Comparing Covid-19 Deaths to Flu Deaths

[wing2000]

A common refrain I keep hearing is Covid-19 is no more deadly than the flu. Some may recall President Trump quoting CDC figures for flu deaths as a point of comparison with Covid-19:

“Sixty-nine thousand people die every year—from 26 to 69—every year from the flu,” he said. “Now, think of that. It’s incredible.”

It turns out....."25,000 to 69,000 numbers that Trump cited do not represent counted flu deaths per year; they are estimates that the CDC produces by multiplying the number of flu death counts reported by various coefficients produced through complicated algorithms. These coefficients are based on assumptions of how many cases, hospitalizations, and deaths they believe went unreported. In the last six flu seasons, the CDC’s reported number of actual confirmed flu deaths—that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620, which far lower than the numbers commonly repeated by public officials and even public health experts."

Maybe it's time we compare apples to apples?

Comparing COVID-19 Deaths to Flu Deaths Is like Comparing Apples to Oranges

 

[tall73]

A common refrain I keep hearing is Covid-19 is no more deadly than the flu. Some may recall President Trump quoting CDC figures for flu deaths as a point of comparison with Covid-19:

“Sixty-nine thousand people die every year—from 26 to 69—every year from the flu,” he said. “Now, think of that. It’s incredible.”

It turns out....."25,000 to 69,000 numbers that Trump cited do not represent counted flu deaths per year; they are estimates that the CDC produces by multiplying the number of flu death counts reported by various coefficients produced through complicated algorithms. These coefficients are based on assumptions of how many cases, hospitalizations, and deaths they believe went unreported. In the last six flu seasons, the CDC’s reported number of actual confirmed flu deaths—that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620, which far lower than the numbers commonly repeated by public officials and even public health experts."

Maybe it's time we compare apples to apples?

Comparing COVID-19 Deaths to Flu Deaths Is like Comparing Apples to Oranges

Yes, they are formulaic estimates. The pediatric deaths are nationally reportable, however, so they do have actual numbers on those.

I think some counties or states may keep actual count, but it is not required to be reported up the line.

 

[tall73]

King County is one of the first places known to have community spread.

King County Washington has had 446 deaths from COVID19

Daily COVID-19 outbreak summary - King County

And 33 for influenza, since Sept. 29.

Influenza - King County

So over 13 times more deaths from COVID19.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's certainly more deadly than the flu. Even after elevated testing and antibody testing show it's much less deadly than originally thought,...it's still worse than the flu.

The issues is that organizations lose credibility in the eyes of many after they've royally screwed up the stats and projections on multiple occasions and for many folks, they begin to take a "boy who cried wolf" attitude towards it.

The other reason for the push-back is due to the information being used to push unsustainable policies and act as if there are no countervailing interests with regards to this whole thing.

When the same sources that have been telling you "it's deadlier than the flu" have not only been wrong about some of their original estimates, but have used those estimates to make wild suggestions like extending "stay at home orders" and keeping businesses shut down for 18 months (and those sources just so happen to be people who get their guaranteed paycheck whether there's a stay at home order or not), with the implication that if you disagree with those proposed countermeasures, you're either an evil person who wants grandma to die, or you're just a selfish person who wants a haircut...it becomes easier and easier for people to rationalize the false notion that "it's no worse than the flu"

If the epidemiologists and policy makers that want to express the severity of the matter want people to A) trust them, and B) take it seriously, they need to formulate something that remotely resembles a workable and pragmatic policy that doesn't involves tens of millions of people losing their jobs and homes, and instead, develop a more realistic risk:benefits analysis like we do for every other public policy ever made.

When they present this false narrative of "there's no downside to shutting down, and there's no upside to opening up".

Apart from that, these ever-moving goalposts involving testing metrics and vaccination availability aren't helpful either when you consider that A) we don't even know if a successful vaccine can be developed since there's not a solid understanding of the rate of mutation, and B) in the end, whether we open up a month from now, six months from now, or eighteen months from now...in the end, it's going to be the same result...when people get back to normal life, infection rates and death rates are going to go up, and every first world country is going to basically do the same thing that Sweden has done which is to tell the people who are most vulnerable to shelter, encourage social distancing (without draconian rule), and allow for the build-up of (hopefully) herd immunity.

On a side note, I've yet to hear a cogent argument that resembles anything remotely pragmatic from people who are advocates of indefinite lock-downs with regards to what their ideal outcome is and what benefit they think will be gained by locking down for an additional 18 months vs. slowly re-opening now while encouraging masks, responsible social distancing, and avoiding large gatherings apart from logic that's basically just delaying the inevitable.

