# Thread: 10 Times as Lethal, My Eye

1. Professional Member
Join Date
May 2007
Location
Atlanta area
Posts
7,183
Post Likes

## 10 Times as Lethal, My Eye

Reports say that Coronavirus has a death rate of 1%, whereas the flu has a death rate of 0.1%, which means that Coronavirus is 10 times as lethal.

But these reports also fail to mention that the death rate is a percentage of the number of people who have contracted the disease, not a percentage of the population.

Thus, if 10,000 people get Coronavirus, the expected number of deaths is 100.
And if 100,000 people get the flu, the expected number of deaths is 100.

Since the initial outbreak of the disease last year, about 4,000 people across the world have gotten Coronavirus.
Each year, anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 people around the world get the flu. Let's call it 350,000.
And let's say 20,000 people get CV this year.

The media keep saying we don't have enough test kits, and it could be a huge problem.

But we have a flu vaccine and most people never bother to get a flu shot. Why aren't people running to the drugstores and grocery stores and health clinics to get their free flu shots? Where is the concomitant panic for flu remedies?

The difference lies with the media, whipping up a froth for CV and getting everyone to shut everything down. Seems to me it's a little out of proportion.

Not only that, but the numbers are wrong:

One of the characteristics of CV is that many people never have any symptoms of the disease. So how does anybody even decide to test them? And how do they know to count them among the number of people who have caught the virus?

The reports say that 4,000 people have caught the virus so far. How do we know the number isn't really 40,000? -- or 400,000?

We don't.

If the number is really 40,000 then that puts the death rate at 0.1% -- the same death rate as the flu.

2. Omg so many mistakes with the above... No point going through them all but here are a few:

The death rate of CV is currently thought to be 3.4% not 1%.

Current CV infections globally is 145,000, not 4,000

Global Flu infections annually result in approximately 5 million severely ill patients (not sure how they define severely ill, but obviously not 2-500k)

But the worst part of your science illiterate post is... are you implying we should treat CV the same as the flu and allow millions to get sick at the same time???

Does CV warrant panic and fights over toilet paper... hell no... but the comparisons to the flu are just silly.

3. Problem is the numbers are all over the place. I doubt we will have a halfway accurate number until it's over. Too much sensationalism going on.

Then you have the different healthcare systems in each country that respond differently. Italy is being particularly hard hit. They have a lot going against them. Aging population, crowded living conditions, and a free but limited health care system. Doctors there are directing treatment to the younger folks because they don't have the capability to treat them all. Ironically these are the ones who will be least bothered with it to start with. The older most succeptable folks are not treated. That's why their death rate is so high.

4. Originally Posted by model m-man
Problem is the numbers are all over the place. I doubt we will have a halfway accurate number until it's over. Too much sensationalism going on.

Then you have the different healthcare systems in each country that respond differently. Italy is being particularly hard hit. They have a lot going against them. Aging population, crowded living conditions, and a free but limited health care system. Doctors there are directing treatment to the younger folks because they don't have the capability to treat them all. Ironically these are the ones who will be least bothered with it to start with. The older most succeptable folks are not treated. That's why their death rate is so high.
All true, but they have to make decisions on what numbers they are currently seeing. No matter what, there will be mistakes. But we do the best we can.

5. Professional Member
Join Date
May 2007
Location
Atlanta area
Posts
7,183
Post Likes
Oops. I made a mistake. I hate when that happens.

I got my wires crossed. I said people got the disease when I meant people died from the disease.

Here's a rewrite:

Reports say that Coronavirus has a death rate of 1%, whereas the flu has a death rate of 0.1%, which means that Coronavirus is 10 times as lethal.

But these reports fail to mention that the death rate is a percentage of the number of people who have contracted the disease, not a percentage of the population.

Thus, if 10,000 people get Coronavirus, the expected number of deaths is 100.
And if 100,000 people get the flu, the expected number of deaths is 100.

Since the initial outbreak of the disease last year, about 4,000 people across the world have died from Coronavirus.
Each year, anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 people around the world die from the flu. Let's call it 350,000.
And let's say 20,000 people die from CV this year. Thats a CV/flu death ratio of 2/35.

The media keep saying we don't have enough test kits, and it could be a huge problem.

But we have a flu vaccine and most people never bother to get a flu shot. Why aren't people running to the drugstores and grocery stores and health clinics to get their free flu shots? Where is the concomitant panic for flu remedies?

The difference lies with the media, whipping up a froth for CV and getting everyone to shut everything down. Seems to me it's a little out of proportion.

Not only that, but the numbers are wrong:

One of the characteristics of CV is that many people never have any symptoms of the disease. So how does anybody even decide to test them? And how do they know to count them among the number of people who have caught the virus?

