4 ms·

The data presented by the two doctors is fresh, and shows exactly what the paper says. COVID-19 is not worse than the flu.

javagram 6y ago
The “data presented by the two doctors” has obvious reasoning errors to anyone who has taken even high school math. At this point, how can you look at the number of people who died from COVID-19 in just the last month in NYC and claim this is no worse than the flu? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/corona... The last flu to cause such a severe spike in mortality statistics was the devastating 1918 Spanish flu. Even the Asian Flu and Hong Kong Flu pandemics didn’t do this. Edit: corrected the Spanish flu year. My bad :-)
- mikem170 6y ago
  >The last flu to cause such a severe spike in mortality statistics was the devastating 1918 Spanish flu The second wave of the 1918 flu killed between 17 to 50 million people, perhaps as high as 100 million people, during the fall of 1918, with a higher than expected mortality rate for the young and healthy. It killed between 1 and 6 percent of the world's population. So far 200,000 people have died from the coronavirus. The current coronavirus is 1/100 as deadly as the flu of 1918.
  - javagram 6y ago
    Your argument assumes that coronavirus deaths will stop tomorrow, and also that mitigation measures used to reduce deaths from coronavirus via social distancing don’t affect the evaluation of whether it is “deadly”. It feels like you didn’t engage with the data I presented at all. (Edit: removed sentences that would only apply if you had read my other post) Edit 2: if your only argument is that COVID-19 is not worse than Spanish flu, that’s something that is reasonable. It’s worse than any pandemic flu since Spanish flu though, this is a once in a century occurrence.
    - mikem170 6y ago
      I apologize, there's a lot of numbers flying around and I probably did miss the thrust of what you were saying. I shouldn't have focused on the comparison with the 1918 flu. Plus, as someone pointed out, drawing conclusions from the numbers we have so far in comparison with the 1918 flu is difficult. I've been working with NYC numbers. The link you gave was for NY State deaths. NYC has reported about 12.3k deaths [1], has a population of about 8.4 million [2] and 21% of people appear to have antibodies at this time. Doing some math with the above numbers I end up with .14% dead so far with 1/5th of people exposed. From there I assume the amount of dead would quadruple before we reach herd immunity. I also assume that antibodies provide at least a handful of years of immunity, just like for other coronaviruses, reducing the severity of future infections. A likely outcome is that this becomes another variant of several coronaviruses that circulate with the common cold. I guess even for those who might agree with all of the above there still exists differences in opinion on what actions should be taken. I personally understand some people's comparison with the yearly flu, but realize that is most definately not an apples to apples comparison. [1] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-...
      - javagram 6y ago
        Thanks. Yes I believe your rough math is matching others that are reported by the scientific literature which is estimating around 0.7% infection fatality ratio (IFR) for this virus, 4*0.14 would be on the low end of estimates but within the consensus estimate. Seasonal Flu IFR is estimated to be between 0.04% and 0.1%, so by your numbers the coronavirus is, at a minimum, 5 times more deadly than seasonal flu. I also agree this virus will become a part of life in the future. Although some Asia-Pacific countries seem to have successfully controlled the spread (Vietnam, Taiwan, etc) the only way for them to keep it from spreading will be to maintain a border closure until a vaccine can be developed to safely give their populations herd immunity. In the west, we let the virus run free for two months and it’s probably too late to get it under control no matter what we do now.
  - robocat 6y ago
    > The current coronavirus is 1/100 as deadly as the flu of 1918. Wow: you are saying the final death rate from Covid19 will be from 0.01% to 0.06%. You are making irrelevant comparisons: we don’t yet know how many people will die from Covid19; we have no idea of numbers of deaths in many poorer countries where deaths can’t even be counted; comparing number of deaths in a world with 7 billion people against number of deaths for 1918 population is pointless.
    - mikem170 6y ago