If re-opening (slowly) causes a spike now...then it'll cause a spike 18 months from now...so if the choices are spike vs. spike + massive unemployment and depleted social safety nets, I fail to see the impetus behind wanting to keep everyone 100% locked down for another year +.

 

[tall73]

It's certainly more deadly than the flu. Even after elevated testing and antibody testing show it's much less deadly than originally thought,...it's still worse than the flu.

The issues is that organizations lose credibility in the eyes of many after they've royally screwed up the stats and projections on multiple occasions and for many folks, they begin to take a "boy who cried wolf" attitude towards it.

The other reason for the push-back is due to the information being used to push unsustainable policies and act as if there are no countervailing interests with regards to this whole thing.

When the same sources that have been telling you "it's deadlier than the flu" have not only been wrong about some of their original estimates, but have used those estimates to make wild suggestions like extending "stay at home orders" and keeping businesses shut down for 18 months (and those sources just so happen to be people who get their guaranteed paycheck whether there's a stay at home order or not), with the implication that if you disagree with those proposed countermeasures, you're either an evil person who wants grandma to die, or you're just a selfish person who wants a haircut...it becomes easier and easier for people to rationalize the false notion that "it's no worse than the flu"

If the epidemiologists and policy makers that want to express the severity of the matter want people to A) trust them, and B) take it seriously, they need to formulate something that remotely resembles a workable and pragmatic policy that doesn't involves tens of millions of people losing their jobs and homes, and instead, develop a more realistic risk:benefits analysis like we do for every other public policy ever made.

When they present this false narrative of "there's no downside to shutting down, and there's no upside to opening up".

Apart from that, these ever-moving goalposts involving testing metrics and vaccination availability aren't helpful either when you consider that A) we don't even know if a successful vaccine can be developed since there's not a solid understanding of the rate of mutation, and B) in the end, whether we open up a month from now, six months from now, or eighteen months from now...in the end, it's going to be the same result...when people get back to normal life, infection rates and death rates are going to go up, and every first world country is going to basically do the same thing that Sweden has done which is to tell the people who are most vulnerable to shelter, encourage social distancing (without draconian rule), and allow for the build-up of (hopefully) herd immunity.

On a side note, I've yet to hear a cogent argument that resembles anything remotely pragmatic from people who are advocates of indefinite lock-downs with regards to what their ideal outcome is and what benefit they think will be gained by locking down for an additional 18 months vs. slowly re-opening now while encouraging masks, responsible social distancing, and avoiding large gatherings apart from logic that's basically just delaying the inevitable.

If re-opening (slowly) causes a spike now...then it'll cause a spike 18 months from now...so if the choices are spike vs. spike + massive unemployment and depleted social safety nets, I fail to see the impetus behind wanting to keep everyone 100% locked down for another year +.

Folks forgot the rationale in the first place. From the point the CDC released guidance for local communities they had two goals--protecting the vulnerable, and maintaining medical capacity.

The only rationale I have heard is shelter until an effective treatment, or a vaccine. But a vaccine is a longshot, since we have never had a vaccine for a coronavirus. And it would take a long time to pass the trials. SARS and MERS vaccines did work, but caused other lung or liver damage when challenged with the virus.

The treatment option is a better possibility, as long as it is one that is already approved for other uses. Otherwise the delay is too long, and I think the economic damage may harm lives more than the virus.

Once wide spread is established the best you can do is shield the most vulnerable, and slow the curve to maintain medical resources.

Whether an initial lockdown was warranted is something they will debate later. But the lockdown slowed things, allowed us to get ventilators and beds set up, reach some decent level of testing, and now we have to monitor the curve to make sure it stays under capacity.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Folks forgot the rationale in the first place. From the point the CDC released guidance for local communities they had two goals--protecting the vulnerable, and maintaining medical capacity.

The only rationale I have heard is shelter until an effective treatment, or a vaccine. But a vaccine is a longshot, since we have never had a vaccine for a coronavirus. And it would take a long time to pass the trials. SARS and MERS vaccines did work, but caused other lung or liver damage when challenged with the virus.

The treatment option is a better possibility, as long as it is one that is already approved for other uses. Otherwise the delay is too long, and I think the economic damage may harm lives more than the virus.

Once wide spread is established the best you can do is shield the most vulnerable, and slow the curve to maintain medical resources.

