow]

I usually don't status-drop, but I work in Microbiology for a living, and have a graduate-level background in Virology. H1N1 kills through (hypothetically) inducing an auto-immune response that rapidly liquefies the victim's lungs, very much like the Spanish Flu. Why this is still an untested theory, doctors have directly observed the destruction of patients' lungs by H1N1, particularly in young adults.

I have a friend who is recovering from a confirmed case of swine flu, he said that he was shocked at how congested his lungs became VERY quickly, making it difficult to breathe. He's doing better now, but he said that it was very rapid onset with very intense symptoms, that subsided within a couple of days.

 

[Sinatra]

CDC - Seasonal Influenza (Flu) - Weekly Report: Influenza Summary Update

Thank you - I found it.

Still difficult to make out the details, but it simply appears to indicate an earlier start to the flu season - or more people simply willing to go to the hospital out of hysteria who otherwise would not.

As I said before, the "experts" were predicting the flu outbreak to peak by mid-October which in itself indicates they thought the flu season would be a bit earlier this year than previous years. We are in that "peak" phase now, and there are no indications this flu season is any more harmful than others - perhaps even less so.

That chart you linked to shows a rapid rise in hospitalizations once flu season gets underway (makes sense) followed by an extended flat line (aka "flu season")

It is far too early to say how high the outbreak arc will go for this flu season - if it will in fact be higher than past flu season - and more importantly, will it actually be more deadly.

No information has yet been presented to indicate this flu season to be any worse than any other flu season - besides the increased hysteria of course.

What say you?

 

[Sinatra]

I was able to confirm the CDC's rating for "pediatric" - they are cases up to and including 18 years of age. So, my statistics stated below are sound. (as they almost always are! )

So according to the CDC's own statistics, the mortality rates for the current swine flu are far below previous flu seasons in that 1-64 age category. In fact, flu death rates for those under the age of 65 will have to more than DOUBLE this year to match the "reguler" flu season of 2006. So far there is no indication that is going to happen.

Well let us look at some simple facts ok folks?

Here is a typical article from Bloomberg, raising alarms etc. - this is from today...


Swine Flu Deaths Take 90% of Toll Among Young People (Update3) (Frightening, yes?)

By Pat Wechsler and Tom Randall

Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Almost 90 percent of 292 deaths related to swine flu in the U.S. since Sept. 1 were in people younger than age 65, contrary to the pattern for seasonal flu, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. ..


____

Ok, let's stop right there.

The entire United States has had 292 deaths related to swine flu since September 1st. Let's just call that a six week time period shall we? Of course, the article headline is stating how the swine flu appears to be targeting a younger subset than regular flu - in this case, "nearly 90%" of those are "under the age of 65". Ok, we will set aside the rather humorous assertion that being less than 65 makes one "young", and jus stick with those basic figures.

Nearly 90% of 292 equals out to 265 deaths from swine flu for those under the age of 65 since September 1st. That is approximately 44 deaths per week from swine flu under the age of 65.

Simple enough, right? -And it does sound rather bad. Really, it does.

But guess what?

2006 statistics show that there were 6,977 deaths from the flu in America for those under the age of
65. That works out to an average of 134 deaths per week under the age of 65. There were no dire warnings of a flu going after the youth at that time - even though those numbers are over a 100% higher than the swine flu deaths in that same age group now being heralded as some new and awful threat. Now perhaps as the flu season continues, and possibly more deaths occur, that gap will narrow - but it will most likely not be an significant difference in total numbers of death from the flu between 2006 and 2009/2010.

We can get even more age specific.

In 2006, there was a total of 432 flu related deaths in the United States for kids aged to 10 years. That is over 8 deaths per week from the flu for kids under 10 or younger in 2006. Guess what? According to the CDC's latest update, there has been 43 pediatric deaths from swine flu since August 30th of this year. Again using a six-week format, that works out to just over seven pediatric deaths from swine flu during this period - lower than the 2006 average for the 0-10 age group who died from the flu. Ah, but it gets better! Pediatric deaths means that those numbers include kids up to around age 18 - perhaps even 21 (the CDC did not define a specific age group in their update). Let's just stick with the age of 18 then.

