5 ms·

0.6% this is the estimated ifr. comparing it to the cfr of flu is not right, which is about ten times less than the flu ifr - or about 60 times less than this f

by ferzul 6y ago

0.6% this is the estimated ifr. comparing it to the cfr of flu is not right, which is about ten times less than the flu ifr - or about 60 times less than this figure. your conclusion is upheld, but even moreso

zaroth 6y ago
According to the CDC, the estimated prevalence of symptomatic flu last year was 45 million illnesses and 61,000 deaths. For NY, assuming it’s evenly distributed, that would translate into 13.8% of 20 million = 2.8m symptomatic flu cases and 3,753 deaths. COVID appears to be significantly more prevalent (roughly twice as prevalent in just 3 months as flu gets all year despite incredible efforts), and roughly 2-3x as fatal.
- hcknwscommenter 6y ago
  I think you need to rethink essentially all of your assumptions/math. COVID is not more prevalent than the flu and certainly more than slightly more fatal.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    20% infection rates already puts SARS-CoV-2 at higher prevalence than the flu. And we're barely a couple months into the time period of significant spread. Why would you think that SARS-CoV-2 would not be more prevalent than the flu? The fact that we have no natural immunity, combined with how virulent it is, indicates the endpoint infection rate will be significantly higher than an average flu season. "In the U.S., for example, in recent years about 8.3% of the total population get sick from flu each season, a CDC study found; including people who carry the flu virus but show no symptoms, that estimate ranges to up to 20%." The endpoint percentage of fatalities is a multiple of the infection rate times the fatality rate. Both numbers are equally important. We've been hearing the "10% hospitalization" and low-single digit CFR numbers for months. At 20% prevalence, the NYC actually had 1.7 million cases, 36,723 hospitalizations, for a hospitalization rate of ~2.1%.
- vannevar 6y ago
  According to the CDC web site, those numbers are 35.5M flu cases and 34,200 deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html), giving an IFR of more like 0.1%. Which would put COVID-19 at more like 5-6x more fatal than the flu. Combine that with the virtually complete lack of natural and vaccinated resistance compared to the flu, and it's clear that the potential fatality totals for COVID-19, absent drastic action, would be much, much higher than for the seasonal flu.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    It seems the CDC has different data depending on where you look. The 45 million / 61,000 numbers are here, for the 2017-2018 season, see Figure 2: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html And on the page specifically for 2017-2018 season, they have different numbers still; "CDC early estimates indicate that more than 900,000 people were hospitalized and more than 80,000 people died from flu last season." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/press-conference-2018-19.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/press-conference-2018-19.... I agree 100% it will be significantly more prevalent, due to the nature of the virus combined with the total lack of natural or vaccinated immunity. However, it's not clear at all what our "drastic action" is achieving, aside from 20 million unemployed and trillions of dollars spent trying to hold everything together. 20% prevalence doesn't exactly speak volumes towards the efficacy of social distancing.
    - Retric 6y ago
      That 45 million in your first link is Symptomatic Illnesses which represent ~2/3 of total cases as Approximately 33% of people with influenza are asymptomatic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza So, total infections would be closer to 67.5 million. But, it’s important to keep things in context, another year lists 9.3 million symptomatic infections and 12,000 deaths. The average year is well below peak years.
      - zaroth 6y ago

by ferzul 6y ago

zaroth 6y ago

According to the CDC, the estimated prevalence of symptomatic flu last year was 45 million illnesses and 61,000 deaths. For NY, assuming it’s evenly distributed, that would translate into 13.8% of 20 million = 2.8m symptomatic flu cases and 3,753 deaths. COVID appears to be significantly more prevalent (roughly twice as prevalent in just 3 months as flu gets all year despite incredible efforts), and roughly 2-3x as fatal.

hcknwscommenter 6y ago
I think you need to rethink essentially all of your assumptions/math. COVID is not more prevalent than the flu and certainly more than slightly more fatal.
- zaroth 6y ago
  20% infection rates already puts SARS-CoV-2 at higher prevalence than the flu. And we're barely a couple months into the time period of significant spread. Why would you think that SARS-CoV-2 would not be more prevalent than the flu? The fact that we have no natural immunity, combined with how virulent it is, indicates the endpoint infection rate will be significantly higher than an average flu season. "In the U.S., for example, in recent years about 8.3% of the total population get sick from flu each season, a CDC study found; including people who carry the flu virus but show no symptoms, that estimate ranges to up to 20%." The endpoint percentage of fatalities is a multiple of the infection rate times the fatality rate. Both numbers are equally important. We've been hearing the "10% hospitalization" and low-single digit CFR numbers for months. At 20% prevalence, the NYC actually had 1.7 million cases, 36,723 hospitalizations, for a hospitalization rate of ~2.1%.
vannevar 6y ago
According to the CDC web site, those numbers are 35.5M flu cases and 34,200 deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html), giving an IFR of more like 0.1%. Which would put COVID-19 at more like 5-6x more fatal than the flu. Combine that with the virtually complete lack of natural and vaccinated resistance compared to the flu, and it's clear that the potential fatality totals for COVID-19, absent drastic action, would be much, much higher than for the seasonal flu.
- zaroth 6y ago
  It seems the CDC has different data depending on where you look. The 45 million / 61,000 numbers are here, for the 2017-2018 season, see Figure 2: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html And on the page specifically for 2017-2018 season, they have different numbers still; "CDC early estimates indicate that more than 900,000 people were hospitalized and more than 80,000 people died from flu last season." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/press-conference-2018-19.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/press-conference-2018-19.... I agree 100% it will be significantly more prevalent, due to the nature of the virus combined with the total lack of natural or vaccinated immunity. However, it's not clear at all what our "drastic action" is achieving, aside from 20 million unemployed and trillions of dollars spent trying to hold everything together. 20% prevalence doesn't exactly speak volumes towards the efficacy of social distancing.
  - Retric 6y ago
    That 45 million in your first link is Symptomatic Illnesses which represent ~2/3 of total cases as Approximately 33% of people with influenza are asymptomatic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza So, total infections would be closer to 67.5 million. But, it’s important to keep things in context, another year lists 9.3 million symptomatic infections and 12,000 deaths. The average year is well below peak years.
    - zaroth 6y ago