That’s almost exactly what the IHME website is predicting.
Mortality rate is much lower on Covid-19
- Thread starter Pepperman
- Start date
I think we are saying the same thing. I only use "artificially" in the sense that enduring COVID-19 basically out of the blue like we have now is a very different scenario than COVID-19 with vaccinations and naturally produced population-level herd immunities in place. One will have substantially higher mortality rate than the other, largely due to externalities unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the virus itself. So in that sense, I think the mortality rates we are currently perceiving are significantly inflated, although that is pretty academic in the "here and now" since we are clearly dealing with one scenario and not the other. Considering this inflation "artificial" or not is pretty much just semantics.
EVERYBODY is saying we need accurate data so - like I said - that's hardly new ground. And all of their "recommendations" rest on the first three words..."If we're right..."
The problems. of course, arise from them being very wrong. There's not a thing they're recommending that can be done now or a week from now nor likely a month from now because the kind of testing they're calling for...that EVERYBODY is calling for...can't be done. The only other option their view affords is to accept their premise with no evidence to support it and risk overwhelming hospitals everywhere.
Has anyone actually said this? ^^ I have read a lot, certainly not all, of the posts on here in the last couple of weeks and cannot recall anyone saying that.
That would require an explanation for why Italy and Spain don't have similar results in a "severe flu" season. Their demographics haven't changed.
I think it is possible that COVID is very dependent on population density for spread as well, so I don't think we can simply apply the same formula and assumptions widely. Also, just by the numbers densely populated areas are going to be impacted much more than less densely populated areas. NYC has almost triple the number of people in that relatively small area than Iowa does in the entire state. A quick google swag shows Iowa having 145 hospitals, whereas the entire state of NY only has about 175, and about 80 in the NYC metro area. They are much more on the edge of being overwhelmed at all times than some place like Iowa (which is much more similar to the vast majority of the rest of the country) is.
Because you are comparing apples and oranges. One virus has significant herd immunity already built into the population and the other does not. I believe that is the explanation, or at least a massive portion of it.
True, I was making a more macro point though. Without going down a research rabbit-hole, I would imagine that Iowa has a higher ratio of ICU beds and ventilators than NYC does for their respective populations. But, the larger point is also that there is just way, way, way more natural "social distancing" in places like Iowa vs NYC, and it stands to reason that that could have an outsized influence with a virus like COVID-19 and lead to major outbreaks in a place like NYC and not elsewhere.
But that's NOT what they're claiming in the op. They're claiming a COVID-19 mortality rate one-tenth of an average flu season...WITH vaccines and "significant herd immunity" built into the population.
THEY are claiming apples to apples. So - again - explain Italy and Spain.
Sorry, I was not trying to defend or explain their position. I was only talking about my own post.
It would certainly be more of a slow burn through Iowa than NYC but the larger cities could just as easily be overwhelmed absent maintaining limits on movement.
Thanks for that link. Assuming the data in it is accurate, it clearly shows that NYC is far outpacing a place like Iowa in terms of infections and everything that goes along with that. I think it has a lot to do with population density, and to a much smaller degree with time since initial outbreak.
Gotcha...but that would mean you're comparing COVID-19 to a "severe influenza" for which there's no herd immunity and no vaccine. Otherwise this
...is apples and oranges. And a "severe influenza" with no herd immunity and no vaccine...well...that could be 1918.
Right, and in our current situation, slow burn is exactly what we are trying to achieve. Iowa just has the luxury of more naturally exhibiting that, whereas things are going to be significantly amplified in NYC.
Right. I am just saying that people who say that COVID-19 isn't particularly deadly and compare it to influenza are not necessarily wrong if we are talking about the two diseases in a vacuum, or with similar population level herd immunities...but that is not the reality of our current situation. So, while I believe that it likely has mortality rate very much in line, or even lower, than influenza if all things were equal, all things are not equal and we have to respond based on the world we are actually living in, not a theoretical one. This is all confounded though with the lack of testing and available data (to be expected with a novel virus) making it very hard to truly define what "reality" even is at this point.
How about this...we just agree to never compare it to influenza. It’s a dumb comparison on its face and the people referenced in the OP have to explain Italy and Spain before making the ludicrous claim that COVID-19 has a mortality rate one-tenth that of a modern day flu season.
Tell Dr. Fauci , a co-author of the article containing this:
This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387is
That was originally published at the end of February. He has since estimated it around 1% which is more in line with a lot of other estimates.
I don't think it is that dumb. It is completely possible for a novel virus similar to influenza to have outsized impacts on populations, especially those densely concentrated, that have no prior immunities. It isn't a valueless distinction, as it will be extremely important in guiding our response moving forward and understanding the costs and benefits of steps we may choose to take or not. This is not a corona virus like SARS or MERS, it is much more similar to influenza in its morbidity, a virus that we have learned to largely deal with alongside our everyday lives.
No, this is very much like SARS or MERS, just less deadly.
It's not at all like influenza; it is leaving people with potentially permanently scarred lungs and reduced lung function. No 'flu' has done that; this is very very different.
Yes, it was originally out 2/28, then again on 3/26. I was more pointing to the "it is dumb" comment.
*sigh* You can't even agree what we're talking about when we compare them. They compared them. I compared them. You said MY comparison wasn't valid - apples to oranges, IIRC. I explained it wasn't MY comparison, it was the OP's. I then had to explain that YOUR comparison was the same as theirs making it the same as mine.
