I have read plenty over the last several months. If you can’t be bothered to post the relevant facts then why should I concern myself with what another article says? There are no new developments, aside from some scientists saying the virus is airborne. Everything else I have already heard.
Oh I know how lazy of me to link an article. How about I do that and also voice record it in case you don’t feel like reading even pieces that day? Would be much easier for you while you’re making morning coffee or something.
1 Like
Only if the power of Trump compelled him.
It ain’t going away in a few months without a vaccine mate…
Yes, those are actually the stats H posted to you. Using the numbers quoted COVID-19 killed 65,000 people through early May. The UPPER limit of flu estimated deaths was ~61,000, but this is likely an overestimation.
The number of physically counted deaths from flu was between 9 - 44x less than the counted deaths from covid.
My point is that “some uncertainty in both stats” isn’t a realistic statement to imply the numbers are actually similar. There’s effectively no overlap in the uncertainty bands, which is what makes this significant.
That’s not it, and you’re being openly dishonest whether you know it or not. The data in the articles linked by H Factor was from THE USA ONLY. In other words, apples to apples, covid is between 10-40x more deadly than the flu in actual counted numbers in the same population with the same pre-existing conditions.
Not going to disagree with that. We don’t know as much as we’d like to think we do.
Then, quite honestly, you have exactly zero fucking ability to argue points ABOUT SHIT YOU HAVEN’T FUCKING READ.
1 Like
Because you’re not fucking reading the shit you’re talking about. You’re emotional exactly because you’re not talking about the data H posted because…wait for it…youre too fucking lazy to read it. And on top of that you have exactly zero grasp of statistics but want to argue like you do. You’ve demonstrated both these things over and over, which is why I don’t take you seriously.
Oh, so you don’t need to learn any more? Right. I forgot that lesson in graduate school. When you get your degree you don’t need to read any more because you have all the information you will ever need.
Oh wait, it was the opposite of that: “when you stop reading you become obsolete”. Nevermind.
He has. In fact he’s typed them out several times into his posts in an attempt to try to spoon feed you and attract your attention. Which keeps failing.
Because it’s goddamned common courtesy! I have never, NEVER debated an article on here with someone without reading it.
Says the guy who can’t be bothered to read and keep up with the new developments…
1 Like
Every time I link an article I quote the relevant parts, I don’t see why you can’t do the same.
Because more people were infected with COVID than the flu at that time. I already said elsewhere in here that COVID could kill more people right now because it spreads so fast and
while the flu doesn’t spread so fast you are likely to get it at some point in the next few years. My argument about death rates is that (according to statistics) the flu kills more of the people it infects than COVID, and the same people who are likely to die from one are likely to die from the other, that’s all.
The data I linked was from the whole world. Is the USA somehow more relevant than the rest of the planet?
I quoted and linked statistics showing that the flu kills a larger percentage of people that it infects, that is what I’m talking about.
I never tried to debate his article either, I told him to provide data refuting what I provided and somehow we ended up here. A lot of times people post articles that do nothing to prove the point that they are trying to make, so if you can’t be bothered to quote the relevant parts then I can’t be bothered to waste my time reading it. This isn’t a new topic either, and I have been staying up to date on the developments.
How come you sound so angry today? If you can post something to prove I’m wrong (and I don’t mean link 3 articles and quote nothing) then do so.
Explain how this doesn’t show an equal or higher number of deaths for the number of people infected:
Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 290 000 to 650 000 respiratory deaths.
Globally, as of 10:50am CEST, 7 July 2020, there have been 11,468,979 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 535,181 deaths, reported to WHO.
You don’t need to read an article to spin this one way or another, the numbers are right there.
I’m angry because youre making statistical arguments from ignorance and insisting that you’re informed when it’s obvious you a) don’t care to read what you’re going to argue about and b) don’t have a clue about the statistics you’re trying to argue with.
This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say ignorance of stats. It’s not 3-5 million INFECTIONS of flu. It’s 3-5 million SEVERE ILLNESSES (presumably hospitalizations). Of which approximately 1 in 10 leads to death, according to the numbers you quoted above.