So we have had 43 deaths to swine flu for kids up to around the age of 18 in the last six weeks - or just over 7 per week.

In 2006, we had well over 500 deaths for the age group up to 18 years of age, or nearly 10 per week - or about 30% more deaths in that same age group over the same time period as have died from swine flu. Again, that gap may narrow as flu season progresses - but it also may widen. What we do know at this time, is there is not out of control pandemic. There is no widespread death - even for those subgroups most vulnerable to viral infection.

The numbers just don't lie folks...


2006 flu deaths per week under the age of 65 = 134

2009 swine flu deaths per week under the age of 65 = 44 (based on latest CDC update)


But by all means - do what you must to get you through this emotional trauma, and then rest up for the next in a long long line of public health hysteria episodes...


WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports

Swine Flu Deaths Take 90% of Toll Among Young People (Update3) - Bloomberg.com

CDC - Seasonal Influenza (Flu) - Weekly Report: Influenza Summary Update

 

[eagleseven]

I hope that you are right, in that we've already peaked, and we are alarmed for no reason. I don't want to see millions of people getting sick.

On the other hand, if you are wrong, and this is just the beginning, we have a very narrow window in which we can nip this in the bud with a vaccine. If we don't act now, the only option that will be on the table is police-enforced quarantines.

Vaccination is far less bothersome than forced quarantine, for both the economy and for individual citizens.

I agree with the CDC, in that it is prudent to administer the vaccine while we still have the opportunity. Better safe than sorry.

 

[eagleseven]

I was able to confirm the CDC's rating for "pediatric" - they are cases up to and including 18 years of age. So, my statistics stated below are sound. (as they almost always are! )

No, they are not. We've already been over this...you are projecting linear spread of the disease, when it is a known fact that disease spreads exponentially.

Let me draw it out for you:

You are assuming disease grows like this:

When disease actually grows like this:

As a result, you cannot directly compare a three-week period this year, to an entire past year. This is why your numbers are wrong. You are wrongly comparing a 3-week average to a 52-week average.

If you compare the first three weeks of the flu season this year, to the first three weeks of the flu season last year, this H1N1 flu is obviously many times more severe.

 

[xotoxi]

This is rubbish.

There are more "reported" cases of the flu because people are now freaked out because of the 24/7 swine flu hysteria buildup.

And my oh my how those flu stock prices have gone up!!!!!

The graph presented was a graph of hospitalizations.

People are not admitted to the hospital unless they are sick enough to meet admission criteria.

You can't fake that.

 

[Sinatra]

I hope that you are right, in that we've already peaked, and we are alarmed for no reason. I don't want to see millions of people getting sick.

On the other hand, if you are wrong, and this is just the beginning, we have a very narrow window in which we can nip this in the bud with a vaccine. If we don't act now, the only option that will be on the table is police-enforced quarantines.

Trust me, vaccination is far less bothersome than forced quarantine, for both the economy and for individual citizens.

I agree with the CDC, in that it is prudent to administer the vaccine while we still have the opportunity. Better safe than sorry.

I still don't see the actual need for widespread vaccination beyond that very small percentage of people actually at risk - but to each their own. I certainly don't fault anyone from wanting to be cautious - but I do fault agencies who are instilling needless fear in a population now crying wolf at every moment over this thing. - Not that you are doing that, but there have been a couple rather strident participants in this thread who came off somewhat "unhinged" over this swine flu thing.

Earlier I gave the example of our neighbor's daughter who did not receive the vaccine and did come down with a confirmed case of "swine flu". Her symptoms were mild, and she recovered quickly. The doctor confirmed that for him, that has been the case so far. He knew of fatalities - but they were quite rare and involved a child that whose health was already greatly compromised. (this was all told to me by the girl's mother, who was initially freaked out about swine flu but now feels a bit foolish after getting "talked down from the ledge" by her family doctor. The family was tested and the father also tested positive for the virus - he wasn't really sick and never got sick.