Whether an initial lockdown was warranted is something they will debate later. But the lockdown slowed things, allowed us to get ventilators and beds set up, reach some decent level of testing, and now we have to monitor the curve to make sure it stays under capacity.

I agreed 100% with the initial lock downs...preventing the medical system from being overwhelmed is a valid concern. However, now that we've done that we're basically at the point where, unless a vaccine or therapeutic is developed pronto, gradual re-opening now vs. 18 months from now basically ends with the same result...and increase in reported cases an deaths, the only difference being, if we wait 18 months, more of those cases will involve people who don't have money or health insurance anymore (which makes the situation worse.

It'd be one thing if there were solid information suggesting that a reliable therapeutic was 2-3 months away (we both agree, the vaccine route is a long shot, and even if they could develop one for the strain as it currently is, there's no guarantee that it wouldn't mutate over the course of a year leaving the new vaccine only marginally effective), then that would be one thing...but this notion that everyone staying at home and losing money and jobs, and thinking that somehow increased testing is going to solve all of these issues, is seriously misguided thinking.

I know the thought process is that with increased testing comes increased contact tracing (like what S. Korea has), but that was't built overnight in response to Covid-19...that was based on extensive infrastructure that they've had for quite some time, and measures that wouldn't even be legally allowed here for constitutional reasons. The prospect that we'd be able to circumnavigate constitutional aspects, and build up that kind of infrastructure and tech systems to do that (in a matter of mere months) is serious wishful thinking. (the government using GPS phone tracking, CCTV, and monetary transaction monitoring not only takes a long time to implement, but would be rather unpalatable to most people in the US due to privacy concerns)

 

[wing2000]

When the same sources that have been telling you "it's deadlier than the flu" have not only been wrong about some of their original estimates, but have used those estimates to make wild suggestions like extending "stay at home orders" and keeping businesses shut down for 18 months (and those sources just so happen to be people who get their guaranteed paycheck whether there's a stay at home order or not), with the implication that if you disagree with those proposed countermeasures, you're either an evil person who wants grandma to die, or you're just a selfish person who wants a haircut...it becomes easier and easier for people to rationalize the false notion that "it's no worse than the flu"

If the epidemiologists and policy makers that want to express the severity of the matter want people to A) trust them, and B) take it seriously, they need to formulate something that remotely resembles a workable and pragmatic policy that doesn't involves tens of millions of people losing their jobs and homes, and instead, develop a more realistic risk:benefits analysis like we do for every other public policy ever made.

Other countries managed to succeed and are now opening up (Australia, New Zealand for example), using testing data to guide their decision. As we know, the US failed to act early on the testing front and continues to flail despite repeated please from public health officials for months. Now, some governors are forging ahead anyway, despite flying blind. They may recover sooner economically, but do so with the price of human life.

 

[Radagast]

they are estimates that the CDC produces by multiplying the number of flu death counts reported by various coefficients produced through complicated algorithms. These coefficients are based on assumptions of how many cases, hospitalizations, and deaths they believe went unreported. In the last six flu seasons, the CDC’s reported number of actual confirmed flu deaths—that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus

It makes sense to compare best available flu estimates to best available COVID-19 estimates.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's certainly more deadly than the flu. Even after elevated testing and antibody testing show it's much less deadly than originally thought,...it's still worse than the flu.

The issues is that organizations lose credibility in the eyes of many after they've royally screwed up the stats and projections on multiple occasions and for many folks, they begin to take a "boy who cried wolf" attitude towards it.

The other reason for the push-back is due to the information being used to push unsustainable policies and act as if there are no countervailing interests with regards to this whole thing.

When the same sources that have been telling you "it's deadlier than the flu" have not only been wrong about some of their original estimates, but have used those estimates to make wild suggestions like extending "stay at home orders" and keeping businesses shut down for 18 months (and those sources just so happen to be people who get their guaranteed paycheck whether there's a stay at home order or not), with the implication that if you disagree with those proposed countermeasures, you're either an evil person who wants grandma to die, or you're just a selfish person who wants a haircut...it becomes easier and easier for people to rationalize the false notion that "it's no worse than the flu"

If the epidemiologists and policy makers that want to express the severity of the matter want people to A) trust them, and B) take it seriously, they need to formulate something that remotely resembles a workable and pragmatic policy that doesn't involves tens of millions of people losing their jobs and homes, and instead, develop a more realistic risk:benefits analysis like we do for every other public policy ever made.

When they present this false narrative of "there's no downside to shutting down, and there's no upside to opening up".

