COVID-19 is killing 20 times more people per week than flu does, new paper says

[90DayFinancier 910]

The new coronavirus is not "just another flu."

https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-deaths-vs-flu-deaths.html

"Although officials may say that SARS-CoV-2 [the virus that causes COVID-19] is 'just another flu,' this is not true," the authors, from Harvard Medical School and Emory University

 

[Neonred 3,461]

Quite frankly I am disappointed in this "pandemic".  So far 360k deaths.  I expected a much more significant reduction in the world population.

[Dashinka 23,382]

So this paper only compares total deaths and not IFR?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Quote

But this doesn't match what health care providers are seeing on the frontlines of the pandemic, particularly in hot zones (such as New York City), "where ventilators have been in short supply and many hospitals have been stretched beyond their limits," the authors said.

Untrue.  Makes the rest of the article suspect. Sounds more like an opinion piece than one based on facts.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,330]

9 hours ago, Dashinka said:

So this paper only compares total deaths and not IFR?

Ifr ?  Instrument flight rules?

[90DayFinancier 910]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Ifr ?  Instrument flight rules?

Essential when flying-by-night or seat-of-pants.

[90DayFinancier 910]

13 hours ago, Dashinka said:

So this paper only compares total deaths and not IFR?

I didn't read the original JAMA viewpoint.

[Dashinka 23,382]

7 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Ifr ?  Instrument flight rules?

Infection Fatality Rate.

[90DayFinancier 910]

5 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Infection Fatality Rate.

Well, if you cannot reliably determine the amount of infections, you cannot calculate the rate.

Edited May 22, 2020 by 90DayFinancier

[Dashinka 23,382]

1 minute ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Well, if you cannot reliably determine the amount of infections, you cannot calculate the rate.

Agreed, but it is the rate that matters.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Agreed, but it is the rate that matters.  

Ding ding ding!!!  We have a winner!!!

 

And so far, the IFR that has been tossed around, at least back in February and March, was WAY off...

Edited May 22, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[Dashinka 23,382]

33 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Ding ding ding!!!  We have a winner!!!

 

And so far, the IFR that has been tossed around, at least back in February and March, was WAY off...

If we really want a valid flu comparison, maybe someone should take a look at the 1969 H3N2 pandemic.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

If we really want a valid flu comparison, maybe someone should take a look at the 1969 H3N2 pandemic.

 

 

   There is some speculation that a pandemic in 1900 may have been caused by the introduction of the OC43 strain of Coronavirus to human populations. Conventional knowledge says 1900 was a strain of flu, but it doesn't match up well with the epidemiological data for any of the flu strains that evolved from that era. Obviously the recorded data is not that great to begin with from that time period.

 

   Coronavirus OC43 is now known as one of the common cold viruses, but it still has the potential to cause significant respiratory illness and sometimes death, especially in elderly or immunocompromised people.  

[yuna628 9,547]

11 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   There is some speculation that a pandemic in 1900 may have been caused by the introduction of the OC43 strain of Coronavirus to human populations. Conventional knowledge says 1900 was a strain of flu, but it doesn't match up well with the epidemiological data for any of the flu strains that evolved from that era. Obviously the recorded data is not that great to begin with from that time period.

 

   Coronavirus OC43 is now known as one of the common cold viruses, but it still has the potential to cause significant respiratory illness and sometimes death, especially in elderly or immunocompromised people.  

Is this potentially why I'm seeing a lot of reports about aged 100+ persons that previously survived the Spanish Flu also surviving this, compared to other elderly persons who were not born during that timeframe? Would they have some sort of stronger genetic makeup?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

23 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Is this potentially why I'm seeing a lot of reports about aged 100+ persons that previously survived the Spanish Flu also surviving this, compared to other elderly persons who were not born during that timeframe? Would they have some sort of stronger genetic makeup?

 

  The 1919 pandemic was definitely influenza. They have several samples of that virus in labs. (Hopefully locked up).

 

  I mistyped 1900 though. I was actually referring to the 1890 pandemic, (Asiatic Flu) which was no where near as severe as the 1919 one, but still estimated to have killed over a million people over about 5 years, with an estimated IFR of ~3-4%.