Considering the flu has a mortality rate of 0.1 percent which is lower by a few orders of magnitude than Covid 19 I'm guessing considerably less.
www.cdc.gov
Ok so there's more than a few things to respond too so I'll try to do it point by point."Considering the flu has a mortality rate of 0.1 percent which is lower by a few orders of magnitude than Covid 19 I'm guessing considerably less. "
CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza. The number of influenza-associated illnesses that occurred last season was similar to the estimated number of influenza-associated illnesses during the 2012–2013 influenza season when an estimated 34 million people had symptomatic influenza illness.
Estimated Flu-Related Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2018–2019 Flu Season | CDC
CDC calculates estimates of disease burden in the United States using surveillance data and modeling to adjust for sources of under-detection. Burden estimates for the 2018-2019 season found here.
So, how many orders of magnitude do you think the COVID-19 mortality rate will be over that of last year's influenza numbers?
Consider: the current number of COVID-I9 cases in the US stands approx 209k, with 4633 deaths. So, here's my question, asked again:
How many of those 4633 would have died this year of influenza if the COVID-19 had not materialized? Considerably less? 34,200 died from influenza last year. I'm guessing most of those 4633 would have died anyway. Which is not to belittle the COVID-19 virus, it's a serious issue but I do believe it has been blown all out of proportion.
"A virus this contagious and this dangerous doesn't come around yearly."
Influenza-related illnesses do occur every year, and a lot of people get sick and quite a few die. Consider:
Let's take a quick look at the now forgotten H1N1 pandemic that ran for about a year from April 2009 to April 2010. The similarities between the two pandemics are evident. Both were novel strains for which there were no available vaccines. Both viruses hit people over 60 the hardest. During the year that H1N1 raged, the CDC estimates that “there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868-18,306).”
Coronavirus Overreaction
The hasty and disproportionate responses to COVID-19 will prove far more devastating than the disease.www.hoover.org
I do not believe we should assume the next pandemic will be in 10 years from now, or longer. Maybe this thing mutates into something new, or something else comes along a lot sooner and just as deadly. If not worse. We need to have plans already in place to deal with the next pandemic that comes down the road, it's foolish to think it'll never happen again. Don't tell me it can't happen next year, the hell it can't. How do you feel about gambling with that many lives?
We gotta do better than this, our economy is going right down the toilet and it's not going to suddenly pick right up from where it left off. The National Debt is projected to be over a trillion for FY2020, and we just added $2.2 trillion to that. That trend, my friends, is not sustainable. And as we speak, Democrats and some Republicans are working on more Emergency Relief Bills, to spend even more money that we don't have. Doesn't anybody care about the burden we will be passing on to future generations?
spectator.org
Overreacting? Let me change your question around. How many would have died of Covid 19 if there weren't any measures taken? As we see now hospitals are still being overwhelmed with patients. Now imaging a scenario were there weren't any lockdown measures and this virus would have spread freely among the populace. Medical equipment is finite as we all are finding out.The Imperial College in London (one of the most prestigious institutions in the world) initially suggested the best approach was to allow herd immunity and isolate high-risk individuals selectively. Then they came back with a model that basically said there would be 2.2 million dead in the U.S. and 500,000 dead in the UK if no action were taken to slow the virus. This model and report largely fueled the hysteria we currently see. Last Thursday, they drastically downgraded their projection to less than 20,000 deaths in the UK. Part of the reason for the downgrade is that a study out of Oxford (another prestigious institution) said that only 0.01 percent (1 out of 10,000) that contract the virus will need hospitalization. Another reason is we just aren’t seeing such horrific outcomes.
It’s important to note that when any “new” disease comes along the mortality (death) rate is always overestimated for several months at a minimum. The reason for this is that the actual number of deaths (the numerator) is known to a high degree of confidence. The number of people infected (the denominator) is grossly underestimated, since 90–95 percent of cases are mild and most people are never tested. For example, if 10 people die and 100 people test positive, then it’s a 10-percent mortality rate. But if the actual number of people who were positive was 2,000, then the mortality rate is only 0.5 percent.
Clearly while one is going through a unique event, no one really knows exactly how it will play out. But if we depend more on real numbers and historical events, as opposed to models (no matter how well designed) that depend on numerous assumptions and operator biases, we will make better decisions.
We also can gain perspective by real historical data that we can all relate to. Consider the following:
• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 26,448 deaths and 577,660 cases worldwide.
• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 1,429 deaths and 94,425 cases in the U.S.; that means the overestimated death rate in the U.S. is 1.5 percent, and the actual one will be much lower.
• In New York (greatest number of cases in the U.S.) the death rate is 1.1 percent.
• Per the CDC, the 2017–18 flu hospitalized 810,000 and killed 61,000 in the U.S. (that’s 42.7 times more than the coronavirus has currently killed) and people argue over getting vaccinated.
• Per the Lancet, Dec. 13, 2019, the flu kills 291,000–646,000 per year worldwide.
