Coronavirus more deadly than the flu?

[OldWiseGuy]

By any reasonable standard the sheer number of people a disease kills is the true measure of it's deadliness.
Flu annually infects over three quarters of a million people and kills up to 80,000. When coronavirus tops these numbers only then will it be 'more deadly' than the flu, imho.

 

[Arcangl86]

By any reasonable standard the sheer number of people a disease kills is the true measure of it's deadliness.
Flu annually infects over three quarters of a million people and kills up to 80,000. When coronavirus tops these numbers only then will it be 'more deadly' than the flu, imho.

You don't think mortality rate is important? The whole point is not to let it become as common as the flu.

 

[Lost4words]

Our systems are not geared for this virus. It is new. Like any new virus, we need to build up antibodies to fight it. Its going to be a tough journey!

 

[Basil the Great]

Experts say that this virus spreads about 3 times more efficiently than the flu does, so in that regard it might be considered more dangerous.

 

[Ophiolite]

By any reasonable standard the sheer number of people a disease kills is the true measure of it's deadliness..

I guess the money spent on that Certificate in Epidemiology from Kermit Junior College may have been wasted.

 

[chevyontheriver]

By any reasonable standard the sheer number of people a disease kills is the true measure of it's deadliness.
Flu annually infects over three quarters of a million people and kills up to 80,000. When coronavirus tops these numbers only then will it be 'more deadly' than the flu, imho.

No. It's how many of the people it infects that it kills as to how deadly it is. Ebola is hardly deadly by your standard, but if you ever got it you would most likely be dead.

 

[solid_core]

By any reasonable standard the sheer number of people a disease kills is the true measure of it's deadliness.
Flu annually infects over three quarters of a million people and kills up to 80,000. When coronavirus tops these numbers only then will it be 'more deadly' than the flu, imho.

I do not trust Chinese numbers, people report that they are discharged from hospitals even while they still have symptoms and who knows how many deaths China covers. Who spreads real information in China, he can disappear.

I would also not trust Iranian or Russian stats, but because they are not as high as China, let us let them in the general result.

So, lets see the stats without China:

cases: 259,000
recovered: 24,000
deaths: 11,000

Recovery rate: 9%
Death reate: 4%
Uknown result: 87%

The vast majority of cases neither recovered nor died yet. The uncertainity is the main reason why there are such counter measures. We know flu, but we do not know what will happen with this new virus. It can develop well or be a serious threat.

We are simply buying more time to know more. It may be two weeks, more probably a month and maybe even more.

 

[Arcangl86]

Also, where are you getting your numbers from? The CDC estimates that 35 million people got the flue last year, with 34,200 deaths. Estimated Influenza Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2018–2019 influenza season | CDC

 

[lasthero]

By any reasonable standard the sheer number of people a disease kills is the true measure of it's deadliness.

By that logic, the flu is more deadly than the Ebola virus. Which you rather get the flu or Ebola?

 

[royal priest]

By any reasonable standard the sheer number of people a disease kills is the true measure of it's deadliness.
Flu annually infects over three quarters of a million people and kills up to 80,000. When coronavirus tops these numbers only then will it be 'more deadly' than the flu, imho.

Here's a comparison of more recent flu viruses global impacts

 

[OldWiseGuy]

By that logic, the flu is more deadly than the Ebola virus. Which you rather get the flu or Ebola?

The logic is that the flu, at this time, is more deadly to the nation than coronavirus. Ebola is more deadly to the individual than flu but less deadly to the nation as a whole.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You don't think mortality rate is important? The whole point is not to let it become as common as the flu.

Why did we let the flu become so common?

When I was a kid my parents took illness seriously, even the common cold. Today few seem to care.

 

[blackribbon]

You don't think mortality rate is important? The whole point is not to let it become as common as the flu.

Mortality rate only matters for the people who have the disease. If only 100 people get a disease, even if the morality rate is 100%, it won't be deadlier than a disease with a much lower mortality rate but affects more people . However, with Covid19, I suspect that it has a fairly low mortality rate because we don't have the ability to count the mild cases and no way to know who is positive but is asymptomatic. They still count but remain invisible.

 

[loveofourlord]

Mortality rate only matters for the people who have the disease. If only 100 people get a disease, even if the morality rate is 100%, it won't be deadlier than a disease with a much lower mortality rate but affects more people . However, with Covid19, I suspect that it has a fairly low mortality rate because we don't have the ability to count the mild cases and no way to know who is positive but is asymptomatic. They still count but remain invisible.

True, the only real figures we have is the deaths per day in some of the hardest hit countries like italy with around 500 a day.

 

[Strathos]

By any reasonable standard the sheer number of people a disease kills is the true measure of it's deadliness.
Flu annually infects over three quarters of a million people and kills up to 80,000. When coronavirus tops these numbers only then will it be 'more deadly' than the flu, imho.

More people have died overall from bee stings than they have from nuclear weapons. Therefore, bees are more deadly than nuclear weapons, according to your logic.

 

[Ophiolite]

More people have died overall from bee stings than they have from nuclear weapons. Therefore, bees are more deadly than nuclear weapons, according to your logic.

Well, yes. Bees and other insects are more deadly, else there would have been no need for S.A.L.T. - Strategic Arthropod Limitation Talks.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Umnmmm what do you suggest we do about the flu? We have vaccines the idiots ignore due to conspiracies, we have medicine that can help we do everything we can to stop it, we have people with possible partial imunity from previous inefctions.

with Covid we have 0 imunity, no vaccines, still trying to understand how it can be stopped. A infection rate far far worse then the flu.

And we have idiots like you that fail at math and understanding dangers, treating a disease that didn't spread this fast this quickly in any year in recent memory or kill as quickly or deadly as this one has, and treating it like it's nothing.

Not so. I'm hoarding toilet paper and staying home like everyone else.

I think you are going to receive a warning from the forum for flaming.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

More people have died overall from bee stings than they have from nuclear weapons. Therefore, bees are more deadly than nuclear weapons, according to your logic.

That's your logic, not mine.

 

[Al Touthentop]

More people have died overall from bee stings than they have from nuclear weapons. Therefore, bees are more deadly than nuclear weapons, according to your logic.

By overall standards, this would be correct. It's about perspective. When you compare reported cases vs deaths - ie the cases where a person has been confirmed through tests to have suffered a particular disease - flu is currently twice as deadly as corona virus.

However, we do not test the millions of people who get the flu. Therefore, the statisticians have come up with an "estimated cases" value which they think more accurately reflects the reality - people who got the flu but were never tested or showed up to a doctor's office or hospital. When you measure against that, flu has a mortality rate of about .1 percent. When you measure flu mortality against confirmed cases, then the mortality rate calculates to 20% - 2 to three times higher than the rate in regards to corona virus.

So in this particular case, the raw death number is in fact comparable, just like it's appropriate to say that bees kill more people than nukes. It may be true that nukes are used less frequently and that if they were used, exposure would pretty much ensure your death, but you wouldn't then try to induce panic in the entire world to take measures to prevent nuke exposure when other things are more pressing and likely.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Mortality rate only matters for the people who have the disease. If only 100 people get a disease, even if the morality rate is 100%, it won't be deadlier than a disease with a much lower mortality rate but affects more people . However, with Covid19, I suspect that it has a fairly low mortality rate because we don't have the ability to count the mild cases and no way to know who is positive but is asymptomatic. They still count but remain invisible.

True. The true mortality rate for coronavirus, using all who are infected, is just a guess at this point as it isn't known how many are actually infected.