4 ms·

> The flu, in Catalonia, this week has reached figures of 360 cases / 100,000 inhabitants: more than 120 times higher than the incidence of COVID-19 infection i

by erentz 7y ago

> The flu, in Catalonia, this week has reached figures of 360 cases / 100,000 inhabitants: more than 120 times higher than the incidence of COVID-19 infection in China.[1] We need to stop comparing this to the flu. The flu is an established widespread virus with a very low mortality rate. This is a new, so far still spreading, virus with what appears to be a high mortality rate. If you had to choose between being infected with the flu or COVID19 you’d chose the flu because you’re about 20 times more likely to die from COVID19 based on the data available at the moment. If COVID19 has spread globally and becomes established then it will be similar in terms of deaths to the Spanish Flu. Nobody wants that and it is perfectly reasonable for people to be concerned about wanting to prevent that from happening. If this does spread into a pandemic then you will be able to rightly come back in 24 months and compare the annual total deaths from COVID19 to the seasonal flu. Until then it’s an entirely incorrect comparison.

merqurio 7y ago
It makes sense total sense to compare, it's another respiratory virus, from a family of viruses already known. We must not reinvent the wheel when we know the dynamics of these viruses and the countermeasures to take. The key metric that determines whether COVID-19 can establish and generate a sustained outbreak is it's ability to reproduce, "R", which represents the average number of individuals to which each transmitter transmits the virus. - If "R" is greater than 1, the transmission may become sustained; - If “R” is less than 1, then the transmission will simply dissipate. In the current outbreak, it represents an R of 2.2 [1], meaning that on average each patient has been spreading infection to 2.2 other people. Only a little bit more than half of the infections should be avoided so that R falls below 1. Preventive isolation and the measures established by the protocols should be sufficient. Besides, there is little evidence to suggest the presymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2001316 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2001316
- jpdus 7y ago
  This is outdated information. Most newer studies put R0 >3 (e.g. [1]) and there are many well documentated cases outside of China now which confirm at least partial presymptomatic transmission (German cluster, Signapore Conference, British prisoners). [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021675v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021675v...
  - merqurio 7y ago
    This paper suggest even a bigger R0, I'm still going through the details. [1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.20021154v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.20021154v...
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    The German case was later found that the woman did indeed have mild cold symptoms while in Germany.
cm2187 7y ago
The Spanish flu had a mortality of 10-20%. Everything points to this thing having a mortality similar to the seasonal flu.
- retsibsi 7y ago
  > Everything points to this thing having a mortality similar to the seasonal flu. Can you justify this? I want to be convinced, because at the moment I think it's very optimistic. (There are different estimates for seasonal flu mortality, but it seems to be around 0.1%, so I'm assuming that's roughly the number you mean.)
  - cm2187 7y ago
    The mortality measured in China is about 2%. Outside of China, I read it was rather 0.15%. And what I read is the 2% is based on the number of people who show up at the hospital with symptoms and get diagnosed. The doctors think there is a large but unknown population out there, with milder symptoms, who don't show up. Understandly. If you have what looks like a cold, you don't really want to go to the place where everyone is contaminated with the coronavirus. So it looks like 2% is kind of the upper bound but that the actual rate will be lower.
    - koheripbal 7y ago
      This is wrong. The only way to get 0.15 is by dividing dead over total cases - which is not the correct math since most people infected are still ongoing. You have to divide dead over dead+recovered, and outside of China those numbers are still too small to get a reliable number. In China it is 2% outside Wuhan, but inside Wuhan it is over 4% since the medical system has broken down.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  Similar being at least 100x more lethal?
- rusticpenn 7y ago
  The problem is that the mortality rate might seem lower than it actually is as it takes time for people to die after the infection is identified. Comparing the number of peopl infected upto today and number of deaths upto today is not a correct comparison. A two week delay in the stats should give you a better idea of the mortality rate. One more pandemic like the flu to contend with is also not a good idea.

by erentz 7y ago

merqurio 7y ago

It makes sense total sense to compare, it's another respiratory virus, from a family of viruses already known. We must not reinvent the wheel when we know the dynamics of these viruses and the countermeasures to take. The key metric that determines whether COVID-19 can establish and generate a sustained outbreak is it's ability to reproduce, "R", which represents the average number of individuals to which each transmitter transmits the virus. - If "R" is greater than 1, the transmission may become sustained; - If “R” is less than 1, then the transmission will simply dissipate. In the current outbreak, it represents an R of 2.2 [1], meaning that on average each patient has been spreading infection to 2.2 other people. Only a little bit more than half of the infections should be avoided so that R falls below 1. Preventive isolation and the measures established by the protocols should be sufficient. Besides, there is little evidence to suggest the presymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2001316 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2001316

jpdus 7y ago
This is outdated information. Most newer studies put R0 >3 (e.g. [1]) and there are many well documentated cases outside of China now which confirm at least partial presymptomatic transmission (German cluster, Signapore Conference, British prisoners). [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021675v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021675v...
- merqurio 7y ago
  This paper suggest even a bigger R0, I'm still going through the details. [1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.20021154v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.20021154v...
- koheripbal 7y ago
  The German case was later found that the woman did indeed have mild cold symptoms while in Germany.

cm2187 7y ago

The Spanish flu had a mortality of 10-20%. Everything points to this thing having a mortality similar to the seasonal flu.

retsibsi 7y ago
> Everything points to this thing having a mortality similar to the seasonal flu. Can you justify this? I want to be convinced, because at the moment I think it's very optimistic. (There are different estimates for seasonal flu mortality, but it seems to be around 0.1%, so I'm assuming that's roughly the number you mean.)
- cm2187 7y ago
  The mortality measured in China is about 2%. Outside of China, I read it was rather 0.15%. And what I read is the 2% is based on the number of people who show up at the hospital with symptoms and get diagnosed. The doctors think there is a large but unknown population out there, with milder symptoms, who don't show up. Understandly. If you have what looks like a cold, you don't really want to go to the place where everyone is contaminated with the coronavirus. So it looks like 2% is kind of the upper bound but that the actual rate will be lower.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    This is wrong. The only way to get 0.15 is by dividing dead over total cases - which is not the correct math since most people infected are still ongoing. You have to divide dead over dead+recovered, and outside of China those numbers are still too small to get a reliable number. In China it is 2% outside Wuhan, but inside Wuhan it is over 4% since the medical system has broken down.
merpnderp 7y ago
Similar being at least 100x more lethal?
rusticpenn 7y ago
The problem is that the mortality rate might seem lower than it actually is as it takes time for people to die after the infection is identified. Comparing the number of peopl infected upto today and number of deaths upto today is not a correct comparison. A two week delay in the stats should give you a better idea of the mortality rate. One more pandemic like the flu to contend with is also not a good idea.