5 ms·

That if you're under 54 corona virus isn't any more deadly than the flu?

DanBC 7y ago
You've made a claim (that people under 54 who get covid-19 are not more likely to die than people under 54 who get flu). What stats are you basing that on please? Because I can't find any stats that support this claim.
ristoalas 7y ago
Unfortunately, the answer seems "no" so far. Based on for example [1], the infection fatality ratio appears to be 10 times worse than the seasonal flu for people aged 30-39. Also, hospitalisation rate is higher (e.g. in age group 30-39, the study estimates that 3.4% of the infected people were hospitalised), which is higher (even for younger people) than the hospitalisation rate of the flu. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2820%2930243-7 https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2820...
- downerending 7y ago
  Without disputing that (and thx for link), it's worth noting that the "flu" has been killing a large number of people year in and year out for as long as we can remember. The long-term death rate of COVID-19 remains to be seen. The final verdict on how bad it was will depend on whether or not lengthy immunity is attained (including to mutations).
  - watwut 7y ago
    Yeah, but I don't understand what is significance of that claim. We have flu vaccine and general push to make people vaccinate every year. Up to mandating it for hospital workers at some places. Some employers are organizing them for free for employees. We do close schools here and there for a week or so when flu is getting large to get it under control. We do close hospitals for visits at this times.
    - downerending 7y ago
      One implication is that COVID-19 might not be "just the flu". It might actually end up being far less damaging than the flu, as viewed over decades. And we don't trash our economy and the lives of the working class that depend on it due to flu deaths, even though they are still quite dramatic. Personally, I'm conservative on this, and have barely left my place in the last eight weeks. I can work from home and will suffer little even if the lockdown is quite lengthy. But not everyone is in such a fortunate position, and I think we need to consider what's happening very carefully.
      - travisporter 7y ago
        Honestly, I see the worry that we are overreacting. But you are way more likely to end up in the hospital with covid with rates of around 10-15%. Super broad strokes, if you get the flu every year and are at least 20 years old, what is the probability you would have be hospitalized if covid=flu? I think we are considering things carefully. I can’t remember the last time you saw both dem and rep governors agree on anything, yet they are all agreeing on stay at home orders and testing.
        etimberg 7y ago
        Until there are large scale accurate antibody tests, it will be hard to say if the hospitalization rate for covid is that high or not.
      - watwut 7y ago
        By "viewed over decades" we count in period when vaccine is supposed to exist, when we have cheaper tests and know to put on masks when something happens and when majority of population has antibodies. Even the most pessimistic estimates expect the issue to be dealt with in decades. Also, the thing to consider is that working class is whonis most at risk from this. Rich people have less comorbidities, can afford healthcare and are much more easily to work from home and buy via deliveries. This is basically reason why African Americans die the most - working class can't isolate themselves so easily. They are the group to die more then same age non working class.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > it's worth noting that the "flu" has been killing a large number of people year in and year out for as long as we can remember. > The long-term death rate of COVID-19 remains to be seen. At the moment we count flu deaths differently to covid-19 deaths. Counting deaths due to flu is hard. We've only just started this work for Covid-19 by putting in standards for death certification. These stats lag the real time counts by some time, and they're always higher than the real time counts. So, we're taking a method for counting flu than over-counts, and a method for covid-19 that undercounts, and then saying "covid-19 isn't that bad". And that's just looking at deaths. We also need to look at hospitalisation (because we want to look at all the harm caused by different illness to assess whether our measures are reasonable or not; and because iatrogenic harm is a thing) and we see that covid-19 does put a lot more people in hospital than flu normally does. And this difference is only partly explained by rates of immunisation against flu.