When my daughter got sick shortly after, and I called our own family doctor out of precaution, he confirmed what the other doctor had said - this swine flu stuff has been so blown out of proportion it is brining in people with a slight fever and cough who would otherwise never come to their doctor. He said to not bring her in unless the fever remaind for more than a few days or her cough became worse. He called the next morning as a follow up and by then her fever was gone, the cough was less and by the next day she was completely fine. Our own doctor stated that is the case 99.9% of the time. That's two family physicians, with decades of experience, shaking their collective heads over the hysteria surrounding swine flu. And one thing I forgot to mention before - our doctor did mention that the more people were getting admitted into the hospital for the flu - that these people were "higher risk" and doctors were not wanting to take a chance on the flu getting worse for them. As he put it, "Nobody in this business wants a lawsuit".

That is when I began doing my own homework on this thing and the CDC's own stats show that so far, this flu season is nothing different. Austrialia has concluded its most recent flu season - nothing different.

I concur.

For the vast majority of us - this flu season, beyond the abnormal hysteria - nothing different.

 

[Sinatra]

I was able to confirm the CDC's rating for "pediatric" - they are cases up to and including 18 years of age. So, my statistics stated below are sound. (as they almost always are! )

No, they are not. We've already been over this...you are projecting linear spread of the disease, when it is a known fact that disease spreads exponentially.

Let me draw it out for you:

You are assuming disease grows like this:

When disease actually grows like this:

As a result, you cannot directly compare a three-week period this year, to an entire past year. This is why your numbers are wrong. You are wrongly comparing a 3-week average to a 52-week average.

If you compare the first three weeks of the flu season this year, to the first three weeks of the flu season last year, this H1N1 flu is obviously many times more severe.

___


I know what you are saying - but numbers are numbers. Averages are averages. Yes, disease has an exponential increase - then flatlines, follwed by decline - but the average is the average.

The same use of a graph you are now employing was utilized for AIDS back in the 1980s and early 1990s - when reports were stating 1 in four Americans would be stricken with the AIDS virus by 2000. They were employing the same faulty logic you are now- taking a near - zero basis point and running it up to the sky. You could do that with the change from one to two.

It's Mann's easily disproven Hockey Stick all over again...

 

[Si modo]

I was able to confirm the CDC's rating for "pediatric" - they are cases up to and including 18 years of age. So, my statistics stated below are sound. (as they almost always are! )

No, they are not. We've already been over this...you are projecting linear spread of the disease, when it is a known fact that disease spreads exponentially.

Let me draw it out for you:

You are assuming disease grows like this:

When disease actually grows like this:

As a result, you cannot directly compare a three-week period this year, to an entire past year. This is why your numbers are wrong. You are wrongly comparing a 3-week average to a 52-week average.

If you compare the first three weeks of the flu season this year, to the first three weeks of the flu season last year, this H1N1 flu is obviously many times more severe.

___


I know what you are saying - but numbers are numbers. Averages are averages. Yes, disease has an exponential increase - then flatlines, follwed by decline - but the average is the average.

The same use of a graph you are now employing was utilized for AIDS back in the 1980s and early 1990s - when reports were stating 1 in four Americans would be stricken with the AIDS virus by 2000. They were employing the same faulty logic you are now- taking a near - zero basis point and running it up to the sky. You could do that with the change from one to two.

It's Mann's easily disproven Hockey Stick all over again...

There you go again with an implication that one state of the science (climate) is comparable to another (epidemiology). Please stop that as it is illogical.

 

[eagleseven]

I know what you are saying - but numbers are numbers. Averages are averages.

And mean diddly if you don't know how to use them.

Yes, disease has an exponential increase - then flatlines, follwed by decline - but the average is the average.

You cannot compare a 3-week average to a 52-week average of a non-linear function. Statistics 101

The same use of a graph you are now employing was utilized for AIDS back in the 1980s and early 1990s - when reports were stating 1 in four Americans would be stricken with the AIDS virus by 2000. They were employing the same faulty logic you are now- taking a near - zero basis point and running it up to the sky. You could do that with the change from one to two.

And so, because one initial projection was inaccurate, we should stop all AIDS research, and tell people to stop using condoms?

Maybe you could prove your point by having sex with AIDS victims, telling them not to worry, the initial projection was wrong?

