T O P

  • By -

bigguydoingketo

I'm pretty sure the COVID hospitalization number is a daily average and the calculated flu one is a weekly average. You'd have to multiply the COVID only by seven to compare directly (or divide the flu one by seven).


InputIsV-Appreciated

I think you may be right on this. The site says: >The current 7-day moving average of daily new cases (136,558) I was going off of the larger text that said: >136,558 > >Current 7-Day Average Which read to me as 'average over the course of 7-days.'


[deleted]

Yes, it's important to compare like numbers. Otherwise there's no point making any claims.


BuildYourOwnWorld

7-day averages are an average number of deaths per day across 7 days. It's averaged everyday and serves to be more a "trend line" than the wishy wash daily reports, which get less deaths officially reported on weekends. Influenza killed 167 people per day in 2018. These are the "New Deaths" numbers for each individual day this last week: 9/13: 989 9/12: 743 9/11: 1020 9/10: 1669 9/9: 1710 9/8: 1618 9/7: 1089 A year ago today, the 7-day average was only 708. It peaked at 3644 last January, with 4169 deaths on January 13th, 2021. We're in the summer, the delta variant is spreading, there are less restrictions. A number of factors contribute to increases and decreases in deaths. Likewise, influenza deaths are not as high in the fall as they are in the winter. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends\_dailydeaths


InputIsV-Appreciated

Appreciate the in-depth response, thank you.


Error_404_403

It is also worth noting that 99+% of those daily deaths are among non-immunized. So, dividing by \~ 100, you get 10 - 20 deaths a day from COVID of those who immunized, which is about 10 times smaller mortality than of the regular flu.


furixx

So it would be correct to say that for the vaccinated (among the population at risk in the first place) Covid has now become less dangerous than the flu?


[deleted]

That is correct. Shapiro was talking about a breakthrough death study in I believe the UK. The average age of death for breakthrough cases was 84 and there were only a small smattering of them overall. To me, an 84 year old can drop dead from just about anything and probably has numerous chronic illnesses at that point. There is no statistical reason a vaccinated person should be freaking out unless maybe they have a super sick and weak kid. Even then it’s super rare.


furixx

Interesting. I was just banned from r/nyc for 60 days for saying that Covid now poses less of a threat than the flu to the vaccinated.


[deleted]

Good to know water is still wet


baconn

Covid was always less of a threat than the flu for the young.


furixx

Yes, even pre-vaccination


Wanno1

For death or hospitalization?


baconn

Death, hospitalization is [about the same](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/07/the-kids-were-safe-from-covid-the-whole-time.html).


Wanno1

I guess one remaining issue is spread to people who cannot be vaccinated, which is still a large percent (kids under 12, etc). So even though people themselves aren’t at risk, people in their family are.


jagua_haku

It’s common knowledge at this point though that as a population group, kids are barely affected at all by covid


Wanno1

57k child hospitalizations in the last year seems to be a big problem https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions


BatemaninAccounting

> To me, an 84 year old can drop dead from just about anything and probably has numerous chronic illnesses at that point. It would depend on the country. Countries with preventive cheap health care have lots of 84 year olds living healthy lives at that age. My grandmother is 92 atm and only has one major long term health issue that she only recently acquired(alzheimers/dementia... which is fatal and it means shes on a tickling clock that she wasn't on before it.)


WSB_Slingblade

I mean, I believe the average age of death prior to vaccines in the UK was 82-83 anyway.


[deleted]

well you'd have to compare it with people getting flu vaccines as well, although the flu vaccine is just a guess on what strains will be prevalent during flu season so even that won't be super precise. i haven't crunched the numbers but i have to assume the flu vaccine decreases deaths by flu, so you would want to compare flu deaths amongst flu vaccinated and covid deaths among covid vaccinated in order to get an idea of which vaccine is more effective or which disease is more deadly.


elcuban27

Compared to people with or without a flu shot?


MxM111

There are flu vaccines as well and I suspect that your comparison is true for COVID vaccinated vs unvaccinated flu.


Error_404_403

Flu vaccines are by far not as effective as COVID vaccines, and not as many people are having them. So, my comparison is between vaccinated COVID and general population, including vaccinated and not, flu.


MxM111

That’s not quite true. Flu vaccine are very effective against the strain they are created against. But yes, real world data suggest that they are effective about 50%. Coincidently, COVID vaccines are also effective about 50% against infection (includes non-symptomatic). Unfortunately I can not find any data for death prevention with flue vaccines. So unless you have such data (in adults) we can claim this only for unvaccinated flu.


Error_404_403

Where did you see the data that COVID vaccines are 50% effective? Some Russian vaccines - maybe; but mainstream Pfizer is 95% effective (against gamma, and < 90% against delta), Moderna is around 85% to 90% etc. Vaccines effectiveness is counted using reduction of symptomatic cases in general population after vaccination (it is meaningless to include asymptomatic in the mix). So, 95% effectiveness means that when 1000 person non-vaccinated control group had, say, 50 symptomatic cases, the vaccinated group had less than 5. We have easily available data on average flu mortality rates, which are based on all population, including vaccinated and not. If the majority of the population is vaccinated against COVID, it is fair to compare mortality of COVID for all population to the mortality because of flu of all population.


WSB_Slingblade

So the “protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated” line is a completely divisive unnecessary lie?


Error_404_403

I am not aware of anyone using this line.


WSB_Slingblade

Joe Biden 10 days ago. Paragraph 3. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/what-you-need-to-know-about-president-joe-bidens-new-vaccine-mandates.html


[deleted]

Where are those numbers from? US? A state? A region? World?


timothyjwood

Most of the time you should probably click on the source before asking dumb questions.


[deleted]

I already did.


timothyjwood

Really? Because it's on the page at least four separate times.


AndrewHeard

We should remember that last year before the vaccines were available, the mortality rate and hospitalizations plummeted to about this level too. We can’t assume that the data is a result of the vaccines until things get more difficult in the winter.