Apart from that, these ever-moving goalposts involving testing metrics and vaccination availability aren't helpful either when you consider that A) we don't even know if a successful vaccine can be developed since there's not a solid understanding of the rate of mutation, and B) in the end, whether we open up a month from now, six months from now, or eighteen months from now...in the end, it's going to be the same result...when people get back to normal life, infection rates and death rates are going to go up, and every first world country is going to basically do the same thing that Sweden has done which is to tell the people who are most vulnerable to shelter, encourage social distancing (without draconian rule), and allow for the build-up of (hopefully) herd immunity.

On a side note, I've yet to hear a cogent argument that resembles anything remotely pragmatic from people who are advocates of indefinite lock-downs with regards to what their ideal outcome is and what benefit they think will be gained by locking down for an additional 18 months vs. slowly re-opening now while encouraging masks, responsible social distancing, and avoiding large gatherings apart from logic that's basically just delaying the inevitable.

If re-opening (slowly) causes a spike now...then it'll cause a spike 18 months from now...so if the choices are spike vs. spike + massive unemployment and depleted social safety nets, I fail to see the impetus behind wanting to keep everyone 100% locked down for another year +.

It's down to a lack of national leadership. If we had more widespread testing, we could reopen the economy safely.

 

[FireDragon76]

Other countries managed to succeed and are now opening up (Australia, New Zealand for example), using testing data to guide their decision. As we know, the US failed to act early on the testing front and continues to flail despite repeated please from public health officials for months. Now, some governors are forging ahead anyway, despite flying blind. They may recover sooner economically, but do so with the price of human life.

The problem is that Trump keeps passing the buck. He also has no reason to actually encourage testing in his mind, since more testing will increase those dreaded "numbers". Trump is nothing if not obsessed with image management, to a fault.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's down to a lack of national leadership. If we had more widespread testing, we could reopen the economy safely.

"lack of testing" is just one of the things people like to hang over the federal government's head as some sort of evidence they dropped the ball.

Even if we had enough tests to test every person in the country 5 times over, that's not the cure-all, furthermore, the test are known to be very inaccurate and give false negatives up to 30% of the time by some estimations.

Even if you test negative for COVID-19, assume you have it, experts say | Live Science

In terms of tests per million, we're right in the middle of the pack, both above and below countries that have done both better and worse in terms of death rates.
COVID-19 testing rate by country | Statista


As much has Trump and other Republicans want to push to open everything up potentially too early (so they can boast better economic numbers), there are some people on the other side of the fence who want to keep moving the goalposts in terms of reopening requirements for reasons that are, shall we say, "altruistically self-serving".

 

[FireDragon76]

"lack of testing" is just one of the things people like to hang over the federal government's head as some sort of evidence they dropped the ball.

Even if we had enough tests to test every person in the country 5 times over, that's not the cure-all, furthermore, the test are known to be very inaccurate and give false negatives up to 30% of the time by some estimations.

Even if you test negative for COVID-19, assume you have it, experts say | Live Science

In terms of tests per million, we're right in the middle of the pack, both above and below countries that have done both better and worse in terms of death rates.
COVID-19 testing rate by country | Statista


As much has Trump and other Republicans want to push to open everything up potentially too early (so they can boast better economic numbers), there are some people on the other side of the fence who want to keep moving the goalposts in terms of reopening requirements for reasons that are, shall we say, "altruistically self-serving".

The need for testing should not be a political issue. Having incomplete information is better than having no information at all. I can't see how it's ethical to open up non-essential parts of the economy without it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Other countries managed to succeed and are now opening up (Australia, New Zealand for example), using testing data to guide their decision. As we know, the US failed to act early on the testing front and continues to flail despite repeated please from public health officials for months. Now, some governors are forging ahead anyway, despite flying blind. They may recover sooner economically, but do so with the price of human life.

...but we have to be realistic about the fact that economic devastation ends up carrying the price of human life as well.

There is solid historical data that links dire economic circumstances to increased rates of both destructive behavior (substance abuse, etc...) as well as increased suicide rates.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...3/will-covid-19-make-the-suicide-crisis-worse

COVID-19 Is Likely to Lead to an Increase in Suicides

Just some data to chew on:

As the economy slows and then grinds to a halt, some economists have forecast levels of unemployment comparable to the Great Depression, when 1 in 4 Americans were out of work.


The U.S. suicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000 from 1920 to 1928 during the Roaring Twenties. After the stock market crash of 1929, the suicide rate skyrocketed 50% to 18.1 per 100,000. The suicide rate over the next decade of economic depression (1930-1940) stayed at a terribly high 15.4 per 100,000, until the national emergency of World War II, when it declined significantly.


