Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

A New Flu V***s Emerges (H1N1pdm09 v***s)

From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, in the United States, there were an estimated 60.8 million cases, 274,304 hospitalizations, and 12,469 deaths (3000+ fatalities were under 19). Patients hospitalized with H1N1 flu had an 11% fatality rate.

151,700-575,400 people worldwide died from Swine flu infection during the first year the v***s circulated. Globally, 80 percent of Swine flu deaths were estimated to have occurred in people younger than 65 years of age. This differs greatly from typical seasonal influenza epidemics, during which about 70 percent to 90 percent of deaths are estimated to occur in people 65 years and older.

There were some travel warnings, fear mongering was minimal, Wall Street took some hits, but they didn't shut everything down and ban flights.

This PANIC over the C****av***s has nothing to do with its mortality rate, this is purely political.

American Vet

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Yeah, since everything is subject to shutdown, I think if this nasty little bug isn't defeated by November, president Trump should postpone the e******n until this "crisis" has passed.

CarryOn

Excellent idea!!

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

The whole world is being political?

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

1%, I believe. Not worried a bit.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Yes...and we aren't.

How many times do you have to see this before you notice the same old smell?

rebob14

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Been saying the same~~ politically induce false f**g hysteria~~

PZG1225 Loc: Florida

PZG1225 Loc: Florida

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Been there for H1N1 caught it in an airport. Puked my guts out, but I was okay.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

The cats gave me antibodies too, I'm not worried. Smell like hype-fear-chaos-so what!

JohnCorrespondent

You said there were "274,304 hospitalizations, and 12,469 deaths", and "Patients hospitalized with H1N1 flu had an 11% fatality rate." That looks like an arithmetical error or maybe a misleading way of stating the situation. If there were 274,304 hospitalizations of people _with_ Swine flu, and the fatality rate of _those_ people was 11%, then that would be 30,173 deaths, not "12,469 deaths".

Also, if there were "an estimated 60.8 million cases", but only "12,469 deaths", that would be a fatality rate of 0.021%, among the estimated 60.8 million cases.

Now, to approach a valid comparison with C****-**'s "fatality rate" or "death rate" ("C****-**" a.k.a. "c****av***s" a.k.a. "novel c****av***s"), we could start with "an estimated [number] of cases" and a number of resulting deaths:

The number of "confirmed" cases (worldwide) of C****-** was "137,445" a few days ago, as described in https://www.businessinsider.com/c****av***s-in-charts-c****-**-symptoms-spread-deaths-warnings-2020-2 , and that's in the same ballpark as other estimates I've seen. But that's just the "confirmed" cases. To get a more _conservative_ estimate of the "fatality rate" or "death rate", we might suppose that the "estimated number of cases" should include many cases that haven't been "confirmed".

The same article says the "total deaths" at that time were 5,088, which also looks like it might be a reasonable estimate, given other estimates I've seen in the media. So I think the numbers in the article are at least in the right ballpark as estimates.

Considering only the confirmed cases, I get this as a "fatality rate" or "death rate": 5,088 divided by 137,445 equals 3.7%.

But if we suppose "estimated number of cases" includes cases which haven't been confirmed yet (or maybe not even detected at all, yet), then instead of 137,445 we would start with a much greater number. Supposing that for every ten people who actually are infected with the v***s, only one of them is a "confirmed case". Then estimated # cases (infections) would be 1,374,450. Then the death rate would be 5,088 divided by 1,374,450 equals 0.37%.

But even 0.37% is a far greater death rate than 0.021%. It's more than ten times greater.

If we include only the hospitalized cases then of course the death rate would be higher; supposing that out of all those 137,000 confirmed cases, about 50,000 of them were "hospitalized", then the death rate would be approximately 5,088 (deaths) divided by 50,000 (hospitalizations) equals about 10.0% (death rate). (That would compare with your "12,469 deaths" divided by "274,304 hospitalizations" = about 5% for Swine flu.) But the death rate for all cases (not just the hospitalized ones) is the more relevant thing to be concerned about, when evaluating the risks that a disease poses to a population.

Next, you write about "PANIC" in all caps like that. I believe most of the world news I'm reading about C****-**. I am trying to limit my exposure to C****-**, while maintaining my exposure to world news. I expect to eventually be infected; I think most people worldwide will eventually be infected. I hope the spread of the v***s can be slowed down so that the hospitals can keep up with the serious cases. Do you call this "PANIC"? I just call it being moderately informed and moderately responsible.

Some churches, including the one I attend, have recently stopped holding large gatherings of people, and are converting to online meetings. Maybe you call this "PANIC"; I don't. If they were to continue as usual then one, two, or a few elderly church members would probably die a few years early because they'd catch C****-** in church during this time when hospitals have too few beds and too few working test kits. Church leadership is being responsible, trying to help the elderly church-goers (and all churchgoers, and their friends and family who might get infected from them spreading the disease) guard their health while still being able to participate online. Ours is a small congregation and even one early death that we might have prevented is significant to us.

Donald Trump has declared a "national emergency" but the church leadership here (and a lot of other people in the nation and around the world) is way ahead of him.

When Donald Trump declares a "national emergency" over the c****av***s, does that mean he's "PANICKING"? Or "fear mongering"? Or instead is he just trying to catch up to the world news that most of us were already up on? Better late than never? Donald Trump is right that the c****av***s is something his Administration should be paying serious attention to. Not to "panic" but rather to behave responsibly as a government.

Your final phrase is the words "purely political". Maybe it's your own post that's too political and too careless about facts and how to interpret facts. Maybe (if my arithmetic is correct) your arithmetic is also too careless, or maybe you borrowed some politico's numbers without checking them at all. That would be sort of like being "purely political".

We don't really know whether C****-** will be more like MERS, SARS, the Spanish flu of 1918, or a typical flu, or even something that got somehow exaggerated. People die from what appears to be a new disease that medical science doesn't understand very well yet. It looks like a serious disease with a relatively high death rate and at least a moderately high rate of infection, with no immunity yet and no specific treatments available yet. The responsible thing to do is treat it cautiously.

Forkbassman Loc: Missouri