4 ms·

Actually it is worse than Spanish flu. Mortality rate for the Spanish flu is estimated at 2-3% according to the WHO. COVID-19 currently stands at 3.4-3.6%. We

Actually it is worse than Spanish flu. Mortality rate for the Spanish flu is estimated at 2-3% according to the WHO. COVID-19 currently stands at 3.4-3.6%. We do have the advantage maybe that the world today is better prepared at handling this kind of events, but we're only just 50 days in, the Spanish flu ended up lasting 2 years. Source Spanish flu: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44123/9789241547680_eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44123/97892... Source COVID-19: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...

huhtenberg 7y ago
> COVID-19 currently stands at 3.4-3.6%. Not according to other studies that covered people with no obvious symptoms. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3065187/coronavirus-south-koreas-aggressive-testing-gives https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/30... 0.6%
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  There's been consistent - IMO unprofessional - confusion between Case Fatality Ratio and Population Mortality. The >1% numbers are all CFRs, calculated from diagnosed cases. They don't account for people with no symptoms, or those who aren't tested. It's very hard to estimate unmodified population mortality, because the real numbers are lowered by quarantine measures and health care. But real population mortality seems set to be well under 1%, with the bulk of deaths among the over the 60s, heavily skewed to the over 80s. That's hardly trivial, but it's a long way off the 240 million who would die if the population mortality really were around 3%.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  Note that diagnosis of the Spanish flu would also not have been complete. Actually, it was almost certainly worse; I don't believe they then had much of a test beyond "do they have the classic symptoms".
Symmetry 7y ago
It's complicated. First of all countries with a relatively young population like South Korea are going to be hit less hard overall than countries with relatively old populations like Italy. Second, there's going to be a big difference in mortality depending on how the medical system is holding up. In South Korea they got it contained, everybody who needed it got an ICU, and the case fatality rate is less than 1%. In Wuhan they were almost overwhelmed but built some extra hospitals then the they'd been in lockdown longer than the incubation period and they ended up with a bit over a 3% case fatality ratio. In Italy right now the worst hit hospitals are very overwhelmed and performing desperate triage with many infected medical workers and they've got a case fatality ratio over 8%. Of course, case fatality ratio only covers diagnosed cases. If people with a light fever stay home and don't get tested they won't show up in the denominator and the case fatality ratio will be an exaggeration of the actual fatality ratio. How much of the difference between South Korea and Italy right now is due to which of those factors? I honestly don't know but I am worried. I think mortality rates similar to the Spanish flu could certainly occur if we respond badly enough.
- ken 7y ago
  I've not heard any health officials suggest that age is a factor in South Korea's response to the virus. They're only about 3 years younger than Italians [1] -- but have 4x as many hospital beds per capita [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_ag... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_hospital_beds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_hosp...
  - Symmetry 7y ago
    It's less about the median age than the numbers in the categories at highest risk. If you compare the population pyramids of the two Italy has many more people over 65. Number of hospital beds per capita is also a big deal. https://www.populationpyramid.net/republic-of-korea/2019/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/republic-of-korea/2019/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/italy/2019/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/italy/2019/
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
Even if the mortality rates are similar, it looks probable that fewer people will end up being infected by this virus before we get a handle on it. Also don't forget the Spanish flu was concurrent with WW1. Holy double whammy. Note that I'm not trying to minimize the current situation. However comparing existing situations to worse ones is a stoic coping strategy.

huhtenberg 7y ago

> COVID-19 currently stands at 3.4-3.6%. Not according to other studies that covered people with no obvious symptoms. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3065187/coronavirus-south-koreas-aggressive-testing-gives https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/30... 0.6%

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
There's been consistent - IMO unprofessional - confusion between Case Fatality Ratio and Population Mortality. The >1% numbers are all CFRs, calculated from diagnosed cases. They don't account for people with no symptoms, or those who aren't tested. It's very hard to estimate unmodified population mortality, because the real numbers are lowered by quarantine measures and health care. But real population mortality seems set to be well under 1%, with the bulk of deaths among the over the 60s, heavily skewed to the over 80s. That's hardly trivial, but it's a long way off the 240 million who would die if the population mortality really were around 3%.
rsynnott 7y ago
Note that diagnosis of the Spanish flu would also not have been complete. Actually, it was almost certainly worse; I don't believe they then had much of a test beyond "do they have the classic symptoms".

Symmetry 7y ago

It's complicated. First of all countries with a relatively young population like South Korea are going to be hit less hard overall than countries with relatively old populations like Italy. Second, there's going to be a big difference in mortality depending on how the medical system is holding up. In South Korea they got it contained, everybody who needed it got an ICU, and the case fatality rate is less than 1%. In Wuhan they were almost overwhelmed but built some extra hospitals then the they'd been in lockdown longer than the incubation period and they ended up with a bit over a 3% case fatality ratio. In Italy right now the worst hit hospitals are very overwhelmed and performing desperate triage with many infected medical workers and they've got a case fatality ratio over 8%. Of course, case fatality ratio only covers diagnosed cases. If people with a light fever stay home and don't get tested they won't show up in the denominator and the case fatality ratio will be an exaggeration of the actual fatality ratio. How much of the difference between South Korea and Italy right now is due to which of those factors? I honestly don't know but I am worried. I think mortality rates similar to the Spanish flu could certainly occur if we respond badly enough.

ken 7y ago
I've not heard any health officials suggest that age is a factor in South Korea's response to the virus. They're only about 3 years younger than Italians [1] -- but have 4x as many hospital beds per capita [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_ag... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_hospital_beds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_hosp...
- Symmetry 7y ago
  It's less about the median age than the numbers in the categories at highest risk. If you compare the population pyramids of the two Italy has many more people over 65. Number of hospital beds per capita is also a big deal. https://www.populationpyramid.net/republic-of-korea/2019/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/republic-of-korea/2019/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/italy/2019/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/italy/2019/

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

Even if the mortality rates are similar, it looks probable that fewer people will end up being infected by this virus before we get a handle on it. Also don't forget the Spanish flu was concurrent with WW1. Holy double whammy. Note that I'm not trying to minimize the current situation. However comparing existing situations to worse ones is a stoic coping strategy.