• In 2017, malaria killed 435,000 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, smoking in the U.S. killed 480,000 last year, 41,000 by secondhand smoke.
• Per the CDC, alcohol in the U.S. killed 88,000 every year between the years 2006–10.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 killed between 151,700 and 575,400 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 infected 60.8 million, hospitalized 273,304, and killed 12,469 in the United States.
• Per the CDC, last year 19,510 people were murdered in the U.S., 47,173 committed suicide, and 40,992 died from sepsis.
• 38,800 in the U.S. died in traffic accidents last year.
Overreacting to a Serious Situation – The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
I am a practicing physician (a dermatologist). I was a medical student when HIV was discovered. As a dermatology resident, I dealt extensively with AIDS patients, because AIDS — as with most infectious diseases — often presents with skin lesions, so I've lived through a new infectious disease...
I acknowledge that the coronavirus is serious, especially for those in the high-risk categories, and we don’t know exactly how it will play out. It does appear though in the overall scheme of things that we’re overreacting a bit. Actually, IMHO more than a little bit.
Overreacting? Let me change your question around. How many would have died of Covid 19 if there weren't any measures taken? As we see now hospitals are still being overwhelmed with patients. Now imaging a scenario were there weren't any lockdown measures and this virus would have spread freely among the populace. Medical equipment is finite as we all are finding out.The Imperial College in London (one of the most prestigious institutions in the world) initially suggested the best approach was to allow herd immunity and isolate high-risk individuals selectively. Then they came back with a model that basically said there would be 2.2 million dead in the U.S. and 500,000 dead in the UK if no action were taken to slow the virus. This model and report largely fueled the hysteria we currently see. Last Thursday, they drastically downgraded their projection to less than 20,000 deaths in the UK. Part of the reason for the downgrade is that a study out of Oxford (another prestigious institution) said that only 0.01 percent (1 out of 10,000) that contract the virus will need hospitalization. Another reason is we just aren’t seeing such horrific outcomes.
It’s important to note that when any “new” disease comes along the mortality (death) rate is always overestimated for several months at a minimum. The reason for this is that the actual number of deaths (the numerator) is known to a high degree of confidence. The number of people infected (the denominator) is grossly underestimated, since 90–95 percent of cases are mild and most people are never tested. For example, if 10 people die and 100 people test positive, then it’s a 10-percent mortality rate. But if the actual number of people who were positive was 2,000, then the mortality rate is only 0.5 percent.
Clearly while one is going through a unique event, no one really knows exactly how it will play out. But if we depend more on real numbers and historical events, as opposed to models (no matter how well designed) that depend on numerous assumptions and operator biases, we will make better decisions.
We also can gain perspective by real historical data that we can all relate to. Consider the following:
• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 26,448 deaths and 577,660 cases worldwide.
• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 1,429 deaths and 94,425 cases in the U.S.; that means the overestimated death rate in the U.S. is 1.5 percent, and the actual one will be much lower.
• In New York (greatest number of cases in the U.S.) the death rate is 1.1 percent.
• Per the CDC, the 2017–18 flu hospitalized 810,000 and killed 61,000 in the U.S. (that’s 42.7 times more than the coronavirus has currently killed) and people argue over getting vaccinated.
• Per the Lancet, Dec. 13, 2019, the flu kills 291,000–646,000 per year worldwide.
• In 2017, malaria killed 435,000 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, smoking in the U.S. killed 480,000 last year, 41,000 by secondhand smoke.
• Per the CDC, alcohol in the U.S. killed 88,000 every year between the years 2006–10.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 killed between 151,700 and 575,400 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 infected 60.8 million, hospitalized 273,304, and killed 12,469 in the United States.
• Per the CDC, last year 19,510 people were murdered in the U.S., 47,173 committed suicide, and 40,992 died from sepsis.
• 38,800 in the U.S. died in traffic accidents last year.
Overreacting to a Serious Situation – The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
I am a practicing physician (a dermatologist). I was a medical student when HIV was discovered. As a dermatology resident, I dealt extensively with AIDS patients, because AIDS — as with most infectious diseases — often presents with skin lesions, so I've lived through a new infectious disease...
I acknowledge that the coronavirus is serious, especially for those in the high-risk categories, and we don’t know exactly how it will play out. It does appear though in the overall scheme of things that we’re overreacting a bit. Actually, IMHO more than a little bit.
