Covid 19 vs H1N1

[street]

This may have been discussed here I just haven't been able to find any threads on the comparison to the panic and fear of the two flu's.

Can someone tell me why this has gotten to a total fear while the pandemic of H1N1 in 2009/10 wasn't hardly even talked about in the news? I believe it cost over 13000 deaths in the US at the time.

I can't remember if it was even a blimp in the market world.

 

[Spock]

The death rate for Covid19 is ~170 times higher. (~3.4% for corona depending on your source of stats vs. 0.02% for H1N1).
Covid19 is also much more contagious. H1N1 hit 11-20% of the population. Covid19 is forecasted to hit 40-70% of the WW population.

 

[ivinsfan]

The death rate for Covid19 is ~170 times higher. (~3.4% for corona depending on your source of stats vs. 0.02% for H1N1).
Covid19 is also much more contagious. H1N1 hit 11-20% of the population. Covid19 is forecasted to hit 40-70% of the WW population.

We don't know this on the death rate. But that 170 times higher is a great way to scare people.

 

[street]

Thanks for those stats. I guess time will tell how the numbers and reactions shake out going forward.

 

[Spock]

We don't know this on the death rate. But that 170 times higher is a great way to scare people.

3.4% is the death rate estimated by WHO as of March 4 data.
H1N1 is known within a variance range as being 0.02%
0.034/0.0002=170.

 

[ivinsfan]

3.4% is the death rate estimated by WHO as of March 4 data.
H1N1 is known within a variance range as being 0.02%
0.034/0.0002=170.

because H1N1 is in the past.. March 4 was over two weeks ago....that number isn't remotely current today. We are finding more cases of mild infection...

 

[ERD50]

3.4% is the death rate estimated by WHO as of March 4 data.
H1N1 is known within a variance range as being 0.02%
0.034/0.0002=170.

This is hyperbole. You did not include the essential context of "too early to say".

From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

We don't know how many were infected ("When you look at how many people have died, you need to look at how many people where infected, and right now we don't know that number. So it is early to put a percentage on that."[1][2]).

The only number currently known is how many people have died out of those who have been reported to the WHO.

It is therefore very early to make any conclusive statements about what the overall mortality rate will be for the novel coronavirus, according to the World Health Organization [1][2].

And testing is increasing the denominator, but we've all seen the angst over not enough testing. We simply do not know what the denominator is, but it is is extremely reasonable to assume it is larger than reported cases, due to lack of testing, and the earliness of reporting. I feel pretty confident saying the death rate is much lower than 3.4%.

Another point that is just not "politically correct", and is tough to make w/o sounding like an uncaring SOB is, this COVID-19 is most lethal among the elderly who are already compromised. So I really have to wonder, how many of these elderly, compromised people would have died over the next, say 6 months, from colds/normal flu, or just a worsening of their already fragile condition. Yes, I know that sounds heartless, but it really is different from the Spanish Flu, which affected many working parents (Spanish Flu attacked the healthy, because a strong immune system over-responded).

I'm going to try to put together a fact based timeline comparing the two.

-ERD50

 

[Midpack]

Still changing daily for COVID-19 but some comparisons.

https://youtu.be/n4no04822NQ

 

[audreyh1]

Another point that is just not "politically correct", and is tough to make w/o sounding like an uncaring SOB is, this COVID-19 is most lethal among the elderly who are already compromised. So I really have to wonder, how many of these elderly, compromised people would have died over the next, say 6 months, from colds/normal flu, or just a worsening of their already fragile condition. Yes, I know that sounds heartless, but it really is different from the Spanish Flu, which affected many working parents (Spanish Flu attacked the healthy, because a strong immune system over-responded).

-ERD50

Actually, I don’t consider that a particularly uncaring observation. And this is someone who’s almost 90 years old DF is under hospice care - not because of a diagnosed terminal illness, but because he is so frail and underweight. No heroic medical measures for him - he has clearly stated this in the past.

I suspect however that there are many elderly who are hanging in there and enjoying life in spite of having compromising health conditions, and otherwise would have more years left. That’s a tough situation to be in and I doubt anyone would say “they would have died in a few years anyway” - so it’s a fine line.

How would it be possible to even begin to know how many of the elderly felled by the disease would have died within 6 months anyway?

 

[Spock]

This is hyperbole. You did not include the essential context of "too early to say".

From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/



And testing is increasing the denominator, but we've all seen the angst over not enough testing. We simply do not know what the denominator is, but it is is extremely reasonable to assume it is larger than reported cases, due to lack of testing, and the earliness of reporting. I feel pretty confident saying the death rate is much lower than 3.4%.

Another point that is just not "politically correct", and is tough to make w/o sounding like an uncaring SOB is, this COVID-19 is most lethal among the elderly who are already compromised. So I really have to wonder, how many of these elderly, compromised people would have died over the next, say 6 months, from colds/normal flu, or just a worsening of their already fragile condition. Yes, I know that sounds heartless, but it really is different from the Spanish Flu, which affected many working parents (Spanish Flu attacked the healthy, because a strong immune system over-responded).

I'm going to try to put together a fact based timeline comparing the two.

