Coronavirus Quarantine vs. Influenza Quarantine

[Voice of Reason]

I have to say I find this flu comparison to be the most mind numbing and irritating discussion of all the CV19 discussions - BY FAR!

 

I have not seen a CV19 death rate below 1% anywhere. Let's look at the two countries that have tested everyone from the start, so no one can claim skewed numbers due to lack of testing. South Korea death rate is 2.2%. Germany death rate is 4%. I believe the flu death rate is 0.1%.

 

No vaccine so the infection rate is geometrically higher. No treatment so the death rate is geometrically higher. If there were no shutdown we would be looking at 500,000+ deaths. The flu comparison is just silly. It really is.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[rjs4470]

I have to say I find this flu comparison to be the most mind numbing and irritating discussion of all the CV19 discussions - BY FAR!

 

I have not seen a CV19 death rate below 1% anywhere. Let's look at the two countries that have tested everyone from the start, so no one can claim skewed numbers due to lack of testing. South Korea death rate is 2.2%. Germany death rate is 4%.

 

No vaccine so the infection rate is geometrically higher. No treatment so the death rate is geometrically higher. If there were no shutdown we would be looking at 500,000+ deaths. The flu comparison is just silly. It really is.

 

And we are still comparing annual flu numbers to basically 6 weeks of Covid. You have to multiply the covid number by roughly 11 (or divide the flu by 11) to get an equivalent number.

[Bluegrasscard]

And we are still comparing annual flu numbers to basically 6 weeks of Covid. You have to multiply the covid number by roughly 11 (or divide the flu by 11) to get an equivalent number.

 

And in most states if you do this...you have ... the flu numbers roughly. In a handful of states this is a disaster. In others its not. The variance is massive. The approaches should have had more of a spectrum instead of a singular simplistic, yet unproven, solution.

[Voice of Reason]

And we are still comparing annual flu numbers to basically 6 weeks of Covid. You have to multiply the covid number by roughly 11 (or divide the flu by 11) to get an equivalent number.

 

Multiply 63,856 dead by 11 and you have 702,416 dead for the year. That is with the shutdown. I am being way too conservative in my 500,000+ projection with no shutdown.

 

I really don't know why people are still hanging on to this flu discussion. I thought we put this to rest when CV19 annihilated the flu annual death number in one month.

[TheDeuce]

We’re still comparing a years worth of numbers to two months and trying to say they’re equal? Yikes.

[theguru]

We’re still comparing a years worth of numbers to two months and trying to say they’re equal? Yikes.

 

Nah, we are saying COVID19 has a long way to go in most states before it catches up with the flu.

 

We are also asking where's the outcry to shutdown nationwide each year to protect people from the flu.

[The Scribe]

A doctor told me this comparison. COVID-19 vs the flu is like a sprained ankle vs. a broken ankle. Same kind pain. Same area of pain. Same symptoms. Treatment is different. Level of seriousness is different. Treat a break like a sprain and it sets back the recovery time.

[MJAlltheWay24]

It is systematic corruption, most of the flu deaths are being reported as covid deaths.

 

I saw another example of this a couple of nights ago that boggled my mind it was so blatant.

 

I don't know if it is true but I've seen a few people online saying that hospitals are receiving like $38K for every COVID-19 death that they have. Not sure where that money is coming from, but it makes things a little more interesting.

[rjs4470]

And in most states if you do this...you have ... the flu numbers roughly. In a handful of states this is a disaster. In others its not. The variance is massive. The approaches should have had more of a spectrum instead of a singular simplistic, yet unproven, solution.

 

Maybe I’m wrong, but my math tells me, even using a factor of 10 (the math is easier), there are only 6 states where flu exceeds CV-19, and another handful where it’s neck and neck. My math says, in the vast majority of states, CV-19 deaths are tracking to exceed flu deaths, and most are at least 30%-40% higher or an annual basis. And that’s with the shutdown. According to the CDC, there were 34k flu deaths in 2018 (the year this chart is based on). CV-19 has already almost doubled that since, mostly in the last 6 weeks.

[Bluegrasscard]

Maybe I’m wrong, but my math tells me, even using a factor of 10 (the math is easier), there are only 6 states where flu exceeds CV-19, and another handful where it’s neck and neck. My math says, in the vast majority of states, CV-19 deaths are tracking to exceed flu deaths, and most are at least 30%-40% higher or an annual basis. And that’s with the shutdown. According to the CDC, there were 34k flu deaths in 2018 (the year this chart is based on). CV-19 has already almost doubled that since, mostly in the last 6 weeks.

 

At full national or selective state level the story line is this is modern plague. And that is how the nation has reacted mostly as a whole. Though in a lot of the country the numbers say in is not. In most states the statistics are not artificially driven by COVID - the "excess morbidity". A statistician would have hard time finding that any serious event occurred - at a STATE level, in a lot (over half) of the states. Then there is NY and NJ and LA and the story line and statistics tell a different story.

 

So, my point is that numerically, at the state level, for over half of the states at least, this is not a currently a crisis event by any measure. That includes our state. 1/5 of the ratio of deaths (assuming you trust the numbers), with 45% of those being nursing home deaths. And that is not to downplay those or trivialize those. But it points that the general public is far less at risk than the portrayed story-line that seems national and monolithic, though it clearly varies by state and locality.

 

Finally, I would hate to seem to be downplaying the severity of the novel COVID vs. the flu. Everything, everyone who has been sickened by it, confirms its virility of impact. And obviously it attacks the older population very disproportionately. It is serious, it needs serious action. The question is when can extreme be taken down to serious for each locality since the variance of impact is so very wide in our multi-faceted country.

