5 ms·

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/

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.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    I actually agree with everything you said, but I still haven’t found the basis for the tremendously costly actions taken. As we can see, NYC did not particularly flatten their curve, and they did not see excess deaths due to lack of available care. They already hit the endpoint prevalence that you would see with the flu in a very bad year. It’s not clear how much further SARS-CoV-2 would go naturally — the S curve doesn’t ever go to 100%. But more importantly, without a vaccine, which we won’t see for 12-18 months, we are going to find out exactly how high the S curve goes. We have a small degree of control over exactly when that happens by burning extremely large amounts of money. So, when do you want it to happen? Now, while flu is at its nadir, or after spending $10 trillion dollars perhaps we can see the final surge during the peak of the next flu season? The fact is that there isn’t actually a known treatment for COVID, and even with treating the symptoms (invasive ventilation) 80% of people in the ICU will die. This isn’t a disease for which “flattening the curve” makes particular sense. That would require there actually be an effective treatment.
    - vannevar 7y ago
      NYC did not particularly flatten their curve, and they did not see excess deaths due to lack of available care. I'm pretty sure all the family members of the people who died would regard their loved ones as "excess deaths". Your technocratic language ascribes no value to the lives lost, in which case of course the actions seem excessive. For people who don't value the lives of others, it would be hard to understand all the fuss. This isn’t a disease for which “flattening the curve” makes particular sense. That would require there actually be an effective treatment. This is a self-contradictory statement. The whole point of flattening the curve is to buy time to develop exactly those effective treatments. It is also possible to flatten the curve to an extent that there are fewer deaths under it, and based on the continual downward revision of the IHME model fatality estimates, that appears to be exactly what is happening.

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.
- zaroth 7y ago
  I actually agree with everything you said, but I still haven’t found the basis for the tremendously costly actions taken. As we can see, NYC did not particularly flatten their curve, and they did not see excess deaths due to lack of available care. They already hit the endpoint prevalence that you would see with the flu in a very bad year. It’s not clear how much further SARS-CoV-2 would go naturally — the S curve doesn’t ever go to 100%. But more importantly, without a vaccine, which we won’t see for 12-18 months, we are going to find out exactly how high the S curve goes. We have a small degree of control over exactly when that happens by burning extremely large amounts of money. So, when do you want it to happen? Now, while flu is at its nadir, or after spending $10 trillion dollars perhaps we can see the final surge during the peak of the next flu season? The fact is that there isn’t actually a known treatment for COVID, and even with treating the symptoms (invasive ventilation) 80% of people in the ICU will die. This isn’t a disease for which “flattening the curve” makes particular sense. That would require there actually be an effective treatment.
  - vannevar 7y ago
    NYC did not particularly flatten their curve, and they did not see excess deaths due to lack of available care. I'm pretty sure all the family members of the people who died would regard their loved ones as "excess deaths". Your technocratic language ascribes no value to the lives lost, in which case of course the actions seem excessive. For people who don't value the lives of others, it would be hard to understand all the fuss. This isn’t a disease for which “flattening the curve” makes particular sense. That would require there actually be an effective treatment. This is a self-contradictory statement. The whole point of flattening the curve is to buy time to develop exactly those effective treatments. It is also possible to flatten the curve to an extent that there are fewer deaths under it, and based on the continual downward revision of the IHME model fatality estimates, that appears to be exactly what is happening.