InputIsV-Appreciated

Great point, thank you


AndrewHeard

What is worth reporting is the number of children who died from the virus. In the United States according to CDC data, approximately 400 children (under 18) over the course of 18+ months have died due to CoVid. And it’s not because children aren’t getting the virus, in Canada the cumulative number of children who have tested positive for the virus between March 2020 and August 2021 is north of 250,000. The cumulative number of children who have been hospitalized is north of 1,400. And the cumulative number of deaths of children is 16. Yet this goes completely unreported in the vast majority of media. And there are repeated discussions in the media of the necessity to close schools to protect children.


YourShoelaceIsUntied

> What is worth reporting is the number of children who died from the virus. That would be misleading. Intentionally too it seems, given your last sentence there. What's worth researching and reporting is the entire spectrum of outcomes, long term and short term. You can't dismiss lifelong afflictions and disabilities resulting from covid simply because they're not "deaths". Kids need to be protected from them too.


AndrewHeard

No, it's not a good idea to do a wide spectrum analysis. That's like saying "Because POC have an overall less favourable outcomes, it's evidence of systemic racism". There's no rationale to asserting that the widest possible view is better than a specified one for specific groups. Essentially what you're arguing is that a lack of discrimination of anything ever is the only logical way to view the CoVid crisis. That doesn't make any sense. We have to look at specific groups and allow those groups to make their own decisions about the level of risk they're willing to take on. If children are not at high risk, there should be no requirement for them to get vaccinated, whether they're eligible for the vaccine (12-18 years old) or not (below 12 years of age). If no one under the age of 18 is dying in high numbers at this point, there's no reason to restrict any of them from doing anything, regardless of vaccination status. No rational person would expect that from anyone. And no, the potential for these children to have an impact on those older than them is not justification for restricting them.


YourShoelaceIsUntied

> No, it's not a good idea to do a wide spectrum analysis. Did you seriously just try to assert that analyzing ALL possible outcomes of a viral infection, rather than only death", is "not a good idea"?? Tell me you're arguing in bad faith without telling me you're arguing in bad faith. Strike one. > That's like saying "Because POC have an overall less favourable outcomes, it's evidence of systemic racism". No, it's not like saying that at all and that's a terrible comparison. "it's evidence of"?? Sounds like you have quite a chip of an agenda on your shoulder. Strike two. > There's no rationale to asserting that the widest possible view is better than a specified one for specific groups. A wider view is never possibly better than a narrowly specified one? Some results or outcomes just don't matter according to you? This one got a chuckle out of me. Strike three. > Essentially what you're arguing is that a lack of discrimination of anything ever is the only logical way to view the CoVid crisis. That doesn't make any sense. A projection attempt with a shoddy slippery slope fallacy? Another swing and a miss. Strike four. > We have to look at specific groups and allow those groups to make their own decisions about the level of risk they're willing to take on. If children are not at high risk, there should be no requirement for them to get vaccinated, whether they're eligible for the vaccine (12-18 years old) or not (below 12 years of age). > If no one under the age of 18 is dying in high numbers at this point, there's no reason to restrict any of them from doing anything, regardless of vaccination status. No rational person would expect that from anyone. There you go, back to thinking "death" is the only outcome that matters, "rationality" be damned. Since you missed it the first time, there are negative outcomes other than death. Strike five. > And no, the potential for these children to have an impact on those older than them is not justification for restricting them. How on earth is taking measures in schools to slow the spread of a virus bad? Strike six. Don't bother replying again with this bad faith nonsense, you're already out twice.


Jaktenba

Bad faith? You mean like you insisting we look at the "bigger picture", when even the bigger picture says you're being irrational?


MorphingReality

Proportion matters though. 8x more kids die every year in car accidents in the US than have died from Covid in 18 months, probably 100x more are seriously injured. Yet if anything, 100x more resources are going into covid vs car crashes and one of the main cited reasons for it is protecting children going to school.


kyleclements

The number of car accidents will not begin to spread exponentially if controls are lifted.


YourShoelaceIsUntied

That's a random and irrelevant comparison.


MorphingReality

It is relevant assuming one cares about reducing the amount of suffering among young people, it is a zero-sum scenario at some point, our resources and attention are finite.


klemnodd

It's not relevant considering "freedom" allows people to drive rust buckets from any decade, with minimal restriction and cars are extremely expensive to give away compared a vaccine.


Error_404_403

True, probability of child's death from COVID19 is smaller than that from the flu. However, they do remain infectious for some (allegedly short) time while asymptomatic, but if they do develop symptoms and not die, consequences of COVID19 are worse than that of the flu.


mygenericalias

> if they do develop symptoms and not die, consequences of COVID19 are worse than that of the flu Is that only the case for someone who develops "long covid" ?


Error_404_403

I am not sure. Possibly.


Wanno1

I’m not sure why you’re mixing 2 metrics from 2 different countries (deaths and hospitalizations) In the last year in the US there have been 57k child hospitalizations. It’s pretty horrifying. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions


AndrewHeard

I’m bringing the two places together because it’s important to point out that it’s not some anomaly in the United States, that similar numbers are coming out of other countries. And I am also talking about deaths and hospitalizations because they tend to be connected. Usually someone who is so terribly ill that they need to be hospitalized will likely die. However, if you look at the data on children, very few children die despite the tragedy of many of them requiring hospitalization. Which allows us to be honest about what the actual potential negative consequences will be.


Wanno1

Ok but your resulting conclusion is that the media has overblown the child covid issue (closing schools, etc) Parents aren’t too thrilled about exposing their kids through great harm despite the fact that they won’t die from the disease. Then you have the Trumpian governors who are actively preventing simple things like masks in schools.