[Bluegrasscard]

I don't know if it is true but I've seen a few people online saying that hospitals are receiving like $38K for every COVID-19 death that they have. Not sure where that money is coming from, but it makes things a little more interesting.

 

Medicaid.

[Voice of Reason]

Nah, we are saying COVID19 has a long way to go in most states before it catches up with the flu.

 

We are also asking where's the outcry to shutdown nationwide each year to protect people from the flu.

 

At full national or selective state level the story line is this is modern plague. And that is how the nation has reacted mostly as a whole. Though in a lot of the country the numbers say in is not. In most states the statistics are not artificially driven by COVID - the "excess morbidity". A statistician would have hard time finding that any serious event occurred - at a STATE level, in a lot (over half) of the states. Then there is NY and NJ and LA and the story line and statistics tell a different story.

 

So, my point is that numerically, at the state level, for over half of the states at least, this is not a currently a crisis event by any measure. That includes our state. 1/5 of the ratio of deaths (assuming you trust the numbers), with 45% of those being nursing home deaths. And that is not to downplay those or trivialize those. But it points that the general public is far less at risk than the portrayed story-line that seems national and monolithic, though it clearly varies by state and locality.

 

Finally, I would hate to seem to be downplaying the severity of the novel COVID vs. the flu. Everything, everyone who has been sickened by it, confirms its virility of impact. And obviously it attacks the older population very disproportionately. It is serious, it needs serious action. The question is when can extreme be taken down to serious for each locality since the variance of impact is so very wide in our multi-faceted country.

 

Applause to the states with low death rates. Without the shutdown every one of them would blow the flu death numbers away.

 

Is the purpose of this discussion to show some states should not have shut down?

 

Let's assume a state did no shutdown. What would CV19 deaths look like in that state?

[rjs4470]

At full national or selective state level the story line is this is modern plague. And that is how the nation has reacted mostly as a whole. Though in a lot of the country the numbers say in is not. In most states the statistics are not artificially driven by COVID - the "excess morbidity". A statistician would have hard time finding that any serious event occurred - at a STATE level, in a lot (over half) of the states. Then there is NY and NJ and LA and the story line and statistics tell a different story.

 

So, my point is that numerically, at the state level, for over half of the states at least, this is not a currently a crisis event by any measure. That includes our state. 1/5 of the ratio of deaths (assuming you trust the numbers), with 45% of those being nursing home deaths. And that is not to downplay those or trivialize those. But it points that the general public is far less at risk than the portrayed story-line that seems national and monolithic, though it clearly varies by state and locality.

 

Finally, I would hate to seem to be downplaying the severity of the novel COVID vs. the flu. Everything, everyone who has been sickened by it, confirms its virility of impact. And obviously it attacks the older population very disproportionately. It is serious, it needs serious action. The question is when can extreme be taken down to serious for each locality since the variance of impact is so very wide in our multi-faceted country.

 

Because I was curious, I took the time to break the numbers down further. Only 9 of the 50 states have rates where Covid is causing less than 32% more deaths on an annualized basis. Arkansas, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, WV, and Wyoming. Every other state, the death rate is at least 2/3 more than the flu, and most of those are more than double. Just use KY as an example... on an annualized rate, this will kill 112% more people than the flu.

Again, this is with a national shutdown. Without it, I can't imagine how this wouldn't have been a complete horror story. People keep pointing to numbers to prove this hasn't been so bad, specifically pointing a a few areas where things really aren't bad. But by and large, those are isolated (Alaska and Hawaii), or low population densities. Tennessee seems to be the one outlier.

[Bluegrasscard]

Because I was curious, I took the time to break the numbers down further. Only 9 of the 50 states have rates where Covid is causing less than 32% more deaths on an annualized basis. Arkansas, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, WV, and Wyoming. Every other state, the death rate is at least 2/3 more than the flu, and most of those are more than double. Just use KY as an example... on an annualized rate, this will kill 112% more people than the flu.

Again, this is with a national shutdown. Without it, I can't imagine how this wouldn't have been a complete horror story. People keep pointing to numbers to prove this hasn't been so bad, specifically pointing a a few areas where things really aren't bad. But by and large, those are isolated (Alaska and Hawaii), or low population densities. Tennessee seems to be the one outlier.

 

Given the variance of the flu season to season - 112% is not "statistically significant". The flu varies year to year and the added impact of COVID-19 would fit inside the variance window. While 112% (double) sounds like a lot - with a number of 200 and 1000 vs a population of 4.4M these are both low impact to the overall morbidity rate.

 

The point again is that the tactics are based on NY-like numbers where the ratio is 5x the flu numbers, not 1/5th the flu numbers. The fact that the numbers go from 5% to 500% depending on the state is simply a fact that seems completely lost in the national reaction - now that there is data and something to really (flawed as it is) to look at.

 

I was dumping the numbers daily into spreadsheets and trying to find the trends, etc. Sounds like you are on that path. I finally had to quit as it was maddening and I could see the macro trend of NYC dominating to entire storyline and being used as the benchmark.

[Hellcats]

Because I was curious, I took the time to break the numbers down further. Only 9 of the 50 states have rates where Covid is causing less than 32% more deaths on an annualized basis. Arkansas, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, WV, and Wyoming. Every other state, the death rate is at least 2/3 more than the flu, and most of those are more than double. Just use KY as an example... on an annualized rate, this will kill 112% more people than the flu.

Again, this is with a national shutdown. Without it, I can't imagine how this wouldn't have been a complete horror story. People keep pointing to numbers to prove this hasn't been so bad, specifically pointing a a few areas where things really aren't bad. But by and large, those are isolated (Alaska and Hawaii), or low population densities. Tennessee seems to be the one outlier.

 

:ohbrother:

Lying or a medical miracle.