It's Mann's easily disproven Hockey Stick all over again...

No, it is based upon our historical data for flu epidemics. Totally different fields.

 

[Emma]

Only 12% of Germans say they will have H1N1 vaccine after row blows up over safety of adjuvants
Ned Stafford

Concerns are growing in Germany about the safety of the swine flu vaccine that will be available to the general population after news was leaked last weekend that top politicians and some government employees will be given an alternative vaccine.

State and federal health officials announced in August the purchase of 50 million doses of Pandemrix, the H1N1 vaccine produced by GlaxoSmithKline. Pandemrix contains an adjuvant that includes squalene and boosts the effectiveness of the vaccine, meaning a much smaller amount of inactivated virus is needed for an effective dose. However, some experts say that adjuvants can produce inoculation reactions, such as headache and fever, or possibly even longer term side effects.

Michael Kochen, president of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians, told the BMJ that Pandemrix has not been sufficiently tested to be declared safe for millions of people, especially small children and pregnant women. His main concern is the adjuvant.

As of 2009, over 40 million people have been given squalene containing influenza vaccines in Europe. The incidence of serious adverse events so far reported, 1.4/100,000 doses administered, is at the baseline of the general population with no exposure to the vaccine.

As far as long-term follow-up, squalene has been studied as part of influenza vaccines in over 30 phase 1-4 trials, 13 of which had 4-6 month follow-up, and included over 14,000 people, and the current influenza vaccines in development are subject to clinical trials with a 6-12 month follow up schedule.

THE PUNCH LINE

With his article Dr. Mercola sought to scare people away from vaccinating against influenza in general, and H1N1 in particular. Contrary to Dr. Mercola’s poorly informed assertions, cherry picked and outdated studies, and outright misinformation, influenza is a real threat and vaccines against it are both effective and safe.

Ah, but earlier I promised you a punch line. Remember this quote?

The U.S. government has contracts with several drug companies to develop and produce swine flu vaccines. At least two of those companies, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, are using an adjuvant in their H1N1 vaccine.

Novartis and GSK are indeed developing influenza vaccines containing adjuvants – for use in Europe, where squalene containing adjuvants have been safely used for over a decade.

Science-Based Medicine » A Defense of Childhood Influenza Vaccination and Squalene-Containing Adjuvants; Joseph Mercola’s “Dirty Little Secret”

Additionally: Science-Based Medicine » 9 Reasons to Completely Ignore Joseph Mercola

 

[xotoxi]

The entire United States has had 292 deaths related to swine flu since September 1st. Let's just call that a six week time period shall we? Of course, the article headline is stating how the swine flu appears to be targeting a younger subset than regular flu - in this case, "nearly 90%" of those are "under the age of 65". Ok, we will set aside the rather humorous assertion that being less than 65 makes one "young", and jus stick with those basic figures.

Nearly 90% of 292 equals out to 265 deaths from swine flu for those under the age of 65 since September 1st. That is approximately 44 deaths per week from swine flu under the age of 65.

Simple enough, right? -And it does sound rather bad. Really, it does.

But guess what?

2006 statistics show that there were 6,977 deaths from the flu in America for those under the age of
65. That works out to an average of 134 deaths per week under the age of 65. There were no dire warnings of a flu going after the youth at that time - even though those numbers are over a 100% higher than the swine flu deaths in that same age group now being heralded as some new and awful threat. Now perhaps as the flu season continues, and possibly more deaths occur, that gap will narrow - but it will most likely not be an significant difference in total numbers of death from the flu between 2006 and 2009/2010.

You cite the number of deaths from H1N1 since Sept 1st to Oct 21st (or thereabouts). That is a total of 6 weeks.

Are the 2006 statistics that you cited for that same timeperiod? Sept 1, 2006 to Oct 21, 2006? Or do they include the peak of the 2006-2007 flu season which usually falls in Feb or March?

Unless you are comparing the same 6 calendar weeks, your statistics are as meaningless as making the claim on Jan 7, 2010 that "2010 is the coldest year on record."

 

[Ravi]

Sinatra, I'm curious.

Do you own stock in a kid's casket making company?