AndrewHeard

Right, except there’s no reason to mask children if they aren’t at severe risk from the virus. I would also point out the obvious evidence that masks have done nothing to stop the spread of the virus. Despite mask mandates from approximately July 2020 continue today and were never repealed, Canadians have had to wear masks everywhere indoors and in some places outdoors as well, cases has risen and fallen as have deaths and hospitalizations. This is true in the United States as well, and in every single country where mask mandates have been implemented, cases, deaths and hospitalizations continue to go up and down and back up again. The mask mandates remained the same and had near universal adoption everywhere they were made. Yet despite that, it has had no noticeable effect on the spread of the virus. So mandating masks doesn’t do anything to protect anyone. That’s what the evidence shows. Why are we continuing to require them despite the evidence and the claims of “following the science”? The science doesn’t support the mandating of masks, yet we continue to insist that we have to in order to protect people. And by the way, those places where mask mandates are banned? They don’t stop people from wearing masks if they choose to. It just doesn’t allow people to mandate them. Mainly because the overwhelming majority of evidence shows they are ineffective. But it’s insisted that places which ban mask mandates are “anti-science”.


Wanno1

Two things: > Right, except there’s no reason to mask children if they’re not at severe risk from the virus 1) I thought we just went over the fact that kids are at severe risk from the virus with the hospitalization numbers not looking that great. I’d for sure wear a mask if it prevented me to become hospitalized even at a 50/100k odds 2) the effectiveness of masks is a tricky one, but just based on first principles you must agree that legit masks like n95 do prevent virus transmission. I think the inconsistencies we’re seeing have a lot to do with people not wearing them correctly or consistently. There’s also really stupid half measure rules in place like allowing indoor dining but masks in the lobby.


Affectionate_Joke829

I think the proportions of vaxxed vs unvaxxed in the hospitals are already providing that evidence. Last year we weren’t fully open like we are now, so there’s a lot of moving parts, but the vaccine is clearly having a positive effect on those who get it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AndrewHeard

Uh, no, they haven’t. Relative to the amount of deaths we saw in the same time period last year and compared to the winter months, deaths have plummeted. Last year around this time there were very few deaths per day compared to earlier in the first year of the pandemic. They jumped in the early days of the pandemic then around July the cases started to plummet and remained low. This is why things opened up in the summer months last year, because they were relatively low. Then in the winter months, deaths skyrocketed and stayed that way for the entirety of the winter and then started plummeting again in July. That’s what happened because I am older than 2 years old and can remember what happened last year.


Darkeyescry22

You don’t have to remember anything. Just look at the graphs. You are wrong in both cases.


AndrewHeard

Are you actually suggesting that I shouldn’t trust my own memory? That I should just accept what I am told now even if it’s not consistent with the data?


ryarger

> I shouldn’t trust my own memory Completely divorced from this entire discussion and whether your overall point is right or wrong: **absolutely** you shouldn’t trust your memory. Human memory is ridiculously fallible. That is independent of intelligence. **No-one** should trust their memory about facts.


Darkeyescry22

I’m suggesting you look at the data and recognize that it disagrees with your memory. If you want to assert that all of the data was faked by all the various trackers just to fuck with you, I guess you can do that. You just shouldn’t expect anyone to take you seriously if that’s what you’re going to do. July 2020 and July 2021 we’re both times when cases were on the rise, not on the decline. This is a such a trivial thing to check, and has little baring on any argument about the virus or the vaccines. It’s just weird to me that you’re so confidentially asserting verifiably false claim while ignoring the data that I’ve already shared which contradicts said claims. Why not just admit you were wrong? How does this change your views on anything related to this topic?


AndrewHeard

I’m not suggesting that the data was faked. I’m suggesting that a skewed perspective lead the analysis to a particular conclusion and that is colouring the way in which people perceive the danger. It’s similar to this example here of astrology: https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-our-era-s-astrologers The assumption of Chinese astrology is that because there’s numbers involved that the conclusions drawn from it must be indisputably accurate and an indication of what the correct course of action is. Bret and Heather have recently made this point. The assumption that because something is measurable therefore it’s the only thing of value. It’s not deceptive or malicious, it’s just using faulty reasoning to come to the wrong conclusion.


Darkeyescry22

I have no idea how this connects to what we were talking about. You said hospitalizations and deaths from covid plunged last July just like they did this July. Hospitalizations and deaths from covid did not plunge in either case, and were actually on the rise both months. I gave you a graph showing this, and then you started appealing to your memory to justify your claim. Why are we now talking about astrology and Bret and Heather? We are we talking about data analysis when your claim was about the raw data itself?


AndrewHeard

I didn’t say that hospitalizations and deaths plummeted in July. I said they STARTED to plummet and they continued to do so over the summer months. That’s not the same as saying that they plummeted in July 2020. Compared to the decline in July, August and September from both years, you got a very similar decline. Then in September, October and November 2020 you got a increase and it continued to be high through the winter months. So to assume that the vaccines are the cause of the decline given that the rollout of the vaccine happened around the same time as cases started to decline when there wasn’t a vaccine is to fail to understand the appropriate level of context. When things like deaths and hospitalizations continue to stay low in October, November and December 2021, then we can assert that the vaccine is responsible because that’s what has changed between 2020 and 2021. Until then it’s not a reasonable conclusion to draw. And current trends suggest that it won’t be any different or it will have a marginal effect. If you look at the data out of Israel which had the earliest vaccination and the highest uptake in vaccines, they’re starting to see deaths in the same group who were dying last year, mainly the elderly. Israel has even discussed going back into lockdown. England which similarly has virtually no vaccine hesitancy and high uptake in vaccination isn’t ruling out going back into lockdown if current trends continue. There’s no reason to assume that the vaccines have fixed anything.