The only thing that matters is the final CFR. These guys are claiming it will be ONE-TENTH that of the regular old flu. You claim it will be similar to the regular old flu. When asked to explain Italy or Spain, you then claim what's happening there CAN'T be compared to a regular old flu season. You're all over the map. Either it can or it can't. Pick one.
IF COVID-19 is no more dangerous than a regular old flu...0.1% mortality...explain Italy or Spain. Explain NYC. What's happening there DOES NOT track a regular old flu no matter how you slice it.
Umm...no. It's like reprinting an article about 9/11 and you thinking it happened again.
....and yet 876,000 abortions in the United States last year and nobody cares!
Are you sure he wasn’t referring to percentage of confirmed cases vs. percentage of actual (including unknown) cases?
I posted essentially this in another thread in response to someone else who adamantly said that we should not compare influenza and COVID...but we SHOULD draw comparisons where they make sense and not be so dismissive of what is similar between two viruses.
We should not EQUATE them, we should though COMPARE them where there are things that we can learn and understand what our response should be. There is a distinction.
Something being many orders of magnitude less deadly, even in some of the worst case estimates, is not something I would describe as being very alike. In that sense, I guess you could say diarrhea is very much like Ebola, just less deadly.
And, flu can bring on many complications, including severe pneumonia, and absolutley can lead to scarring and permanently degraded lung function in some people. It is still way too early to substantiate COVID-19's long term impacts on various body systems...although I would guess it could very well have similar impacts as influenza does.
You are a smart guy, so I am not sure why you are struggling with this. Maybe I am not expressing this as clearly as I think I am.
I simply made the point that I would not be surprised, in fact all the data i have seen seems to support, a morbidity rate for COVID-19 somewhere in the same range as influenza. The linked article thinks it is even lower due to what they think is a significantly undervalued number of asymptomatic carriers out there. Who knows at this point, they could be right, but they are making the same extrapolations as those who see a higher rate with equally unsupported assumptions right now.
You say that they couldnt be right, because they cant explain Italy or Spain, which is why I tried to emphasize that the impact that a lack of known treatment strategies combined with the total lack of population level herd immunities can absolutely explain Italy and Spain even if COVID-19 turns out to have a similar or even lower morbidity than influenza.
For example, if vaccinations and immunities due to recent infections means that 80% of a population cannot be infected or act as hosts for a relatively lethal virus, it will have drastically less effect than a relatively more benign virus to which basically the entire population is suddenly vulnerable to infection or to be carriers. As many have said, the big issue here is not that the virus itself is particularly deadly (despite what Joe says, this greatly separates it from diseases like SARS or MERS)...it is that on a global population level, we have no built in immune response to it yet, compounded with the fact we have only the beginnings of treatment strategies to employ, so it is just a numbers game in relation to our capacity to handle the infected when the pool of potential victims and carriers is essentially the entire population of the world. This is only amplified in large population centers, where capacity is already an ongoing issue. Hence, Spain and Italy.
I wish there were a representative community with certain characteristics (demographics, international travel, density, etc) for which we could test EVERYONE repeatedly to try to put some better context around some the data.
I'm not struggling at all so it must be you.
So - again - your claim is that COVID-19...AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW with no herd immunity nor a vaccine...will have a mortality rate similar to flu...AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW with no true herd immunity BUT we do have vaccines (we have to vaccinate every year because the flu is different every year, you know). That's your apples to apples comparison. A 0.01% CFR for both. As they exist right now. They are the same.
When I ask how you explain Italy or Spain or NYC, you change your tune and say we don't see the same results in Italy or Spain or NYC during a flu season because they AREN'T the same. You can't have it both ways. If COVID-19 has roughly the same mortality rate as flu...it shouldn't be ripping through communities and overwhelming hospitals. Why you can't see what you're arguing here is a mystery.
They can't be right because to explain Italy...well, the mortality rate there is already nearly double what they claim IF every single person in the country was infected right now AND no one else died. Do you think every single Italian has already been infected? Do you think no one else in Italy will die? 60.5 million people and almost 11,000 dead. Today. Do that math and see if you can get 0.01% as they claim.
And here you are again arguing both sides. Either COVID-19 IS like the flu as it exists right at this moment WITH vaccinations and whatever immunity exists or it isn't. Pick one side.
If you think COVID-19 WITHOUT vaccinations or treatments or immunity will in the end present the same CFR as flu WITH all those things, you simply can't explain Italy or Spain or NYC by turning around and arguing that COVID-19 is DIFFERENT because those things don't exist for it. Why you can't see what you're doing here...I'm flummoxed.
And, FTR, highly lethal viruses like Ebola or SARS or MERS tend to be self limiting because they DO present such stark outcomes. They scare the crap out of people. SARS killed fewer than 800 worldwide and none in the US. And there was no herd immunity nor a vaccine. And I would argue in this instance that there is a very big difference between "lethal" and "deadly". Your "not particularly deadly" SARS-CoV-2 will kill far more than SARS...more in one day in a single country...because it's far more insidious. It's a damn near perfect virus for causing mass casualties. Likely millions if we allow people to convince us that it's "not particularly deadly".
Last edited:
Similar threads
