Jump to content
270soft Forum

As a long term approach, the response to coronavirus isn't sustainable and is almost certainly the wrong approach


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Do you feel the same about the flu's 20,000 deaths so far this flu season? Probably not - why? Because the risks to most people of dying from it are very low. What we don't know at this point is how lethal coronavirus is (and presumably that varies based on all sorts of things). Hopefully, in the next few weeks we will get a clearer picture of this.

I had both Influenza A and B. The mortality rate is just like .1 or .2%. The mortality rate for coronavirus is roughly 2-3%, and that's more like 15-18% for people over 80, and about 10% for people over 70. It's simply not the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

I had both Influenza A and B. The mortality rate is just like .1 or .2%. The mortality rate for coronavirus is roughly 2-3%, and that's more like 15-18% for people over 80, and about 10% for people over 70. It's simply not the same thing.

No, it's not the same thing. We actually don't know what the mortality rate is for coronavirus. It might be 2-3%, might be 1%, might be 0.5%, might be 7%, might be 0.3%. We just don't know. A lot of the numbers (such as WHO's famous 3.4%) are of people tested - but if you use the same methodology for the flu, you get an even higher % than that!

Again, if it highly disproportionately affects 80+, maybe it makes sense in the long term to focus more on protecting those people, which is what I say in the post above, and not destroying a large part of the economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

No, it's not the same thing. We actually don't know what the mortality rate is for coronavirus. It might be 2-3%, might be 1%, might be 0.5%, might be 7%, might be 0.3%. We just don't know. A lot of the numbers (such as WHO's famous 3.4%) are of people tested - but if you use the same methodology for the flu, you get an even higher % than that!

Again, if it highly disproportionately affects 80+, maybe it makes sense in the long term to focus more on protecting those people, which is what I say in the post above, and not destroying a large part of the economy.

If you don't know what it is, you can't claim it's similar to influenza. The fact is people aren't getting tested, and some could've been misdiagnosed as influenza fatalities when in all likelihood they were coronavirus deaths. I agree - we will get a clearer picture in the future. But for at least a month and maybe two - these precautions are completely necessary while that comes into full focus. We can't risk the fact that if it is a 7% fatality rate. We do know that every year, influenza's death rate is exceedingly low, but we don't know with coronavirus. That's why we have to take these precautions and avoid a worsening of this already horrible situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Ya, and the key paragraph in that report is

"Mortality for COVID-19 appears higher than for influenza, especially seasonal influenza. While the true mortality of
COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the
number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number
of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually
well below 0.1%. However, mortality is to a large extent determined by access to and quality of health care."

That's the 3.4% I reference above. That is generated by looking at the number of people who have tested positive, and dividing by the number who've died. The 0.1% for the flu is an estimate of all the people who contract it. If you look at people who actually test positive for the flu and divide by the number who've died, you get a number higher than 3.4%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My *guess* is that the comparable number for coronavirus is around 0.5 due to a large number of asymptomatic or relatively asymptomatic cases, with deaths heavily disproportionate among people 70+. So, much worse than a typical flu, but again - are we going to destroy our economies over something equivalent to 5 years of flus?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, and the key paragraph in that report is

"Mortality for COVID-19 appears higher than for influenza, especially seasonal influenza. While the true mortality of
COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the
number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number
of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually
well below 0.1%. However, mortality is to a large extent determined by access to and quality of health care."

That's the 3.4% I reference above. That is generated by looking at the number of people who have tested positive, and dividing by the number who've died. The 0.1% for the flu is an estimate of all the people who contract it. If you look at people who actually test positive for the flu and divide by the number who've died, you get a number higher than 3.4%.

.... people who contract and people who are positive is the same thing. And also, there are approximately 26 million people who get the flu each year, with 22,000 deaths. So that's very much under 1% and under .1% as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

people who contract and people who are positive is the same thing.

No it's not. WHO has no idea how many people have contracted coronavirus. Again, many (perhaps the overwhelming majority) might have mild symptoms, and wouldn't get tested in most circumstances even if testing is easily available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

No it's not. WHO has no idea how many people have contracted coronavirus. Again, many (perhaps the overwhelming majority) might have mild symptoms, and wouldn't get tested in most circumstances even if testing is easily available.

Okay, so ignore the other part of my argument that disproves what you said earlier. And even if it is different (which I grant you, it is), the vast majority of those people would test positive. I didn't go to the doctor when I had it, but I did call in and I sure as hell know I had influenza.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, and the key paragraph in that report is

"Mortality for COVID-19 appears higher than for influenza, especially seasonal influenza. While the true mortality of
COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the
number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number
of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually
well below 0.1%. However, mortality is to a large extent determined by access to and quality of health care."

That's the 3.4% I reference above. That is generated by looking at the number of people who have tested positive, and dividing by the number who've died. The 0.1% for the flu is an estimate of all the people who contract it. If you look at people who actually test positive for the flu and divide by the number who've died, you get a number higher than 3.4%.