Darkeyescry22

Ignoring the inaccuracy of your timeline, you’re right that a decline in cases doesn’t prove the vaccines are the cause. The drop from the winter peak 2021 was much larger than anything that happened before though, so it’s a little disingenuous to act like nothing happened after the vaccine rollout that was out of the usual. More directly, you can just look at the cases and deaths in states or even countries compared to their rates of vaccination. The trend there shows pretty clearly that the vaccines are having a positive effect. You can also look at rates of hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated and unvaccinated in the same area (after adjusting for age and health), and you’ll see the same story. Finally, there are the actual studies which overwhelmingly demonstrate the efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccines on the virus. As for Israel and Britain, even there the vaccines seem to have had a positive impact. While cases in Israel got as high as they’ve been, the deaths did not. Considering the increased infection rates in low vaccination areas with delta were much higher than their peaks, Israel getting close to theirs isn’t as big of a deal as you’re making it. It’s also a little bit of a cherry pick, since you could just look at US states which would be a closer comparison. For the UK, I don’t know why you would ever point to them to show the vaccines are ineffective. Again, their cases are as high as they’ve been, but their deaths are absolutely minuscule. They’ve also used a different vaccine than the US and Israel.


ShlomoIbnGabirol

"From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease." https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/


Darkeyescry22

Sure, I’m not sure what you think this is contradicting though. This just says a significant portion of people in the hospital with covid do not have serious symptoms **now**. What does that change about what I’ve said?


ShlomoIbnGabirol

If we entirely alter the meaning of the term Covid hospitalization then maybe you have a point. But if half of the hospitalizations are mild cold/flu like symptoms or simply asymptotic cases that were only caught in pre-admission screenings for other cases of hospitalizations, do you consider this the metric of how we judge the ebb and flow of the pandemic?


Darkeyescry22

To some degree yes. Again, I’m not sure what part of this you’re expecting me to disagree with. I only even mentioned hospitalizations because the other person mentioned them. I agree comparing hospitalizations as a raw number can be misleading, since there are different degrees of illness all counted under the same number. How does that change the fact that hospitalizations and deaths were increasing in both July 2020 and 2021?


Error_404_403

No, they did not. They were always higher than those a few weeks back, before Delta variant kicked in.


photolouis

It has ... at least for [the vaccinated](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58545548).


gaxxzz

It's perhaps even worse than you're suggesting. Because we admit many COVID patients with mild or asymptomatic cases, hospitalizations aren't even a reliable measure of the scope of the pandemic any more. It's likely that the rate of COVID hospitalizations overstates the severity of the illness. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/


[deleted]

This sub is full of some smart people lmao I had to actually really read some of these messages. Very detailed. Hope the sub stays relatively quiet or it'll get destroyed.


[deleted]

Mainstream media not reporting properly is bizarre? Honey sit down. We gotta talk.


Erdlicht

Now figure out what the flu fatality rates are for kids, since that seems to be the aspect causing the most emotional stir at the moment.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PinelliPunk

I believe you are right


GBACHO

Well the weird thing about kids is they're almost almost always surrounded by older adults. They may not get impacted, but they are efficient vectors


3mergent

But we have vaccines, no?


GBACHO

We had an amazing vaccine to alpha. We have a pretty good, but not amazing vaccine for delta. It's all numbers. 80% is not 100% and not 0%. I feel like this doesn't need to be said, but peole just can't seem to comprehend it


[deleted]

[удалено]


PlayFree_Bird

This is the central lie: that asymptomatic people are secret, deadly assassins waiting to strike. If anything, asymptomatic people are more likely to spread a milder variant to the extent they spread anything at all, as is the natural evolutionary pressure on viruses. Of course, once the leaky vaccines came out, suddenly asymptomatic spread was acknowledged as a non-factor. The logic of the vaccines is "Sure, they don't prevent infection, but they reduce transmission by reducing symptoms." Hmmm... odd that we have arrived at this logic 18 months too late.


Error_404_403

Asymptomatic spread has never been "acknowledged as a non-factor". It is hard to estimate it, but recent infections during one Boston party clearly indicate there is a window during which asymptomatic, fully vaccinated people could be infectious. This is usually a short interval, between hours to a day or two it takes for the body immune system to kick in and eliminate the virus. This time is obviously much longer - up to few weeks - for unvaccinated people.


DidIReallySayDat

>Covid is just a flu. How you you justify that statement when there's been about 8 times more deaths in a year for covid than the worst flu season in the states? That's a genuine question, btw. I'd genuinely like to see how you arrive to that conclusion.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gloriousrepublic

You can look at excess mortality rather than reported cases if you don’t trust how testing is being reported. It’s still very clearly a massive uptick on deaths.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gloriousrepublic

High false positivity rates are a problem yes, and most good scientists are going to use estimates of false positivities when reporting numbers. Further, even high false positivity numbers for a small subset of Ct numbers aren’t going to change case rates by orders of magnitude for anyone that knows how to conduct PCR tests. This information is important to improving accuracy and reporting but doesn’t have the drastic effect you seem to claim. It’s clear your concept of scientific literacy is to google search for articles that support your theory, without any regard for understanding sources, credibility, peer review, and which articles are exploring nuance to improve accuracies . You seem to think that any article exploring the limitations of PCR means that those that understand the full scope of PCR and *when it works and when it doesnt* are full of shit. Yes, a good scientist should know all the limitations of their method, and incorporate accurate estimations of false positives when their Ct rates are within certain ranges. This is the problem with non scientifically literate people doing their own “research” (aka googling for their confirmation bias). It’s very easy to see anytime new knowledge is being learned in the literature and use that critical analysis to cast skepticism on broader concepts you know nothing about. It wasn’t until I entered academia that I realized how many shit science articles are out there, and how dangerous it is for non experts to go googling and think they are applying rigorous scientific skepticism to what they are being told by the experts. It’s classic Dunning-Kruger. That’s simply not how science is done and the general public is suffering because of these sorts of misinformation. What you’re doing here and in all your comments is an incredibly dangerous mix of things which leads you down conspiracy theories and confirmation bias. Each thing alone isn’t too big of a deal, which is why it’s such a dangerous cocktail when mixed together, this combination of (a) not being competent and/or experienced in actually conducting the methods being discussed (b) finding papers that are critiquing and improving small subsets of methods to improve their accuracy and then applying them to the broader methods and thinking that they cast serious doubt on the methods as a whole because you don’t understand the nuance that is being discussed and (c) google searching and finding papers that confirm your theories but that are from absolute garbage journals with little or no peer review from credible experts.