Worldwide.
Not infections, severe illnesses.
Worldwide.
Preliminary data suggests that the USA alone had 40 million+ flu cases this past year.
WHO, the source you used, estimates 1 BILLION cases of flu yearly (below)
Here’s another study from 2011: Influenza Update - PMC
I’ll quote it because I know you don’t like to read anything. From the first 2 paragraphs:
"Approximately 9% of the world’s population is affected annually, with up to 1 billion infections, 3 to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000 to 500,000 deaths each year.[1]-[3]
In the U.S. alone, nearly 20% of the population is affected. On average, 25 to 50 million documented influenza cases…"
So let’s recap the simple math you don’t like to use:
1 BILLION cases of flu estimated
600,000 deaths, top end.
Versus: 11-12 million cases and 600,000 deaths of covid by months end.
This is why I’m angry.
I did. But I also think it’s incredibly lazy if someone is posting articles that aren’t even that long for someone to insist “I don’t have time for 8 paragraphs.” The main thing was the massive discrepancies (I’ve seen it in multiple articles but I won’t link them as I don’t want to burden you). So you’re comparing high end estimations of something to something that is being counted. See below. Again.
They said that public officials continually draw comparisons between the 2 infections, “often in an attempt to minimize the effects of the unfolding pandemic.”
The number of deaths from COVID-19 was estimated in early May to be approximately 65,000, which the authors agreed appeared similar to the estimated number of seasonal influenza deaths reported every year by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
However, that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the CDC reports seasonal influenza morbidity and mortality.
From 2013-14 to 2018-19, the CDC reported yearly estimates of influenza deaths ranging from 23,000-61,000. However, the number of counted influenza deaths during those 2 seasons was 3448 and 15,620, respectively.
It would be more accurate to compare weekly counts of COVID-19 deaths to weekly counts of seasonal influenza deaths, the authors said, due to COVID-19 fatalities being counted and reported directly instead of estimated.
By the numbers, according to the paper:
- There were 15,455 COVID-19 deaths reported in the US during the week ending April 21, 2020.
- There were 14,478 COVID-19 deaths reported in the US during the week prior.
- There were 351 flu deaths during the peak week (week 11 of 2016) of the flu season in 2015-16.
- There were 1626 flu deaths during the peak week (week 3 of 2018) of the flu season in 2018-19.
“These statistics on counted deaths suggest that the number of COVID-19 deaths for the week ending April 21 was 9.5-fold to 44.1-fold greater than the peak week of counted influenza deaths during the past 7 influenza seasons in the US, with a 20.5-fold mean increase,” the authors wrote.
The CDC also recognizes that their COVID-19 death counts are continually revised due to delays in reporting. The authors believed that the ratio of counted COVID-19 deaths to flu deaths will rise. Additionally, they said their ratios are more clinically consistent with the experiences of health care workers on the front lines.
“We infer that either the CDC’s annual estimates substantially overstate the actual number of deaths caused by influenza or that the current number of COVID-19 counted deaths substantially understates the actual number of deaths caused by SARS-CoV-2, or both,” they wrote.
The authors allowed for several considerations, including that testing capacity is limited for COVID-19 and there could be false-negative results. They also said that flu deaths are not reportable to public health authorities—while COVID-19 deaths are, which could lead to potential underreporting.
Drawing direct comparisons between 2 diseases, despite mortality statistics being collected by different methods, provides inaccurate information. The failure to consider these differences by experts “threatens public health,” the authors wrote, especially as they rely on the comparisons “to reopen the economy and deescalate mitigation strategies.”
“Although officials may say that SARS-CoV-2 is ‘just another flu,’ this is not true,” the authors concluded. “Our analysis suggests that comparisons between SARS-CoV-2 mortality and seasonal influenza mortality must be made using an apples-to-apples comparison, not an apples-to-oranges comparison. Doing so better demonstrates the true threat to public health from COVID-19.”
Well there you go, you provided something refuting what I posted. We could have just gone straight to this instead of bickering about nothing.
