I have often heard the following three arguments from those who are downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19:
1. We can’t trust models to make these big decisions; we need to use facts instead.
2. We shouldn’t trust the numbers of COVID-19 deaths that are being reported because they are counting suspected cases in addition to those that tested positive.
3. The flu kills 12000-61000 every year, and we don’t lockdown for the flu.
If you buy these arguments (and you shouldn’t), consider this: The 12000-61000 deaths that are attributed to influenza each year are NOT the number of confirmed cases! Here is a quote from the CDC’s website:
“We first look at how many in-hospital deaths were observed in FluSurv-NET. The in-hospital deaths are adjusted for under-detection of influenza using methods similar to those described above for hospitalizations using data on the frequency and sensitivity of influenza testing. Second, because not all deaths related to influenza occur in the hospital, we use death certificate data to estimate how likely deaths are to occur outside the hospital. We look at death certificates that have pneumonia or influenza causes (P&I), other respiratory and circulatory causes (R&C), or other non-respiratory, non-circulatory causes of death, because deaths related to influenza may not have influenza listed as a cause of death. We use information on the causes of death from FluSurv-NET to determine the mixture of P&I, R&C, and other coded deaths to include in our investigation of death certificate data. Finally, once we estimate the proportion of influenza-associated deaths that occurred outside of the hospital, we can estimate the deaths-to-hospitalization ratio.” https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/how-cdc-estimates.htm
In other words, the CDC includes cases that do not even have influenza listed on the death certificate when counting flu deaths, and they use mathematical models to determine how many of these are likely to be due to influenza.
The takeaway message is that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that we shouldn’t trust mathematical models and trust the numbers of flu deaths, because mathematical models are used to count flu deaths.
You also can’t cite the CDC estimates for the number of flu deaths and then complain that we are overcounting COVID-19 deaths. The criteria for reporting COVID-19 deaths is actually more restrictive than the criteria used to count flu deaths. If you were to limit the estimates for flu deaths to just confirmed cases, the largest number of deaths in any flu season since 2013 would be 15620 which is about 25% of the estimated number.
And you can’t claim that COVID-19 is no worse than the flu when it has taken less than 4 months for us to surpass the number of deaths from the worst flu season (which is an entire year!) in the last decade. Sadly that total is still climbing by around 2000 people per day
Or maybe you can have it both ways, but only if you don’t care about things like facts or logic.
PS. You can find the flu mortality surveillance data here: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html
Hello Joe,
That is a tough question to answer. I have not found a good dataset for tracking historical and current hospital utilization rates. There are some models that look at whether we are likely to exceed hospital capacities in the near future that seem to suggest that there are a number places in the US that have been overwhelmed already or will be overwhelmed soon: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ade6ba85450c4325a12a5b9c09ba796c
My understanding is that there have already been a few places (New York City, New Orleans, Detroit) where hospitals were somewhat overwhelmed for a time. However, there are many places around the country where that surge never materialized everywhere. I think that can probably be attributed to the significant mitigation measures that w…
I'm curious of your thoughts on whether the U.S. can control the spread and hospitalization rates to remain below our medical capacity?
My assumptions are:
We do retain personal immunization after infection (still being debated)
We have almost the same mortality percentage rate if we have hospitalization below or well below our capacity.
We might not have a global vaccine or other medical immunization solution for 2-3 years
Therapeutics might be faster but could be just as long.
Routine testing will very difficult to get Americans to comply with even if they become readily available.
Would it be best to allow it to spread through the population at a higher controlled rate? Would it really lead to the same overall…