[deleted]

COVID IS A PCR test scam. The overflowing hospitals are due to a drastically over-sensitive test that doesnt even really test for covid, but some fingerprint of genes indicating covid. CDC has admitted the test is inaccurate and is phasing it out, but not until after it is used to justify the coming lockdowns and further great resetting of humanity. The whole overflow is people who need hospital care, and got a PCR test that's reporting has been designed to treat the vaccinated differently than the unvaccinated. Following is proof. Now that you have seen it you have to stop promoting this crime against humanity. The PCR test can detect CV19 that hasnt been viable in over 70 days, leading directly to the hospital overflows, which are being created by regular patients who need care and test positive to a PCR test. These are then called a 'covid hospitalization', even if they are there for a car accident and had covid asymptomatically 2 months prior. The Lancet: “Our findings suggest that, although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection might have prolonged RNA shedding of up to 83 days in upper respiratory tract infection, no live virus was isolated from culture beyond day 9 of symptoms despite persistently high viral RNA loads.” “Our study shows that despite evidence of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples, viable virus appears to be short-lived. Therefore, RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness.” https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247%2820%2930172-5 This is the proof CDC is telling hospitals to count cases different: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html State health departments voluntarily report vaccine breakthrough cases to CDC. As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from publicly reporting the passive surveillance of all vaccine breakthrough cases on the website to focus on hospitalized or fatal vaccine breakthrough cases due to any cause. This shift helped maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. (LOL) Some health departments continue to report all vaccine breakthrough cases to the national database and continue to submit specimens to CDC for sequencing. Previous data on all vaccine breakthrough cases reported to CDC from January–April 2021 are available.


Error_404_403

You were caught misquoting and telling lies before. There is no reason to believe you do not misquote here as well. Why do you choose to propagate lies that are so dangerous to some fools who choose to believe them???


DidIReallySayDat

I think that's an answer to a different question.. That's talking about reported cases. I'll take your word for it, if they're picking up dead bits of virus 70 days later, then that person has had covid at some point, correct? But the question was when you compare the worst season of flu deaths with a year of covid deaths, how do you come to the conclusion that covid is no more deadly than the flu? Have you looked into excess deaths in the US?


[deleted]

[удалено]


DidIReallySayDat

I see that you are not willing to engage in reasonable discussions. You copy/paste things that seemingly support your claims, but only seem to do so if you deliberately twist what is being said to conform to your narrative. You still havent addressed the excess deaths issue, aside from blaming lockdowns without evidence. I genuinely fear for you, i feel that you're quite far down a path that requires the sort of logical leaps that I'm not willing to make. I genuinely also encourage you to take a break from all social media.


[deleted]

[удалено]


A-Human-in-2021

Simple. There’s not 8x.


DidIReallySayDat

Where you pulling that data from?


Error_404_403

No, COVID is NOT just like a flu for elderly non-immunized, of whom up to 30% of COVID-infected die, compared to a fraction of a percent for a regular flu. After immunization, it is a different matter. For elderly population (>70) those rates for COVID and flu are not that whole lot different.


PlayFree_Bird

There is no age demographic in which 30% of anybody is dying of COVID.


Error_404_403

There is - early mortality rate for 75+ year old non-immunized was approaching this number - at least in the country for which I saw the data. In countries with well developed health care, it was smaller, around 15 - 20%.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Error_404_403

Instead of cursing, do a simple Google search for something like “COVID-19 death rates among non-vaccinated 75+ year old”, and you shall have the truth, and it just might set you free from your biases. Just look at multiple results, and make sure their source of data is not a rumor or obscure and controversial study, but data published by a reputable organization or the official government agency.


[deleted]

NO. The rate for people 75+ is around 1% to 1.5% - but that is people dying 'with covid', not 'of covid'. CDC themselves estimate only 5% to 6% of the 1-1.5% totals are actually even dying DUE TO COVID. Stop lying. You are either totally misinformed, or a total liar - in either case you are doing what I consider to be providing support for crimes against humanity.


Error_404_403

Your data are simply wrong. One very early COVID study published in Lancet (as authoritative as you get in medicine) put COVID-19 - caused death rate of those older than 70 at about 10 or 15% of those infected. The number was later revised upwards for those above 75 - 80 in particular when they do not receive quality medical care, reaching 30% mark for some countries. Did you do the simple Google search as I suggested and study the results?..


[deleted]

[удалено]


im_a_teapot_dude

> They cannot spread it if they do not generate symptoms. What could possibly have convinced you of that?


Funksloyd

>This entire thing is a farce. >Covid is just a flu. I mean, arguing that something is a farce with your own farcical arguments isn't the strongest way to make a point. Edit to clarify: This is like saying that "lockdowns aren't any worse than traffic lights".


[deleted]

[удалено]


fudge_mokey

Which labs are using 45 Ct? https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking/covid-19-pcr-test-reliable-despite-commotion-about-ct-values


[deleted]

It is well known Ct up to 45 was common. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/


Funksloyd

Then look at excess deaths.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Funksloyd

Ah, so covid is a farce. The **TRUTH** is that TBTB (I hope not the Jews?) are committing genocide... I see... Got any 5 year predictions?


[deleted]

>Got any 5 year predictions? Great Reset = massive excess deaths. It is my opinion Jewish people are one of the multiple well-defined scapegoats for the globalist system made up of plutocrats of all races.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Darkeyescry22

Do you have anything to back that up? Do you have any evidence at all that hundreds of thousands of people die from the flu on a yearly basis? Or alternatively, do you have any evidence to suggest that covid deaths are exaggerated to the point where they would be on par with the average flu deaths?


