Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,483 posts)
22. That's precisely the issue.
Mon Apr 27, 2020, 11:09 AM
Apr 2020

The flu stats we pretty much accept.

But to say COVID is 50x worse that the flu you have to know how dangerous COVID is--and we don't. We used to say that 3.4% of those infected get it. Fauci went on record over a month ago saying that he thought that the number would come in under 1%. Some estimates put it at .9, .8, .7., all the way down to 0.2%.

Now, 0.2% is both only 2-4x as bad as the flu in an average season. At the same time, it's not the risk per person but the fact that far more people could be infected and suffer that matters, because that would be a lot more deaths than from the flu. (But here people start going off the rails, because having based the letahlity of the virus on average flu deaths they switch over and use a really bad flu season for comparison--in other words, they use one number calculation that 2-4x and later replace that number quietly to make a point that the numbers themselves probably don't support.)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The Santa Clara County study has been discredited Fiendish Thingy Apr 2020 #1
Thank you. Perhaps someone can post the DU rebuttal link. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2020 #3
Here's a couple of external links: Fiendish Thingy Apr 2020 #18
Thank you. The Guardian one (first) was very good. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2020 #19
All the first one did was introduce uncertainty. Igel Apr 2020 #20
I was wondering about that underpants Apr 2020 #13
Didn't NY use actual data (antibody testing) to confirm an 0.78% mortality rate? Dem2 Apr 2020 #2
I thought that they did, and Cuomo even said that the total number of infectees discovered... SWBTATTReg Apr 2020 #9
It's still around 50X worse than the flu Dem2 Apr 2020 #16
That's precisely the issue. Igel Apr 2020 #22
Yes, but the debunking goes like this. Igel Apr 2020 #21
When obits in Lombardy run 10 pages instead of 1 or 2, it's not the flu. In NYC Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2020 #4
An insanely communicable disease with multiple transmission paths exboyfil Apr 2020 #5
UK totals do not (yet) include deaths at home and deaths at long term care facilities. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2020 #6
The actual infections is MUCH higher. roamer65 Apr 2020 #15
US case 980,000+, death 55,000+. Arithmetic says that's 5.6 % mortality of known cases. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2020 #7
They do think that they actually undercounted the true number of CV cases, and probably ... SWBTATTReg Apr 2020 #10
We need investigation of all pneumonia deaths from October 2019 onward. roamer65 Apr 2020 #17
Definitely a good idea! SWBTATTReg Apr 2020 #24
Pdf of paper: dalton99a Apr 2020 #8
Without robust quality controlled testing using standardized procedures and methods, its guessing Raven123 Apr 2020 #11
I heard about this first last week in RW media. Figured it would become underpants Apr 2020 #12
K&R for visibility. crickets Apr 2020 #14
K & R malaise Apr 2020 #23
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Study challenges reports ...»Reply #22