      I agree with what you are saying, the numbers I presented in response to a comparison with the 1918 flu are not good to draw conclusions from. In fact I will admit that thinking further about the numbers we have so far I am sobered by how they may add up across the world. But back on topic, talking about lockdowns: The stated purpose of the lockdown was to flatten the curve so that hospitals are not overwhelmed, which has been successful so far. Do you think lockdowns lower the number of deaths when all is said and done? How long can lockdowns be sustained? Would it be more effective for vulnerable folks to self-isolate? Unless we can mass produce a vaccine in the next couple of months won't this continue moving through the population regardless of what we do?
  - DanBC 6y ago
    > So far 200,000 people have died from the coronavirus. No. We don't know the numbers because most countries don't have the numbers yet. This 200,000 number includes data from countries like the UK or US who are only counting confirmed covid-19 deaths. We know that deaths outside hospital make up about half the total, so we'd expect about 400,000 deaths.
- manfredo 6y ago
  The death counts rise extremely quickly, but also drop quickly as well. The total amount of deaths is represented by the area of under the graph, not the maximum. This is a tall, but narrow spike. Also, bear in mind that you're being very selective with your data: you're picking out one of (the?) most densely populated centers, which also happens to be an international travel hub
  - javagram 6y ago
    There isn’t any reason to believe the virus kills a resident of NYC any easier than it kills a resident of Kansas if either is infected with it. NYC is an excellent example to look at precisely because of what you said - it’s a dense population center and international travel hub, so it was seeded with quite a few coronavirus cases early on and unfortunately the virus seems to have infected up to 20% of the residents of the city (as shown by a new serology survey), despite social distancing having begun mid-March. Other regions outside NYC weren’t as affected in terms of mortality, and we have no indication that’s because of anything other than that not as many people outside NYC fell ill with the virus. The drop in deaths after the spike is because of data reporting (deaths are commonly revised upward as the data trickles in) and also because 6 weeks of social distancing and school closures would have greatly reduced the spread of the virus, this is just common sense as we know the virus spreads through physical proximity of an infected person with non-infected persons, and social distancing has greatly reduced the number of those situations.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      The infection rate relevant insofar as it means the population will approach 100% infection [1],- and subsequent immunity or death - faster than other regions. Densely populated areas like New York will have a sharp spike and sharp decline. Loosely populated areas like Kansas will see a slower, steadier rise but also a slower and steadier decline. Social distancing makes areas behave more like rural areas, by virtue of limiting contact. But the same number of people are going to get infected eventually until herd immunity is achieved. Faster infection doesn't directly result in higher total fatalities, unless medical care lacks capacity. This is a bigger problem for places like New York where the infection rates did put significant burden on healthcare facilities. On the flip side, places less dense than NYC can go without restrictions and this will not impact the overall health outcomes. Deaths nation-wide have peaked more than a week ago. Deaths among developed countries have also mostly peaked over the last few weeks. Testing almost always under counts, both by virtue of not counting asymptomatic people, and by delays in forming antibodies in the infected. The latter also affects random studies. New York's 20% indicated infection rate likely means that the infection rate today is approaching the 50% or more required to achieve herd immunity. 1. To be more specific, it's estimated that the virus will spread to 50-70% of people before herd would diminish the ability of the virus to spread much further.
ThisIsTheWay 6y ago
One of the comments made in the video (referenced in the article as well) is "We always have between 37,000 and 60,000 deaths in the United States, every single year. No pandemic talk. No shelter in place. No shutting down businesses." Since early Feb we've seen ~54K deaths from Coronavirus alone (excluding influenza deaths) [0]. The argument that this is just part of the normal flu cycle doesn't make any sense. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/case.. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/case....