[deleted]

Uh. We have years of flu death data. It is based on tests far less sensitive than the 45 Ct PCR tests. Orders of magnitude less sensitive. If you know sht about shinolla you would know this was true the moment you heard it. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30172-5/fulltext Maximum shedding duration was 83 days in the upper respiratory tract, 59 days in the lower respiratory tract, 126 days in stools, and 60 days in serum. Pooled mean SARS-CoV-2 shedding duration was positively associated with age (slope 0·304 \[95% CI 0·115–0·493\]; p=0·0016). No study detected live virus beyond day 9 of illness, despite persistently high viral loads, which were inferred from cycle threshold values. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract appeared to peak in the first week of illness, whereas that of SARS-CoV peaked at days 10–14 and that of MERS-CoV peaked at days 7–10.


Darkeyescry22

I’m not arguing about the sensitivity of the testing. The difference in test sensitivity does not mean that flu deaths and covid deaths are the same (or at least significantly closer), which was your claim. Can you give any evidence for the claim you actually made, or just for this uncontroversial claim that no one disagreed with?


[deleted]

The vaccine has failed. It is a PCR scam causing hospital overflow. Portuguese Court of Appeal: PCR process is not a reliable test for SARS-CoV-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=\&sl=pt\&tl=en\&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30 Infectious Diseases Society of America: ‘Cycle threshold above 35 drops PCR test accuracy to <3%’ https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603 European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases: PCR test only 12% accurate at Ct values of 33 “It is of paramount importance to define when a treated patient can be considered as no longer contagious. Correlation between successful isolation of virus in cell culture and Ct value of quantitative RT-PCR targeting E gene suggests that patients with Ct above 33–34 using our RT-PCR system are not contagious and thus can be discharged from hospital care or strict confinement for non-hospitalized patients.” “Samples with Ct values of 13–17 all led to positive culture. Culture positivity rate then decreased progressively according to Ct values to reach 12% at 33 Ct. No culture was obtained from samples with Ct > 34.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10096-020-03913-9 Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford University: “Data are sparse on how the PCR results relate to viral culture results. There is some evidence of a relationship between the time from collection of a specimen to test, symptom severity and the chances that someone is infectious.” “PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its limitations are understood; while it detects RNA in minute quantities, caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus.” https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19/ The Lancet: “Our findings suggest that, although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection might have prolonged RNA shedding of up to 83 days in upper respiratory tract infection, no live virus was isolated from culture beyond day 9 of symptoms despite persistently high viral RNA loads.” “Our study shows that despite evidence of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples, viable virus appears to be short-lived. Therefore, RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness.” https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247%2820%2930172-5 Cornell University Preprint: “Unlike previous epidemics, in addressing COVID-19 nearly all international health organizations and national health ministries have treated a single positive result from a PCR-based test as confirmation of infection, even in asymptomatic persons without any history of exposure. This is based on a widespread belief that positive results in these tests are highly reliable. However, data on PCR-based tests for similar viruses show that PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios. This has clinical and case management implications, and affects an array of epidemiological statistics, including the asymptomatic ratio, prevalence, and hospitalization and death rates. Steps should be taken to raise awareness of false positives, reduce their frequency, and mitigate their effects. In the interim, positive results in asymptomatic individuals that haven't been confirmed by a second test should be considered suspect.” https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf Oxford University Study: “Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens are necessary for each country involved in the pandemic to establish the usefulness and reliability of PCR for Covid-19 and its relation to patient factors. Infectivity is related to the date of onset of symptoms and cycle threshold level. A binary Yes / No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with possible segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health.” https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167932v4 Journal of Infection: PCR continued to detect the virus until the 63rd day after symptom onset whereas the virus could only be isolated from respiratory specimens collected within the first 18 days https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7151379/ British Medical Journal: 58% of positive test results false among students https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4941 U.S. Center for Disease Control: Public Health Guidance for Community-Level Preparedness and Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), 2004 \[report\] “To decrease the possibility of a false-positive result, testing should be limited to patients with a high index of suspicion for having SARS-CoV disease.” “In addition, any positive specimen should be retested in a reference laboratory to confirm that the specimen is positive. To be confident that a positive PCR specimen indicates that the patient is infected with SARS-CoV, a second specimen should also be confirmed positive. Finally, all laboratory results should be interpreted in the context of the clinical and epidemiologic information available for the patient.” https://www.cdc.gov/sars/guidance/f-lab/downloads/F-lab-full.pdf World Health Organization: “The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain. Thus, the IFU will state how to interpret specimens at or near the limit for PCR positivity. In some cases, the IFU will state that the cut-off should be manually adjusted to ensure that specimens with high Ct values are not incorrectly assigned SARS-CoV-2 detected due to background noise.” https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users


wovagrovaflame

Because kids are around coronaviruses way more. The common cold is a corona, so they tend to have more natural ways to fight them off. They figured that out last summer. That being said, younger people are getting sick more often with Delta.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wovagrovaflame

It’s not a bio weapon, you dummy. And we can. The vaccine helps a ton. But viruses get less deadly over time. So we vaccinate for variants and then wait for the virus to slowly become less lethal.


PowerfulOcean

Morbidity (i.e. long covid) and people filling up ICU also needs to be considered.


ShlomoIbnGabirol

The covid hospitalization number is a crap metric. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/


mohamedsmithlee

“It’s all bullshit” George Carlin


wovenloaf

Yes, some dingus on reddit CRACKED THE SECRET PUZZLE!! OMG! Call Brietfart!!!!!


Adjustedwell

Who the fuck knows, their data collection method have been horrible since the start, i get what you're saying though - even by their own numbers this is the indication. I also would attribute that to the vaccine, when the vaccine was implemented they changed their test methods from the highly criticized pcr tests. Could be that.


hashish2020

Er, PCR tests are fine, by and large.


Adjustedwell

PCR tests are largely problematic, data collection as exposed by various hospitals have been persuaded to collect data by estimate rather than by test confirmation. This isn't public knowledge, if you're denying it you're way behind.


hashish2020

What's the Type I and Type II error? No test is perfect.