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Well in England&Wales the National Statistics Office figures show <500 deaths (I think that excludes specific flus, H1N1 and such, which would add 4 more; ) for the most recent figures (2017 IIRC), for a ~60M population. Papers I've seen suggest a adults get flu every 5 years, children ~every 3 years. So we're looking roughly at rates of 500 per 15M. 1:30000. Now there's some controversy that UK government have been reporting other deaths as flu, basically hiding Winter deaths due, eg to poor elderly care, in flu figures. So other sources suggest far far higher flu rates; but this is going off death registrations. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathregistrationssummarytablesenglandandwalesreferencetables https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... Covid19 death rates for under 50s are something of the order 1:1000, 30x the flu rate in data I've seen most recent (Worldometer) but reported rates vary considerably.
      - downerending 7y ago
        That doesn't sound right. If fewer than 500 per year were dying of flu, we probably wouldn't even bother with flu shots.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    Yes, we should do more about the flu.
    - downerending 7y ago
      Arguably we should. For that matter, we should really do more about traffic fatalities. Bringing that down would be far easier per person than fixing flu or coronavirus. We're not going to, though, and it's becoming less clear why COVID-19 is an exception. It reminds me some of 9/11--it's flashy and freaking everyone out, which leads to irrationally conservative behavior.
      - maxerickson 7y ago
        It's because it is a much bigger immediate problem. Look at the Mortality Surveillance section on https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidvi... That's with lock downs. It's also hard to say what individual behavior would look like absent government orders to close businesses. Retail business could well be way down without any orders.
        downerending 7y ago
        I think the original US lockdowns should have happened far sooner and been far more stringent. In my ultra-liberal state, the governor decided just within the last week or two that schools should definitely be closed until July. Idiot. But, as we pass the initial peak and have better experience and surveillance, we should very carefully consider what to do next. Just locking down for a year or two is not the "safe" option.
7952 7y ago
Even if that was true, flu is still a horrible disease that does kill younger people.
patall 7y ago
Besides what others have pointed out, there is no benefit of having the flu and we do not really know about long term damage just yet. There has been a report (I have only found it in German so far) of 6 divers in Hamburg with irreparable lung damage post corona. While under normal conditions these patients are just fine now, doing any type of sports may become a problem for them and that's only now, they may develop scar tissue in their lungs and what not. Only anecdotal for now but again, there is no benefit from having corona or the flu, so try not to get sick.
asdkjh345fd 7y ago
It is more deadly still, but lets pretend it is the same as the flu. Have you noticed that due to the efforts to prevent the spread of the Chinese virus, we've also lowered the number of people dying from the flu dramatically? We've designed our societies so that we needlessly kill tens of thousands of people every year from common communicable diseases. Maybe going "back to normal" isn't the right idea.
somewhereoutth 7y ago
I think the critical thing is we don't know So best to err on the side of caution until this disease is more fully understood.
- gdulli 7y ago
  Also, comparing this to anything long-standing is flawed because it misses the point that we have an opportunity to solve this that we don't have with other situations. Smoking habits and seatbelt habits and just about everything else is in a steady state. Nothing we can do can change those situations dramatically, we can only nudge them to a small degree slowly because those situations and habits are entrenched. The point isn't that N people die from this so we should be cool with it because N is in the same ballpark as stuff we've accepted. The point is that we have a short window to solve the new situation before acceptance sets in.