 

[xotoxi]

The entire United States has had 292 deaths related to swine flu since September 1st. Let's just call that a six week time period shall we? Of course, the article headline is stating how the swine flu appears to be targeting a younger subset than regular flu - in this case, "nearly 90%" of those are "under the age of 65". Ok, we will set aside the rather humorous assertion that being less than 65 makes one "young", and jus stick with those basic figures.

Nearly 90% of 292 equals out to 265 deaths from swine flu for those under the age of 65 since September 1st. That is approximately 44 deaths per week from swine flu under the age of 65.

Simple enough, right? -And it does sound rather bad. Really, it does.

But guess what?

2006 statistics show that there were 6,977 deaths from the flu in America for those under the age of
65. That works out to an average of 134 deaths per week under the age of 65. There were no dire warnings of a flu going after the youth at that time - even though those numbers are over a 100% higher than the swine flu deaths in that same age group now being heralded as some new and awful threat. Now perhaps as the flu season continues, and possibly more deaths occur, that gap will narrow - but it will most likely not be an significant difference in total numbers of death from the flu between 2006 and 2009/2010.

You cite the number of deaths from H1N1 since Sept 1st to Oct 21st (or thereabouts). That is a total of 6 weeks.

Are the 2006 statistics that you cited for that same timeperiod? Sept 1, 2006 to Oct 21, 2006? Or do they include the peak of the 2006-2007 flu season which usually falls in Feb or March?

Unless you are comparing the same 6 calendar weeks, your statistics are as meaningless as making the claim on Jan 7, 2010 that "2010 is the coldest year on record."

Oh...FYI: There were no influenza-related pediatric deaths Oct 1 - Oct 21, 2006. Nor were there any from May 30 - Sept 30. This can easily be found on the CDC website.

 

[eagleseven]

Also, from Emma's article:

Before I leave this comment, I’ll take the opportunity to point out that pharmaceutical companies, doctors, and hospitals stand to make a lot more money from an uncontrolled pandemic than from its prevention. The money spent on antivirals, antibiotics, sedation and pain medications, physician and hospital billing for the 200,000 people hospitalized in the US during a normal flu season would compensate them far better than profits from vaccine sales. It’s almost as though, against our financial interest, all of our efforts are designed to keep people from getting sick…

What will make more profit for a pharmaceutical company?

A. $15 vaccine that prevents disease after one dose

B. Prescription pain and anti-viral medications, that must be administered continually


This is why we have vaccine shortages, and so few companies with the facilities to produce vaccines...

 

[xotoxi]

Sinatra. Do you follow baseball?

Who is the best home run hitter of all time? It's Tony Clark.

On April 6, 2009, Tony Clark of the Diamondbacks had 2 HR. That is a rate of 2 HR per game.

In 2001, Barry Bonds his 73 HR in 162 games. That is a rate of 0.45 HR per game.

Therefore Tony Clark is a better home run hitter than Barry Bonds.

Sinatratistics at its BEST!

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra, I'm curious.

Do you own stock in a kid's casket making company?

I am a father of two.

Even those in this thread who may disagree with my assertion this swine flu event is not as serious as some believe - would cite your comment here as beyond the pale.


Shame on you...

 

[Si modo]

Sinatra, I'm curious.

Do you own stock in a kid's casket making company?

I am a father of two.

Even those in this thread who may disagree with my assertion this swine flu event is not as serious as some believe - would cite your comment here as beyond the pale.


Shame on you...

Appeals to emotion are logical fallacies. I am counting on you to use some logic to analyze what has been presented to you. You have an average to support your claim that this pandemic is not serious; but you are basing this claim on an average where an arithmetic average is irrelevant. I don't know if that is an argument you came up with or one that has been presented to you, but I am hoping that you can see that it does not apply in this situation.

 

[Ravi]

Sinatra, I'm curious.

Do you own stock in a kid's casket making company?

I am a father of two.

Even those in this thread who may disagree with my assertion this swine flu event is not as serious as some believe - would cite your comment here as beyond the pale.


Shame on you...

I honestly couldn't figure out what else would motivate you to spread such blatant lies.