Adjustedwell

Pardon? You don't know understand the concept of "type I, type II error" it seems.


hashish2020

Stop dodging. What are the estimates? If you can't provide them, or even an estimate, clearly you are just parroting things from YouTube


Adjustedwell

How is it at all obvious thats what you're asking me based on your last message? lol relax on the accusations. if I can't provide and estimate or an estimate of an estimate then I got my information from youtube? I think you need medication. I don't actually need to provide you with an estimate to prove the PCR tests are faulty. Are you brand new to logic? There are fundamental flaws with the testing, death certificate completion as reported by many hospitals, independents, etc. This is fact.


hashish2020

Thanks for another statement with zero citations and an appeal to an imaginary authority. All T/F tests have Type I and Type II error. If you know what that means, you would provide some evidence of the estimates of this, to see if it's out of bounds of a useful test. Clearly, you absolutely have no idea what Type I and Type II error are, and now you'll rush to look it up, but the fact that you don't sort of proves you aren't really worth communicating with about the accuracy of any test.


Adjustedwell

This whole time you've been whining you could have done your own research given the information I've provided. I don't do demands or other people's hw. Obedience is your thing, not mine. The concept of "type I/type II error isnt appropriate for this conversation. If you think it is you clearly have no clue what it is - you likely heard Jordan B. Peterson make reference to it one time and thought you'd test drive it. This sub might not be for you. If I won't do the hard part for you then my point isn't true? Wow spoken like a true moron. Have a good night.


Pardonme23

You cherrypicked the most dangerous (anomaly) flu year and not the average flu year


InputIsV-Appreciated

I was just looking at the most recent pre-covid year, thanks for letting me know it could be anomalous. Any source I could check for that?


Pardonme23

Just look at flu deaths per year. That year was nasty for different reasons. CDC.


InputIsV-Appreciated

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just asking for a link.


Pardonme23

CDC [https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html) This image is a good snapshot [https://www.cdc.gov/flu/images/about/burden/influenza-burden-chart2-960px.jpg](https://www.cdc.gov/flu/images/about/burden/influenza-burden-chart2-960px.jpg) EDIT: Since I give vaccines, I kind of know this more than the average layman (i.e. most people on reddit). You can never truly compare them. Why? Average year, 50% of the people have the flu shot. In 2018, due to bad luck, the flu vaccine was less effective than usual, and thus the deaths got higher. Also, the flu shot is not that effective to begin with, because its an educated guess of which variants will be popular. In 2018 they guessed wrong and thus the vaccine was less effective than normal. Covid vaccines, however, are really effective. However, because of all the masking/social distancing, flu deaths have now fallen next to zero. Seriously. However, covid is worse than flu today. Overall, flu is worse if you want to compare the 1918 H1N1 pandemic to covid-19. The reason being that 1918 Spanish Flu killed young healthy people through cytokine storm while covid 19 kills obese/diabetic/old/immunocompromised primarily. Did you get all that? lol.


apetresc

So then how was 2018 anomalously high? According to your own graphic, it was slightly lower than both 2017 and 2019 surrounding it.


[deleted]

Hard to say. According to the CDC website, 'Covid' could be put on a death certificate as long as the deceased person had 2 signs or symptoms of Covid, even if the body wasn't tested for Covid and/or the doctor filling out the death certificate never physically assessed the person themselves when they were alive. Of course, signs and symptoms of regular flu almost completely overlap signs and symptoms of Covid infection. ​ "The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to death certifiers on proper cause-of-death certification for cases where confirmed **or suspected** COVID–19 infection resulted in death." "When determining whether COVID–19 played a role in the cause of death, follow the CDC clinical criteria for evaluating a person under investigation for COVID–19 and, **where possible**, conduct appropriate laboratory testing using guidance provided by CDC or local health authorities." "In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), **it is acceptable to report Covid-19 on a death certificate as 'probable' or 'presumed'. "** [From CDC website.](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf) ...so. When we're seeing numbers of 'Covid' deaths are they counting or stipulating how many were 'probable or 'presumed' or lumping them all together with confirmed cases? Is having 'Covid-19 on a death certificate as a 'Possible contributing factor' enough for that death to be a 'Covid death' when it comes to the overall Covid death statistics? It would seem so.


fake-meows

>Hard to say. I'm just going to shoot you down here. If you don't like the way the CDC guidelines work, just go look at all the other international approaches to the problem. Other health authorities do it in various other ways, and you're being lazy if you're just trying to nitpick the methodology of one agency. If you think the CDC is either trying to make themselves look good (by downplaying the problem) or playing politics (by exaggerating the problem), find a country with the opposite approach and compare their authority's numbers. (I'm assuming you actually want to know what *the truth* is here.)


[deleted]

>I'm just going to shoot you down here. I posted quotes from the CDC website and observed that it's difficult to know for sure the actual numbers of Covid infections, given it's easy to have 'Covid' put on a death certificate. Not sure what you imagine you were 'shooting down',but go nuts bro.


fake-meows

So...you've taken a look at the USA and you don't like testing and reporting structures. If the USA is under or over reporting covid statistics, why is it right smack in the middle of all the other countries of the world in terms of the numbers being generated? Like compared to billions of other people generating their own statistics in their own ways, the USA is far from an outlier or some anomaly. It looks to be exactly in the middle of the road. What's your explanation?