The reports say that 4,000 people have died from the virus so far. This means that 400,000 people have caught the disease. How do we know this number isn't really 4 million? -- or 40 million?

We don't.

If the number is really 4 million then that puts the death rate at 0.1% -- the same death rate as the flu.
Last edited by Space Racer; 03-14-2020 at 07:33 AM.

6. Yer numbers still wrong bro. And yer logic is incomplete at best.

7. Professional Member
Join Date
May 2007
Location
Atlanta area
Posts
7,183
Post Likes
Yer numbers still wrong bro. And yer logic is incomplete at best.

Really?
Which numbers are wrong?

8. Originally Posted by Space Racer
Really?
Which numbers are wrong?
Death rate is currently 3.4%

But let me ask, what is your conclusion? That they shouldnt be treating CV any differently than the flu?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

9. Professional Member
Join Date
May 2007
Location
Atlanta area
Posts
7,183
Post Likes

Quarantine and isolation are certainly helpful, but fear tactics need to be replaced with education tactics.
take steps to reduce the spread of disease and return to a state of normalcy. For example, leave two
seats between every person in a theater or arena or stadium. Furnish patrons with wipes to clean their
armrests. Screen patrons for symptoms.

Everybody goes to restaurants and/or grocery stores, or lives where someone in the same building buys
their food. They can't stop getting food. They need to employ and monitor safe health practices. These
practices need to be extended to other businesses and venues, instead of scaring everybody to a point
where they make irrational decisions and risk creating mass hysteria in the general population.

Remember Y2K?
Last edited by Space Racer; 03-14-2020 at 09:25 AM.

10. Professional Member
Join Date
May 2007
Location
Atlanta area
Posts
7,183
Post Likes
Death rate is currently 3.4%
The man who said CV was ten times as lethal, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
used the 1% death rate statistic.

Coronavirus 10 times more lethal than seasonal flu, top health official says
https://thehill.com/changing-america...-than-seasonal

11. Space, I had a similar idea of spacing seating, but about airlines. Airplanes truly are flying Petri dishes. And if they did an every other seat thingy... not only would there be space between people, but fewer would be flying/in airports. Not just due to the 50% restriction, but also because ticket prices would go up. But it would allow those who truly need to travel to do so.

As for doing that for movie theaters, stadiums etc... most wouldn't make money, but I wouldn't be against your idea. However, can't America go a couple weeks without? I would argue flying is more necessary to America than seeing the most recent Hollywood debauchery.

Listen, we do not have accurate data yet, but decisions have to be made with the data we have. And no matter what... there will be Monday morning quarterbacking. No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, there will be something to say he did wrong. But the basic question is if we should do social distancing or not. It seems like most agree we should.

As for your education/common sense... I have been thinking a lot about that. South Korea is widely seen as having the best response so far. But 1. it requires easy access to testing that we do not have. 2. it required they temporarily did some "invasion of privacy" and tracked people's movements through phones to do analytics... I don't think that would be accepted here... asian culture is truly different. 3. It requires faith in science, which ARP alone proves the US isn't as good at. China and Italy responded similarly, but with different intensity. Old fashioned quarantines... and again I don't think the US population would accept unless they are afraid.

Not really sure what I would do... regardless some people will die. If the disease is as contagious and deadly as they are saying... I kind of think Trump is screwed regardless if he handles it well or not.

12. Originally Posted by Space Racer
The man who said CV was ten times as lethal, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
used the 1% death rate statistic.

Coronavirus 10 times more lethal than seasonal flu, top health official says
https://thehill.com/changing-america...-than-seasonal

That is just a talking point, not actual data. The "3.4% Mortality Rate estimate by the World Health Organization (WHO) as of March 3" quote is all over the internet.

13. Professional Member
Join Date
May 2007
Location
Atlanta area
Posts
7,183
Post Likes
That is just a talking point, not actual data. The "3.4% Mortality Rate estimate by the World Health Organization (WHO) as of March 3" quote is all over the internet.
Regardless of which stats we quote, the point remains the same.

• The World Health Organization reported a global death rate of 3.4% by dividing the number of reported deaths over the number of reported cases.
• Its difficult for public health experts to estimate death rates this early in an outbreak. The 3.4% figure might turn out to be an overestimate or an underestimate.
• Early estimates often undercount mild cases and fail to take into account the fact that some recently infected patients are going to die in the future.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...th-rate-early/

As you can see, this info depends on the number of known cases of infected patients. But the real number is unknown, because so many infected people have no symptoms, as I said in the OP.

Page 1 of 12 1234567811 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•