Wikipedia (which I quoted previously) and other sources say somewhere around 3-5 million cases while the WHO says “severe illnesses” which is kind of vague. @H_factor 's argument seemed to be based on the fact that the flu stats are estimated rather than counted, but we have a similar issue with COVID stats for a number of reasons we already discussed. So while the stats aren’t 100% accurate, if indeed as many as 1 billion people are infected with the flu each year then COVID would appear to be significantly more deadly. Unfortunately, the sources I came across when searching did not give those numbers that you provided.
Why do you have do be an arrogant asshole? I take the time to quote things that I post, should I just link articles and expect that you will read them all?
Stats aren’t ever 100% accurate and if you read what other people linked you would have already known the issues with how the flu deaths are “figures ” vs the much more accurate way we are figuring Covid deaths. That was said in the articles as well.
The flus just as bad or worse has largely been a hallmark of people trying to dismiss this as no big deal. The scientific consensus right now seems to be from everything I’ve read that it isn’t even a close comparison based on what we know right now.
And I saw where you posted this same thing, and it didn’t disprove what I was saying. The problem is flu deaths not all being recorded, so while the numbers aren’t exact it still doesn’t prove that the death rate is lower than for COVID. However, what @Aragorn posted about 1 billion flu cases a year certainly makes it look like COVID is much deadlier so that’s the end of that.
Yes but here we have significant flaws for both. You can’t dismiss the numbers for one and not the other.
Yeah but if the figures are way off then why is nothing done about it? The same people coming up with those figures are the ones counting COVID numbers.
I’m quite certain the actual number of COVID cases is much higher than the official stats. There is something like a 30% rate of false negatives, a very high number of asymptomatic cases (more likely they won’t get tested), and until recently it was near impossible to even get tested in most places when the virus was at it’s peak in many parts of the world. But if there are somewhere near 1 billion flu cases, then COVID must be worse.
I’m not trying to dismiss it as no big deal, I think that some people are overreacting while others aren’t being serious enough. Also some of the measures like mandatory masks (the new law in Ottawa as of today) would have been much more useful a few months earlier when we were being told that masks will increase the risk and so on. At this point, it’s near useless in Ottawa, maybe some places in the US where there are still a lot of cases would benefit from mandatory masks but not everywhere.
Consider it pent up frustration after having gone down this same path with you dozens of times in this thread. After you admitted you didn’t read anything you were arguing with H about, I just kind of lost my patience. I consider that intellectually lazy, honestly. I apologize.
They won’t ever be 100% accurate in anything. But in this case they would have to be off by 100 fold, which is frankly not even close to realistic.
I actually read what he posted, it just didn’t disprove what I said and I didn’t read the articles he linked. If someone has a point to make they need to state their position, not post an article or video.
I have said that you and I agree on a lot. But to me you’re doing a disservice when you say things like the people who die of this would have died of the flu anyways. Or stating that for everyone other than the elderly it’s nothing to worry about. The way you word things is important I think. Because you often say something and then after a bit of debate you go back and say well I think we’re getting caught up in talking about this part so much.
Either way it’s all good. I would also point out that many times I will link multiple articles in case someone wants to read a few things on the subject instead of just from one source.
That’s for Chris because the forum is broke and who knows who it’s directed to.
1 Like
Well, based on what I have seen first hand and the stats that I saw previously I thought that was fairly accurate, but if the number of flu cases is way higher then that changes the picture a bit.
The elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions, yes I think that the risk for the rest is overblown and the data does back that up. But I think the main thing to move forward in this situation is for the government in each country/state/province to decide on a plan and stick with it, going back and forth between shutdowns is only going to make this drag on for longer. Right now it’s looking like the outbreak is almost finished in Canada, some parts of the US look to be in the same situation we had back in March or April.
Even without deaths, isn’t the rate of hospitalizations higher? Days hospitalized longer? And from my understanding some of the lasting and permanent lung damage isn’t exactly pleasant.
3 Likes
Maybe, do you have a source for any of that? As for permanent lung damage, the flu can also cause long term problems. But I think we should give this flu vs. COVID thing a rest because it’s already settled.
1 Like