-ERD50

I've been following the same worldometers data.
More testing does not increase the denominator for the death rate.
For outbreaks in progress, the rate is calculated using closed cases. (#deaths/(#deaths+#recoveries)). Active cases is not used because the outcome of those cases is not determined yet... some of those actives will join the deaths. Using the https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ data, the rate is 11.3%.

From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/#comparison

CFR = deaths / (deaths + recovered)
which, with the latest data available, would be equal to:
11,949 / (11,949 + 93,617) = 11% CFR (worldwide)
If we now exclude cases in mainland China, using current data on deaths and recovered cases, we get:
8,694 / (8,694 + 21,877) = 28.4% CFR (outside of mainland China)

 

[ERD50]

I've been following the same worldometers data.
More testing does not increase the denominator for the death rate.
For outbreaks in progress, the rate is calculated using closed cases. (#deaths/(#deaths+#recoveries)). ...

Two different things. The 3.5% you mentioned was (deaths)/(known cases).

You mentioned WHO and March 4 data, here is the WHO statement on March 3 data:

3.4% Mortality Rate estimate by the World Health Organization (WHO) as of March 3

In his opening remarks at the March 3 media briefing on Covid-19, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated:

“Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.” [13]

That is reported COVID-19 cases in the denominator, not "closed cases".

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Still changing daily for COVID-19 but some comparisons.

https://youtu.be/n4no04822NQ

Interesting video (though I almost didn't make it past the first minute, which was to me, that annoying "here is text set to music" format).

If you go to 2:20, which takes us about to today, day 80, it starts to look really scary, with C-19 rising super fast. But then by 2:35 (day 168) ~ 3:00 we see Swine Flu far outpace all other epidemics in deaths.

Now I'm thinking - we've seen China's growth rate go negative for some time, pretty clearly for the past 30 days, and a very steep drop (roughly > 100 deaths/day a month ago, to ~ 10/day recently, in the most populous country.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/

So assuming Swine Flu was continuing to grow in China past day 80, that would indicate we won't see a Swine Flu scenario. I'll see if I can validate that China specific rate. We will see.

-ERD50

 

[aaronc879]

According to this link the WW death rate is around 4.1% as of today. In the US it is at <1.3%. This is based on deaths divided by confirmed cases. However there are likely hundreds of thousands of cases that have not and will not be confirmed because they are too minor for the person to seek care. Therefore the actual rate can not be truly known.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

 

[sengsational]

Here's an easy way to understand the difference

 

[Ian S]

Here's an easy way to understand the difference

Great visual! Thanks. I would just add that because it is so easily spread (high R0 compared to H1N1), it can make a lot of people really sick even if it doesn't actually kill them. We simply don't have the hospital resources to deal with that many ICU patients and mortality from all causes is likely to go up as the hospitals are forced to decide whom to treat. We are seeing this in northern Italy and parts of the US are only 10 days to two weeks behind.

 

[ERD50]

What does RO/R0 stand for? From context it obviously is related to the reinfection rate. But my searching comes up with everything from Romania to Romantic Obsession to Rush Order, to Record Zero (computing)

https://www.abbreviations.com/serp.php?st=RO&p=99999

-ERD50

 

[USGrant1962]

What does RO/R0 stand for? From context it obviously is related to the reinfection rate. But my searching comes up with everything from Romania to Romantic Obsession to Rush Order, to Record Zero (computing)

https://www.abbreviations.com/serp.php?st=RO&p=99999

-ERD50

How contagious, in simple terms it is the mean number of people a carrier will spread it to.

 

[Midpack]

What does RO/R0 stand for? From context it obviously is related to the reinfection rate. But my searching comes up with everything from Romania to Romantic Obsession to Rush Order, to Record Zero (computing)

https://www.abbreviations.com/serp.php?st=RO&p=99999

-ERD50

First result on search...

https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number

 

[Midpack]

According to this link the WW death rate is around 4.1% as of today. In the US it is at <1.3%. This is based on deaths divided by confirmed cases. However there are likely hundreds of thousands of cases that have not and will not be confirmed because they are too minor for the person to seek care. Therefore the actual rate can not be truly known.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

I’d be willing to bet how countries, states, provinces, etc. are reporting cases, deaths and recoveries varies considerably for a variety of reasons. The charts are useful, but only as rough metrics. Obviously testing per capita in the US is still way behind.

 

[USGrant1962]

I’d be willing to bet how countries, states, provinces, etc. are reporting cases, deaths and recoveries varies considerably for a variety of reasons. The charts are useful, but only as rough metrics. Obviously testing per capita in the US is still way behind.

Andrew Cuomo stated today that in New York State (our hotspot), testing per capita is higher than China and South Korea.

 

[ERD50]

How contagious, in simple terms it is the mean number of people a carrier will spread it to.

First result on search...

https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number

Thanks, but I get the meaning, I was thinking that RO or R0 (hard to tell a "zero" from an "Oh" in many fonts) stood for something.

R naught is rather generic, like X1 = Y1 + Z1. Or like saying that Vout stands for "V out".

So I guess no specific meaning then. OK, now I know.

-ERD50

 

[Katsmeow]

Thanks, but I get the meaning, I was thinking that RO or R0 (hard to tell a "zero" from an "Oh" in many fonts) stood for something.
-ERD50

Basic Reproduction Number. I would guess the R stands for reproduction and the naught is referring to number.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number