|
If the flu is .1% and CV19 is between 0.5-1%,that means that it is between 5 and 10 times as deadly. I'm not sure I would call that 'about the same'. Also, these are the numbers for CV19 given unprecedented social distancing measures, entire hospitals dedicated to it, border closures and so on. If nothing had been done, it seems likely, given regional examples like Italy's Bergamo area, the death rate could easily be 10 times what is observed today, if not more. Equally, with much stronger and more targeted measures, the death and infection rate can be brought to essentially 0 without impacting the whole population as much, as shown by Vietnam. It is still absurd to call a disease that has already killed many more people than malaria this year 'similar to the flu'. Sure, the flu is bad, but in conservative estimates, Covid19 is 5 times worse (and in more equal comparisons, where we would take similar measures to what we do for flu, it is probably more than 100 times worse). |
It also didnt help that our health system was killing covid19 patients by giving putting them too aggressively on respirators. it's an inconvenient truth you get shouted at for bringing up.
Even with these absurd metrics for mortality, its clocking in at .3%. So in my opinion, its in the same weight class as the flu, but if you have such a problem with it, that's why I qualified the statement as I said it, depending on what your threshold is.
Keep in mind, the flu at the end of 2019 going into 2020 was a particularly bad flu. the mortality rate of those going to the hospital was around 6% according to the CDC.
it would not be 100 times worse than the flu. we have so much data on covid19 now, and nothing has really changed since the cruise ships, which was basically a free experiment for the world that has been promptly ignored over and over.