Do I content the mortality rate is as high as the numbers suggest? No, I don't. What I do content is that events have already shown that this virus is capable of completely overwhelming the ability of the healthcare system to deal with it. This has not happened since 1918. And considering that fact it's simply common sense that we don't risk not acting on a worst-case scenario basis.
fee.org
Let's start with you arguing for the Swedish and Korean response. The Korean response is one of test and isolate. This requires ample testing capability. Something the US has lagged in compared to other countries, so that strategy is not viable. The Swedish one is one of voluntary measures. This with the caveat that the government will reevaluate as the situation worsens. Guess what it is worsening. This is as far as I know exactly the approach the US is taking.Overreacting? Let me change your question around. How many would have died of Covid 19 if there weren't any measures taken? As we see now hospitals are still being overwhelmed with patients. Now imaging a scenario were there weren't any lockdown measures and this virus would have spread freely among the populace. Medical equipment is finite as we all are finding out.The Imperial College in London (one of the most prestigious institutions in the world) initially suggested the best approach was to allow herd immunity and isolate high-risk individuals selectively. Then they came back with a model that basically said there would be 2.2 million dead in the U.S. and 500,000 dead in the UK if no action were taken to slow the virus. This model and report largely fueled the hysteria we currently see. Last Thursday, they drastically downgraded their projection to less than 20,000 deaths in the UK. Part of the reason for the downgrade is that a study out of Oxford (another prestigious institution) said that only 0.01 percent (1 out of 10,000) that contract the virus will need hospitalization. Another reason is we just aren’t seeing such horrific outcomes.
It’s important to note that when any “new” disease comes along the mortality (death) rate is always overestimated for several months at a minimum. The reason for this is that the actual number of deaths (the numerator) is known to a high degree of confidence. The number of people infected (the denominator) is grossly underestimated, since 90–95 percent of cases are mild and most people are never tested. For example, if 10 people die and 100 people test positive, then it’s a 10-percent mortality rate. But if the actual number of people who were positive was 2,000, then the mortality rate is only 0.5 percent.
Clearly while one is going through a unique event, no one really knows exactly how it will play out. But if we depend more on real numbers and historical events, as opposed to models (no matter how well designed) that depend on numerous assumptions and operator biases, we will make better decisions.
We also can gain perspective by real historical data that we can all relate to. Consider the following:
• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 26,448 deaths and 577,660 cases worldwide.
• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 1,429 deaths and 94,425 cases in the U.S.; that means the overestimated death rate in the U.S. is 1.5 percent, and the actual one will be much lower.
• In New York (greatest number of cases in the U.S.) the death rate is 1.1 percent.
• Per the CDC, the 2017–18 flu hospitalized 810,000 and killed 61,000 in the U.S. (that’s 42.7 times more than the coronavirus has currently killed) and people argue over getting vaccinated.
• Per the Lancet, Dec. 13, 2019, the flu kills 291,000–646,000 per year worldwide.
• In 2017, malaria killed 435,000 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, smoking in the U.S. killed 480,000 last year, 41,000 by secondhand smoke.
• Per the CDC, alcohol in the U.S. killed 88,000 every year between the years 2006–10.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 killed between 151,700 and 575,400 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 infected 60.8 million, hospitalized 273,304, and killed 12,469 in the United States.
• Per the CDC, last year 19,510 people were murdered in the U.S., 47,173 committed suicide, and 40,992 died from sepsis.
• 38,800 in the U.S. died in traffic accidents last year.
Overreacting to a Serious Situation – The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
I am a practicing physician (a dermatologist). I was a medical student when HIV was discovered. As a dermatology resident, I dealt extensively with AIDS patients, because AIDS — as with most infectious diseases — often presents with skin lesions, so I've lived through a new infectious disease...
I acknowledge that the coronavirus is serious, especially for those in the high-risk categories, and we don’t know exactly how it will play out. It does appear though in the overall scheme of things that we’re overreacting a bit. Actually, IMHO more than a little bit.
Do I content the mortality rate is as high as the numbers suggest? No, I don't. What I do content is that events have already shown that this virus is capable of completely overwhelming the ability of the healthcare system to deal with it. This has not happened since 1918. And considering that fact it's simply common sense that we don't risk not acting on a worst-case scenario basis.
Doesn't have to be no measures at all. Other countries like Swedn ans south Korea have dealt with COVID-19 without resorting to the draconian measures that we have. People are going to die from the overreacting, more than you might think. We don't know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy and society. Some people are suggesting a depression to rival that of the 1930s. In the longer term, more lives will be lost if we continue to act on the worst-case scenario. How many victims of financial ruin will end their own lives? In the modern era, for every one percent increase in the unemployment rate, there has typically been an increase of about one percent in the number of suicides. A study conducted by Brenner in 1979, found that for every 10 percent increase in the unemployment rate, mortality increased by 1.2 percent, cardiovascular disease by 1.7 percent, cirrhosis of the liver by 1.3 percent, suicides by 1.7%, arrests by 4 percent, and reported assaults by 0.8 percent (see here). How many lost lives out of 300 million in the USA does a 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent unemployment rate represent?
An Alternative to the Lockdown Strategy in the Fight Against Coronavirus
The cascade of economic and financial repercussions to come is likely to lead to another Great Depression if we don't act swiftly. A market-oriented strategy is not without risks, but we must move away from the defensive 16th-century bunker mentality and explore more prudent alternatives.
