Tweet
This is something that the media either doesn't understand or uses to distort the numbers. Their reported rate of "death from flu" is SUSPECTED flu cases/deaths from flu (and there's no incentive to code a death from something else as the flu). That yields about 0.01%.
They then compare that to CONFIRMED SARS-COV-2 infections/suspected deaths from Covid-19 (and there is a BIG financial and political incentive to inflate the cases). This yields the "around 1%" sorts of numbers.
To give them credit, there's no way to do a suspected Coronavirus infection rate because this is the first year, and we've had decades of flu seasons showing about 10% of the country gets infect4ed. If, however, you use the closest comparison of CONFIRMED flu cases/flu deaths (remember, the criteria for diagnosing it as a flu death are a bit more strict and there's no incentive to inflate the numbers), we get an annual rate of 10% deaths from flu.
For those claiming that Covid-19 is "much more deadly", the data so far don't seem to support this. While there may be some extra lethality to people with certain pre-existing conditions, that happens with influenza as well. The difference is that we aren't being told about EVERY SINGLE INFECTION AND DEATH like we are with coronavirus. The difference seems to primarily be selection bias.
This is much like the "flesh-eating virus" outbreak a bit over a decade back. Aside from the fact that it was neither flesh-eating nor a virus, the thing that might surprise some is that the incidence that year was exactly the same as it was for the 6 plus decades of information on hand, and it turns out no different than the decade plus since. The only difference was that media drew attention to every single case and made it seem to be a huge increase. Does this sound familiar to anyone ("mass shootings', etc.)?
They then compare that to CONFIRMED SARS-COV-2 infections/suspected deaths from Covid-19 (and there is a BIG financial and political incentive to inflate the cases). This yields the "around 1%" sorts of numbers.
To give them credit, there's no way to do a suspected Coronavirus infection rate because this is the first year, and we've had decades of flu seasons showing about 10% of the country gets infect4ed. If, however, you use the closest comparison of CONFIRMED flu cases/flu deaths (remember, the criteria for diagnosing it as a flu death are a bit more strict and there's no incentive to inflate the numbers), we get an annual rate of 10% deaths from flu.
For those claiming that Covid-19 is "much more deadly", the data so far don't seem to support this. While there may be some extra lethality to people with certain pre-existing conditions, that happens with influenza as well. The difference is that we aren't being told about EVERY SINGLE INFECTION AND DEATH like we are with coronavirus. The difference seems to primarily be selection bias.
This is much like the "flesh-eating virus" outbreak a bit over a decade back. Aside from the fact that it was neither flesh-eating nor a virus, the thing that might surprise some is that the incidence that year was exactly the same as it was for the 6 plus decades of information on hand, and it turns out no different than the decade plus since. The only difference was that media drew attention to every single case and made it seem to be a huge increase. Does this sound familiar to anyone ("mass shootings', etc.)?
Comment