Starker on 4/3/2020 at 19:40
An entirely meaningless comparison. The flu...
* infects a massive amount of people, way more than the currently confirmed coronavirus cases
* is much less lethal
* usually has enough resources available to treat it
* has a vaccine to reduce both the chance of catching it and dying from its complications
Renzatic on 4/3/2020 at 19:52
It's that we don't know much about it that's so scary. This is a virus that's directly related to SARS, a much deadlier sickness. Will it mutate? If so, when? Tomorrow? 10 years from now? Will it become less lethal? More?
Who the hell knows?
Meanwhile, you can practically time your watch by what we know the flu does.
Starker on 4/3/2020 at 20:03
Um... read it again and think about it a little. Is it really the case that 14% of people who catch the flu die?
Also, your chances of dying from coronavirus depend a lot on in how much risk you are -- how old you are, do you have any chronic illnesses, are you immunocompromised, how good are the health services in your area, etc.
jkcerda on 4/3/2020 at 20:10
damn, sounds just like the flu only you have a lot more deaths from the flu.
Al_B on 4/3/2020 at 20:18
Really don't understand your maths there, jk. From your previous link the estimated rate in 2018 was 61 thousand deaths out of 45 million people with symptoms - that's around 0.14%. Using your "good odds" figure of 3.4% for covid-19 then about 1.5 million people in the US would die if the same number of people caught it.
(your other link of flu being responsible for 14.9 deaths (not %) per 100,000 people in the US is age adjusted but would be roughly 49 thousand for the entire population which is reasonably consistent with the CDC burden figures)
Renzatic on 4/3/2020 at 20:20
Quote Posted by jkcerda
damn, sounds just like the flu only you have a lot more deaths from the flu.
The only reason why we have more deaths from the flu is because we don't spend billions of dollars quarantining entire cities every time it breaks out. If we let corona spread without trying to stop it, it'd infect twice as many people, and the death toll would be considerably higher.
Think of it like this:
The flu infected 42,000,000 people, and killed around 61,200 in 2019. 0.14% of everyone who caught the flu died.
Coronavirus has infected 90,000 people so far. If it were just as deadly as the flu, it would've only killed 128 people so far. Instead, it's killed around 3000.
So you could imagine how much worse it would be if it spread unabated. Even then, it wouldn't be the end of the world, but it'd be really not fucking fun in the least. It'd basically be another 1918 epidemic
SubJeff on 4/3/2020 at 20:29
Lol jck be all dumb
Gryzemuis on 4/3/2020 at 20:41
The mortality rate of regular flu is around 0.05%. The mortality rate of Corona was 2% we were told. Today on the news it is now said that the rate has been adjusted to 3.4%. My guess is it will go up a little. Maybe to 5%. Reason: the Chinese have been lying. E.g. Italy has 3k+ infections, and 107 deaths today. That's already 3.3%, and not all infected have either recovered or died.
So, is 5% mortality-rate a big deal ? Or not news-worthy. That's up to you.
jkcerda on 4/3/2020 at 21:03
Quote Posted by Al_B
Really don't understand your maths there, jk. From your previous link the estimated rate in 2018 was 61
thousand deaths out of 45 million people with symptoms - that's around 0.14%. Using your "good odds" figure of 3.4% for covid-19 then about 1.5
million people in the US would die if the same number of people caught it.
(your other link of flu being responsible for 14.9 deaths (not %) per 100,000 people in the US is age adjusted but would be roughly 49 thousand for the entire population which is reasonably consistent with the CDC burden figures)
I was using common core math :p
you guys are correct, my apologies.