javagram 6y ago

The “data presented by the two doctors” has obvious reasoning errors to anyone who has taken even high school math. At this point, how can you look at the number of people who died from COVID-19 in just the last month in NYC and claim this is no worse than the flu? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/corona... The last flu to cause such a severe spike in mortality statistics was the devastating 1918 Spanish flu. Even the Asian Flu and Hong Kong Flu pandemics didn’t do this. Edit: corrected the Spanish flu year. My bad :-)

mikem170 6y ago
>The last flu to cause such a severe spike in mortality statistics was the devastating 1918 Spanish flu The second wave of the 1918 flu killed between 17 to 50 million people, perhaps as high as 100 million people, during the fall of 1918, with a higher than expected mortality rate for the young and healthy. It killed between 1 and 6 percent of the world's population. So far 200,000 people have died from the coronavirus. The current coronavirus is 1/100 as deadly as the flu of 1918.
- javagram 6y ago
  Your argument assumes that coronavirus deaths will stop tomorrow, and also that mitigation measures used to reduce deaths from coronavirus via social distancing don’t affect the evaluation of whether it is “deadly”. It feels like you didn’t engage with the data I presented at all. (Edit: removed sentences that would only apply if you had read my other post) Edit 2: if your only argument is that COVID-19 is not worse than Spanish flu, that’s something that is reasonable. It’s worse than any pandemic flu since Spanish flu though, this is a once in a century occurrence.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    I apologize, there's a lot of numbers flying around and I probably did miss the thrust of what you were saying. I shouldn't have focused on the comparison with the 1918 flu. Plus, as someone pointed out, drawing conclusions from the numbers we have so far in comparison with the 1918 flu is difficult. I've been working with NYC numbers. The link you gave was for NY State deaths. NYC has reported about 12.3k deaths [1], has a population of about 8.4 million [2] and 21% of people appear to have antibodies at this time. Doing some math with the above numbers I end up with .14% dead so far with 1/5th of people exposed. From there I assume the amount of dead would quadruple before we reach herd immunity. I also assume that antibodies provide at least a handful of years of immunity, just like for other coronaviruses, reducing the severity of future infections. A likely outcome is that this becomes another variant of several coronaviruses that circulate with the common cold. I guess even for those who might agree with all of the above there still exists differences in opinion on what actions should be taken. I personally understand some people's comparison with the yearly flu, but realize that is most definately not an apples to apples comparison. [1] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-...
    - javagram 6y ago
      Thanks. Yes I believe your rough math is matching others that are reported by the scientific literature which is estimating around 0.7% infection fatality ratio (IFR) for this virus, 4*0.14 would be on the low end of estimates but within the consensus estimate. Seasonal Flu IFR is estimated to be between 0.04% and 0.1%, so by your numbers the coronavirus is, at a minimum, 5 times more deadly than seasonal flu. I also agree this virus will become a part of life in the future. Although some Asia-Pacific countries seem to have successfully controlled the spread (Vietnam, Taiwan, etc) the only way for them to keep it from spreading will be to maintain a border closure until a vaccine can be developed to safely give their populations herd immunity. In the west, we let the virus run free for two months and it’s probably too late to get it under control no matter what we do now.
- robocat 6y ago
  > The current coronavirus is 1/100 as deadly as the flu of 1918. Wow: you are saying the final death rate from Covid19 will be from 0.01% to 0.06%. You are making irrelevant comparisons: we don’t yet know how many people will die from Covid19; we have no idea of numbers of deaths in many poorer countries where deaths can’t even be counted; comparing number of deaths in a world with 7 billion people against number of deaths for 1918 population is pointless.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    I agree with what you are saying, the numbers I presented in response to a comparison with the 1918 flu are not good to draw conclusions from. In fact I will admit that thinking further about the numbers we have so far I am sobered by how they may add up across the world. But back on topic, talking about lockdowns: The stated purpose of the lockdown was to flatten the curve so that hospitals are not overwhelmed, which has been successful so far. Do you think lockdowns lower the number of deaths when all is said and done? How long can lockdowns be sustained? Would it be more effective for vulnerable folks to self-isolate? Unless we can mass produce a vaccine in the next couple of months won't this continue moving through the population regardless of what we do?
- DanBC 6y ago
  > So far 200,000 people have died from the coronavirus. No. We don't know the numbers because most countries don't have the numbers yet. This 200,000 number includes data from countries like the UK or US who are only counting confirmed covid-19 deaths. We know that deaths outside hospital make up about half the total, so we'd expect about 400,000 deaths.
manfredo 6y ago
The death counts rise extremely quickly, but also drop quickly as well. The total amount of deaths is represented by the area of under the graph, not the maximum. This is a tall, but narrow spike. Also, bear in mind that you're being very selective with your data: you're picking out one of (the?) most densely populated centers, which also happens to be an international travel hub
- javagram 6y ago
  There isn’t any reason to believe the virus kills a resident of NYC any easier than it kills a resident of Kansas if either is infected with it. NYC is an excellent example to look at precisely because of what you said - it’s a dense population center and international travel hub, so it was seeded with quite a few coronavirus cases early on and unfortunately the virus seems to have infected up to 20% of the residents of the city (as shown by a new serology survey), despite social distancing having begun mid-March. Other regions outside NYC weren’t as affected in terms of mortality, and we have no indication that’s because of anything other than that not as many people outside NYC fell ill with the virus. The drop in deaths after the spike is because of data reporting (deaths are commonly revised upward as the data trickles in) and also because 6 weeks of social distancing and school closures would have greatly reduced the spread of the virus, this is just common sense as we know the virus spreads through physical proximity of an infected person with non-infected persons, and social distancing has greatly reduced the number of those situations.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    The infection rate relevant insofar as it means the population will approach 100% infection [1],- and subsequent immunity or death - faster than other regions. Densely populated areas like New York will have a sharp spike and sharp decline. Loosely populated areas like Kansas will see a slower, steadier rise but also a slower and steadier decline. Social distancing makes areas behave more like rural areas, by virtue of limiting contact. But the same number of people are going to get infected eventually until herd immunity is achieved. Faster infection doesn't directly result in higher total fatalities, unless medical care lacks capacity. This is a bigger problem for places like New York where the infection rates did put significant burden on healthcare facilities. On the flip side, places less dense than NYC can go without restrictions and this will not impact the overall health outcomes. Deaths nation-wide have peaked more than a week ago. Deaths among developed countries have also mostly peaked over the last few weeks. Testing almost always under counts, both by virtue of not counting asymptomatic people, and by delays in forming antibodies in the infected. The latter also affects random studies. New York's 20% indicated infection rate likely means that the infection rate today is approaching the 50% or more required to achieve herd immunity. 1. To be more specific, it's estimated that the virus will spread to 50-70% of people before herd would diminish the ability of the virus to spread much further.

ThisIsTheWay 6y ago

One of the comments made in the video (referenced in the article as well) is "We always have between 37,000 and 60,000 deaths in the United States, every single year. No pandemic talk. No shelter in place. No shutting down businesses." Since early Feb we've seen ~54K deaths from Coronavirus alone (excluding influenza deaths) [0]. The argument that this is just part of the normal flu cycle doesn't make any sense. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/case.. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/case....