You've made a claim (that people under 54 who get covid-19 are not more likely to die than people under 54 who get flu). What stats are you basing that on please? Because I can't find any stats that support this claim.

ristoalas 7y ago

Unfortunately, the answer seems "no" so far. Based on for example [1], the infection fatality ratio appears to be 10 times worse than the seasonal flu for people aged 30-39. Also, hospitalisation rate is higher (e.g. in age group 30-39, the study estimates that 3.4% of the infected people were hospitalised), which is higher (even for younger people) than the hospitalisation rate of the flu. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2820%2930243-7 https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2820...

downerending 7y ago
Without disputing that (and thx for link), it's worth noting that the "flu" has been killing a large number of people year in and year out for as long as we can remember. The long-term death rate of COVID-19 remains to be seen. The final verdict on how bad it was will depend on whether or not lengthy immunity is attained (including to mutations).
- watwut 7y ago
  Yeah, but I don't understand what is significance of that claim. We have flu vaccine and general push to make people vaccinate every year. Up to mandating it for hospital workers at some places. Some employers are organizing them for free for employees. We do close schools here and there for a week or so when flu is getting large to get it under control. We do close hospitals for visits at this times.
  - downerending 7y ago
    One implication is that COVID-19 might not be "just the flu". It might actually end up being far less damaging than the flu, as viewed over decades. And we don't trash our economy and the lives of the working class that depend on it due to flu deaths, even though they are still quite dramatic. Personally, I'm conservative on this, and have barely left my place in the last eight weeks. I can work from home and will suffer little even if the lockdown is quite lengthy. But not everyone is in such a fortunate position, and I think we need to consider what's happening very carefully.
    - travisporter 7y ago
      Honestly, I see the worry that we are overreacting. But you are way more likely to end up in the hospital with covid with rates of around 10-15%. Super broad strokes, if you get the flu every year and are at least 20 years old, what is the probability you would have be hospitalized if covid=flu? I think we are considering things carefully. I can’t remember the last time you saw both dem and rep governors agree on anything, yet they are all agreeing on stay at home orders and testing.
      - etimberg 7y ago
        Until there are large scale accurate antibody tests, it will be hard to say if the hospitalization rate for covid is that high or not.
    - watwut 7y ago
      By "viewed over decades" we count in period when vaccine is supposed to exist, when we have cheaper tests and know to put on masks when something happens and when majority of population has antibodies. Even the most pessimistic estimates expect the issue to be dealt with in decades. Also, the thing to consider is that working class is whonis most at risk from this. Rich people have less comorbidities, can afford healthcare and are much more easily to work from home and buy via deliveries. This is basically reason why African Americans die the most - working class can't isolate themselves so easily. They are the group to die more then same age non working class.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > it's worth noting that the "flu" has been killing a large number of people year in and year out for as long as we can remember. > The long-term death rate of COVID-19 remains to be seen. At the moment we count flu deaths differently to covid-19 deaths. Counting deaths due to flu is hard. We've only just started this work for Covid-19 by putting in standards for death certification. These stats lag the real time counts by some time, and they're always higher than the real time counts. So, we're taking a method for counting flu than over-counts, and a method for covid-19 that undercounts, and then saying "covid-19 isn't that bad". And that's just looking at deaths. We also need to look at hospitalisation (because we want to look at all the harm caused by different illness to assess whether our measures are reasonable or not; and because iatrogenic harm is a thing) and we see that covid-19 does put a lot more people in hospital than flu normally does. And this difference is only partly explained by rates of immunisation against flu.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Well in England&Wales the National Statistics Office figures show <500 deaths (I think that excludes specific flus, H1N1 and such, which would add 4 more; ) for the most recent figures (2017 IIRC), for a ~60M population. Papers I've seen suggest a adults get flu every 5 years, children ~every 3 years. So we're looking roughly at rates of 500 per 15M. 1:30000. Now there's some controversy that UK government have been reporting other deaths as flu, basically hiding Winter deaths due, eg to poor elderly care, in flu figures. So other sources suggest far far higher flu rates; but this is going off death registrations. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathregistrationssummarytablesenglandandwalesreferencetables https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... Covid19 death rates for under 50s are something of the order 1:1000, 30x the flu rate in data I've seen most recent (Worldometer) but reported rates vary considerably.
    - downerending 7y ago
      That doesn't sound right. If fewer than 500 per year were dying of flu, we probably wouldn't even bother with flu shots.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Yes, we should do more about the flu.
  - downerending 7y ago
    Arguably we should. For that matter, we should really do more about traffic fatalities. Bringing that down would be far easier per person than fixing flu or coronavirus. We're not going to, though, and it's becoming less clear why COVID-19 is an exception. It reminds me some of 9/11--it's flashy and freaking everyone out, which leads to irrationally conservative behavior.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      It's because it is a much bigger immediate problem. Look at the Mortality Surveillance section on https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidvi... That's with lock downs. It's also hard to say what individual behavior would look like absent government orders to close businesses. Retail business could well be way down without any orders.
      - downerending 7y ago
        I think the original US lockdowns should have happened far sooner and been far more stringent. In my ultra-liberal state, the governor decided just within the last week or two that schools should definitely be closed until July. Idiot. But, as we pass the initial peak and have better experience and surveillance, we should very carefully consider what to do next. Just locking down for a year or two is not the "safe" option.

7952 7y ago

Even if that was true, flu is still a horrible disease that does kill younger people.

patall 7y ago

Besides what others have pointed out, there is no benefit of having the flu and we do not really know about long term damage just yet. There has been a report (I have only found it in German so far) of 6 divers in Hamburg with irreparable lung damage post corona. While under normal conditions these patients are just fine now, doing any type of sports may become a problem for them and that's only now, they may develop scar tissue in their lungs and what not. Only anecdotal for now but again, there is no benefit from having corona or the flu, so try not to get sick.

asdkjh345fd 7y ago

It is more deadly still, but lets pretend it is the same as the flu. Have you noticed that due to the efforts to prevent the spread of the Chinese virus, we've also lowered the number of people dying from the flu dramatically? We've designed our societies so that we needlessly kill tens of thousands of people every year from common communicable diseases. Maybe going "back to normal" isn't the right idea.

somewhereoutth 7y ago

I think the critical thing is we don't know So best to err on the side of caution until this disease is more fully understood.

gdulli 7y ago
Also, comparing this to anything long-standing is flawed because it misses the point that we have an opportunity to solve this that we don't have with other situations. Smoking habits and seatbelt habits and just about everything else is in a steady state. Nothing we can do can change those situations dramatically, we can only nudge them to a small degree slowly because those situations and habits are entrenched. The point isn't that N people die from this so we should be cool with it because N is in the same ballpark as stuff we've accepted. The point is that we have a short window to solve the new situation before acceptance sets in.