Comparing the flu with Coronavirus

amother

Fri, Mar 13 2020, 6:59 am

https://www.google.com/url?sa=.....pcf=1

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday and he was going on and on about how this whole coronavirus issue is really not that big a deal and us somewhat comparible to a typical flu season.
He went on to say that this is a crisis manufactured by CNN and the media in an effort to the the country into chaos, while causing a recession leading up to the election. This will obviously severely hurt Trump's election chances. O decided to research what the CDC says about previous flu season and compare it to the information we have about Coronavirus. I realize the mortality rate among people over 70 is much higher.

This time magazine article states that the CDC reports that 2 years ago approximately 49 million people had the flu and 80 thousand of them died. That's around a1.5% mortality rate.
The article also says that the CDC reports that last year approximately 43 million people had the flu and around 61 thousand of them died. This is also around a 1.5% mortality rate.
The statistics regarding the coronavirus seem to be very similar. Yes there are many significant preventive measures being taken. But ultimately, the likelihood of a person dying from CV seems to be comparable to dying from the flu.
Thoughts?

[please comment ONLY on COVID-19 vs. flu on this thread. Please do not comment about Rush Limbaugh/CNN/Trump/anything political here. - mod]

amother

Mint

Fri, Mar 13 2020, 7:43 am

If you look at the real numbers at this point I agree with him.
Currently the number of cases in the US is close to 1700, only 1% of those are listed as severe, 99% are classified as mild. Even if all that 1% were to ch"v die, that's far less than some of the other rumors floating around (and no I'm not discounting that 1% and saying let them die, just pointing out the numbers!)
And even more so, there are most likely 1000s if not hundreds of thousands of people walking around with the virus that are not even being tested, which would being that number significantly lower.

Everyone really needs to relax here. The panic and hysteria are so out of control to me - that is the scariest part. Yes, we should be careful and do our due diligence, but everyone breath please

amother

Pewter

Fri, Mar 13 2020, 7:47 am

Its not true. Factually speaking the danger, while elevated risk above the flu to certain percent, yes its still small if all factors remain constant. Howevere, the rate of spread is exceedingly astronomically faster and higher. Which means people can get turned away from receiving medical care and the medical system gets so overwhelmed and medical staff work to the point of collapsing/ getting sick themselves. Then, without medical available much more people can suffer ill effects of this to put it nicely. There are only so many drs, hospital beds, machines, medicines available at any point in time. If we don't " flatten the curve" this is so contagious it can easily overwhelm the system.

To add, rates of chronic managed disease is sadly higher in the USA than in the other countries which means way more people percent will typically need medical service to get through.

amother

Fri, Mar 13 2020, 8:09 am

amother [ Pewter ] wrote:

You raise an interesting point about the spread of flu vs Corona, but the question is what are t hgt e actual numbers? I don't have time to look it up now but I think the typical person with influenza spreads it to 1.5 people and the typical person with CV spreads it to 2.5 people. So while the rate of spread is around 75% higher, the actual numbers aren't that different. Certainly not significant enough this run on toilet paper we are having.

amother

Pewter

Fri, Mar 13 2020, 8:36 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Thats the things it isn't 2.5% higher. Transmission rate is more like much higher, by a multiple of 10. Which means, pardon my math, but this is how it spead in EU -

Week 1: 10 cases
Week 2: 100 cases
Week 3: 1000 cases
Week 4: 10000 cases

And if allowed to keep going see how this can overwhelm a medical system? 100 k, 1 m...., fortunately we can look to the other westernized countries who began before and hopefully learn the easier way.

Picture all the people who end up in the ER for asthma every time they get sick, all the old and chronic who end up using oxygen often when ill... if the numbers were allowed to grow so high triage protocol would determine who gets medical care and who doesn't and that would be a very ugly situation. The death rate would rise unnecessarily for completely treatable health challenges.

And that is why when they realized, schooling and other all stops were put in place.

The point is, one to one all things the same, no, the illness isn't that much worse. But that is if we don't collapse the ability of the medical industry to function.