4 ms·

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 distribute

by zaroth 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
      Yeah, that lines up with the CDC saying flu prevalence is generally at most 20% including asymptomatic, and usually lower than that. So, at least in NYC, SARS-CoV-2 is as prevalent today, if not more prevalent, than a bad flu season, and it’s not done yet.
  - vannevar 7y ago
    "... it's not clear at all what our "drastic action" is achieving..." It's no coincidence that the city that shows a much higher prevalence also experienced a much more acute infection, straining their medical infrastructure. That isn't evidence that social distancing doesn't work, it's evidence that the infection was already well on its way before social distancing was implemented there. NYC was the canary in the coal mine that triggered social distancing across the US, and as a result the experience in NYC has not been repeated elsewhere. Aside from the results, which should speak for themselves, the epidemiological connection between R0 and the prevailing rate of social interaction is clear, which is why it's accounted for in the models.

by zaroth 7y ago

hcknwscommenter 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
    Yeah, that lines up with the CDC saying flu prevalence is generally at most 20% including asymptomatic, and usually lower than that. So, at least in NYC, SARS-CoV-2 is as prevalent today, if not more prevalent, than a bad flu season, and it’s not done yet.
- vannevar 7y ago
  "... it's not clear at all what our "drastic action" is achieving..." It's no coincidence that the city that shows a much higher prevalence also experienced a much more acute infection, straining their medical infrastructure. That isn't evidence that social distancing doesn't work, it's evidence that the infection was already well on its way before social distancing was implemented there. NYC was the canary in the coal mine that triggered social distancing across the US, and as a result the experience in NYC has not been repeated elsewhere. Aside from the results, which should speak for themselves, the epidemiological connection between R0 and the prevailing rate of social interaction is clear, which is why it's accounted for in the models.