Can you please link your medical credentials, since you seem to speak as though you have a more valid view than those with MD's and a lot of virology experience - often internationally. MD's in professional positions are not usually as easy targets of criticism (at least not with validity and credence) by standard, opinionated people looking things up on the Internet as elected politicians are in such areas, for reasons that should be obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Can you please link your medical credentials, since you seem to speak as though you have a more valid view than those with MD's and a lot of virology experience - often internationally. MD's in professional positions are not usually as easy targets of criticism (at least not with validity and credence) by standard, opinionated people looking things up on the Internet as elected politicians are in such areas, for reasons that should be obvious.

Go back and read the WHO report quote again. 3-4% is the *crude mortality ratio* (reported deaths / reported cases). You only get a reported case for coronavirus if someone goes to a doctor because they are feeling sick and are diagnosed with coronavirus. If there are large numbers of asymptomatic of relatively asymptomatic cases, they are not included. *As the report says*, the actual mortality rate will be lower. For this second category, the flu is typically 0.1%. It is an estimate.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong about this, but saying 'you're not an MD' isn't really an adequate response.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Which people? Positive for what?

The people that don't go to a doctor because they feel too sick to get tested for influenza. They would test positive for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Go back and read the WHO report quote again. 3-4% is the *crude mortality ratio* (reported deaths / reported cases). You only get a reported case for coronavirus is someone goes to a doctor because they are feeling sick and are diagnosed with coronavirus. If there are large numbers of asymptomatic of relatively asymptomatic cases, they are not included. *As the report says*, the actual mortality rate will be lower. For this second category, the flu is typically 0.1%. It is an estimate.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong about this, but saying 'you're not an MD' isn't really an adequate response.

You must know that these official reports of this sort are aggregations of a bunch of other documents, often by different contributors, that are compiled and capsulated for readability and claristy. You can't assume the answer you say is "lacking," must me, it may have just abbreviated into a result or estimate in that particular document.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hestia11 said:

The people that don't go to a doctor because they feel too sick to get tested for influenza. They would test positive for it.

Yes, that's right. Many people don't get tested for the flu (and presumably coronavirus) but have it. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

2017-2018 flu season 80,000 Americans died of the flu. No major changes to society.

I think the changes might have been those affected, medical coverage (always a big whammy in the U.S. - the "repeal and replace," debate of Obamacare was that year, and quite likely affected coverage, even if only by insurance company market coverage confidence), and the fact that the flu season of this year isn't over yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Months of quarantine will mean starvation for some people.  Many more will be out on the street because they can't make rent.  Many, if not most, people cannot afford to go months without a paycheck.  Shutting the whole world down until July isn't a realistic option.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pilight said:

Months of quarantine will mean starvation for some people.  Many more will be out on the street because they can't make rent.  Many, if not most, people cannot afford to go months without a paycheck.  Shutting the whole world down until July isn't a realistic option.  

Maybe glaring flaws are being shown to all by this tragedy of the free-market, capitalist system so cherished and praises - flaws that would never become apparent in better time. Will anyone see and learn, and will most turn away in denial, further convinced that reliance on free market currency and a flimsy, fragile economy that collapses globally at least once every decade, and is the biggest cause of all the problems it's advocates claim it is the only solution to, is STILL not a problem, but must continue to be solidly and unquestioningly embraced and praised?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin_270 said:

2017-2018 flu season 80,000 Americans died of the flu. No major changes to society.

There is a flu vaccine.  People are encouraged to get it every year.

 

A COVID-19 vaccine is in the works, and I believe currently going through human testing.  When it becomes as widely available as the flu vaccine is, I expect we’ll be back to business as usual.

In the meantime, I will ask again:  please stop giving bad medical advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pilight said:

Months of quarantine will mean starvation for some people.  Many more will be out on the street because they can't make rent.  Many, if not most, people cannot afford to go months without a paycheck.  Shutting the whole world down until July isn't a realistic option.  

People aren’t going to starve to death — that’s politically unpalatable.  If anything, nonprofits dedicated to helping those with nutrition instability challenges will become stronger — they won’t fade away during the time that they are most needed.  Blood donations didn’t decrease after 9/11, they increased dramatically.

Federal government is working through a plan to support those most deeply affected by this issue, with a price tag of up to one trillion dollars.

We are not headed for an easy time in the near future, but nor are we headed for a mass extinction event.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

There is a flu vaccine.  People are encouraged to get it every year.

Yet *still* 80,000 died in 2017-2018 from the flu.

 

25 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

In the meantime, I will ask again:  please stop giving bad medical advice.

Where have I given medical advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yet *still* 80,000 died in 2017-2018 from the flu.

Sure.  So imagine a world without the flu vaccine.

Now, understand that there is no COVID-19 vaccine AND that it is both deadlier and more contagious than the flu, and you are going to be well on your way to understanding why you are wrong.

Approximately 2% of those infected with the flu ultimately end up as a hospital inpatient.

That number is 19% for those who test positive for Coronavirus.

I am the spokesman for a hospital.  In two days, we are going to begin treating Covid patients in a TENT because of the increased workload that no hospital in the world can support.

Stop posting wrong things and spend some time to read about what happened to Italy’s hospitals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

What have I posted that's wrong? Be more specific. And where have I given medical advice?

That people are overreacting and businesses should stay open.

When Donald Trump and I both agree on the correct course of action, you can understand how dire this is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...