Unemployment is a well-established risk factor for suicide. In fact, 1 in 3 people who die by suicide are unemployed at the time of their deaths. For every one-point increase in the unemployment rate, the suicide rate tends to increase .78 points.

15 per 100,000, expanded to our current population size calculates to a pretty undesirable number of suicides. ~50,000.

The cost of those lives needs to be factored in as well, yes?

If we saved 250,000 lives now by taking these measures, but lose 50,000 people a year to suicide over the subsequent decade, that needs to be considered. (obviously not all of those suicides would be due to Covid-related economic aspects, suicides occur even during prosperous times)

...none the less, it's still a mathematical exercise that needs to be considered.

Right now, neither side seems to be doing honest diligence in regards to policy making. Decisions seem to be driven off of "how can I make my political faction look good?" or "how can I make the other political faction look bad/incompetent?"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The need for testing should not be a political issue. Having incomplete information is better than having no information at all. I can't see how it's ethical to open up non-essential parts of the economy without it.

Incomplete information is better than no information at all...

Bad information isn't the same thing as incomplete information...and the two shouldn't be lumped together.

If we test 100 people, and 30 of them (who actually have it) test negative, and act on that bad information, that can lead to negative outcomes.

Unless the statistics have changed, the most widely used Covid tests have a 5% false positive rate, and a 20-30% false negative rate.

Now, the false positives may present challenges with regards to policy making and actually getting accurate data on community spread and prevalence, but from a human behavior aspect, it'll just encourage those people to be more careful because they think they have it.

The false negatives the major issue and until those problems are rectified, this notion that increased testing will make things better falls somewhere on the spectrum of unrealistic optimism.

 

[rambot]

King County is one of the first places known to have community spread.

King County Washington has had 446 deaths from COVID19

Daily COVID-19 outbreak summary - King County

And 33 for influenza, since Sept. 29.

Influenza - King County

So around 33.5 times more deaths from COVID19.

tall73 you consistently supply informative posts that are well cited around this topic.

Thank you. I want to make sure good work doesn't get unrecognized.

 

[wing2000]

...but we have to be realistic about the fact that economic devastation ends up carrying the price of human life as well.

There is solid historical data that links dire economic circumstances to increased rates of both destructive behavior (substance abuse, etc...) as well as increased suicide rates.

I agree...which is why we better get our collective act together and make testing a priority. In order to work, we have to test.

Right now, neither side seems to be doing honest diligence in regards to policy making. Decisions seem to be driven off of "how can I make my political faction look good?" or "how can I make the other political faction look bad/incompetent?"

One faction is choosing not to make data informed decisions....and sadly, is all too frequently encouraged by the POTUS.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Based on the continuing new cases I'd lay the blame on the carelessness of the people, not on government policies. I see people everywhere gathering closely without masks, as if totally unaware of the problem. People are naturally rebellious against authority, and none more so than Americans.

I shopped at Menard's yesterday and the clerk who check me out wore gloves, but didn't sanitize them between customers even though he had a bottle of sanitizer right in front of him. So while he was protected he could have passed on germs to everything he touched.

 

[wing2000]

Based on the continuing new cases I'd lay the blame on the carelessness of the people, not on government policies. I see people everywhere gathering closely without masks, as if totally unaware of the problem. People are naturally rebellious against authority, and none more so than Americans.

I shopped at Menard's yesterday and the clerk who check me out wore gloves, but didn't sanitize them between customers even though he had a bottle of sanitizer right in front of him. So while he was protected he could have passed on germs to everything he touched.

Agreed....which is why we don't need a leader to encourage the rebellious nature and discounting the threat. To this day, I hear people saying COVID-19 is not more deadly than the flu.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Agreed....which is why we don't need a leader to encourage the rebellious nature and discounting the threat. To this day, I hear people saying COVID-19 is not more deadly than the flu.

I stopped listening those leaders weeks ago. My focus right now is learning to tie some new fishing knots, a new 'leader' as it were. I have been using the old 'clinch' knot but am going to switch to the 'uni-knot'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtCKGnZwOb0

 

[tall73]

tall73 you consistently supply informative posts that are well cited around this topic.

Thank you. I want to make sure good work doesn't get unrecognized.

Thank you for the encouragement! My sources were correct, but I had a definite error that I now corrected. It is about 13.5 times the deaths of the flu.

The 33 figure is the number of flu deaths and I somehow transposed them in my head.