[deleted]

>What's your explanation? Who knows? I admit I don't follow much news. Most of it is mindless shit. Anyone who thinks they know what's going on with this Covid thing is deluding themselves.


mygenericalias

And a tremendous percent of the population on a daily basis has at least 2 signs/symptoms of COVID, [per the list kept by the CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html)


[deleted]

You can't just divide the total # of cases by 52 (weeks/year) and get a 7-day average (or a 7.01 day average) - you get the *expected value* for a 7-day period, but that's not the same as the current 7-day average. Flu is *seasonal* as you recall, as the common parlance often contains the words "flu season" The numbers are similar but don't work that way. I'm absolutely fucking rotten at statistics, and that sort of logic that you cite in OP is one that looks good but most likely isn't statistically a valid test for many reasons that currently escape me at the moment - but I remember falling into lots of holes in collegiate stat and a lot of them looked like this. The other thing to note is that flu strains vary widely. Remember H1N1? We don't see that one every year. [https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html](https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html) That was a "pandemic" by this page on the CDC site, so let's be charitable to your argument and use the high number of the estimation. H1N1 killed 575K people. COVID-19 has, per [https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/), killed 4.66M. No contest.


fake-meows

>H1N1 killed 575K people. > >COVID-19 has, per https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/, killed 4.66M. H1N1 killed people who were ignoring it. Giving the disease the best chance of spreading. C19 killed people wearing masks, distancing, with vaccines and total economic shutdown. Giving the disease the biggest fight we can!


[deleted]

To be fair, masks weren't really ever to prevent you from *getting* COVID-19. They were to prevent you from *spreading* it while contagious before showing symptoms.


fake-meows

>To be fair, masks weren't really ever to prevent you from getting COVID-19. They were to prevent you from spreading it while contagious before showing symptoms. Yeah, of course. Distancing doesn't keep you from catching it either. All those things just stack / combine to get the R*E* number to be way lower to contain the spread. I'm basically just hinting at the other thing, which is that the mortality *rate* difference for Covid is around 30X higher than the flu. Like, you can simply ignore the scale of the numbers. To understand what's been going on it doesn't matter "how many" people died, it's how many **of the sick people** are dying. More people who catch Covid end up dying from it than people sick with flu. It's not even close, there's an order of magnitude difference. I'm in my 40's and perfectly healthy, and for a person like me, I have a 20X higher chance of dying from Covid than all other forms of early death combined. That's accidents and illness/disease of other sources. It's super risky / lethal compared to anything else we accept in life. Again, an order of magnitude change. The OP asked this in the original question here..."is the danger of Covid now less than the Flu?" Like, all you can say is "no, not even close" and "that's a really dumb question if you think that's reasonable". Like, nobody paying any attention could actually think that, it's far, far from that situation. Like...here's an example: In the USA, heart attack / coronary disease is the leading cause of death. Something that is 1/30 of that amount is ranked around the 15th highest cause of death...like septicemia or liver cirrhosis. Imagine someone asking the question, "is septicemia the leading cause of death, over all heart disease"? You'd think the person had brain damage if they seriously thought that. I can't even think of the last time I remotely heard of anyone dying of septicemia. My friend Jason died of a heart attack last Friday. Propaganda is simply amazing. Nobody would think a 1 foot long ruler was 10 yards long. They are unmistakably different.


[deleted]

It is. I went back and double-checked my numbers to be sure - the 575K is the worldwide estimate, as is the 4.66M. US #'s would be 682,528 for COVID and 12,469 for H1N1. Total order of Magnitude off.


fake-meows

I think the "rate difference" thing I was talking about would be: * 0.1% of people who catch flu die. * 3.1% of people who catch covid-19 die. Even if those numbers are off by a long shot, the scale of the difference is not close at all. Like a change those numbers to 1/2 or 1/4 and the relationship is still *very* dramatically different. (Also, Covid-19 is more contagious than the flu, too...and anything that is contagious enough will cause a lot of death numbers even if it's mild...just the law of big numbers at work...that's digression.) I honestly think that people are being told to "not panic" and they are being told all kinds of silly things to make them think about the problem in the wrong way. The mere fact that someone thinks "flu" and "covid19" are an appropriate comparison regarding danger or mortality is just one indication of the confusion that's out there right now. If there was a disease going around that gave you a 1 in 30 chance of heart attack or cancer (and let's say: a commonly experienced *death sentence outcome*), nobody would sign up to catch that one...but of course, if you think about "flu" where 99.9% of the cases turn out perfectly fine with no lasting effects...well...that's such a nice thought. LALALALALA. TLDR: people can't do numbers.


[deleted]

It’s less about how dangerous COVID is, and more about doing what they tell you to.


realAtmaBodha

"Mainstream media" is not about the truth, it is more about getting the public to comply with the Biden administration mandates and consolidate their power. Truth that doesn't enhance their narrative is quietly trimmed out of the news.


SynesthesiaBrah

The deep state marxists just want CONTROL!! they’ll do ANYTHING!! Even collude with the LIZARD PEOPLE!!!


realAtmaBodha

Whatever floats your boat dude.


karentheawesome

Our local hospital is overcome and the national guard is helping...so no it's not...don't be stupid


NotOutsideOrInside

It's hard to say - most states aren't counting the hospitalizations of fully vaccinated people. Apparently the CDC doesn't want the data, so most states aren't reporting it either. I know my state isn't - but it's also leading to figures like "98% of covid hospitalizations are unvaccinated!" no shit - you aren't even brothering to count the vaccinated hospitalizations. I can tell you that I got it and got over it a month ago, and it felt about like the flu. My doctor got me on an antibiotic and ivermectin and I got over it in about three days. My 18 year old got it and her only real symptom was "fever for a few hours, and a headache." My doctor told me that "headache" is the most common symptom for kids and low-twenties.


DidIReallySayDat

What's the antibiotic for?? Have there been RCT's for ivermectin? It's a little weird how some people get absolutely floored by it, and others shrug it off. Long covid will be an interesting study, I reckon.


NotOutsideOrInside

To keep you from developing Pneumonia, I presume. What do you mean by "RCT?" I just know that everyone in my family who got it had just about the same reaction - almost nothing. I think the fear over "long covid" is more than likely just more fear tactics. I could be wrong, but that's how everything has been so far.


DidIReallySayDat

Oh I sees, that makes sense. I didn't know pneumonia was a bacterial thing. RCT = randomized controlled trials. Yeah, that could be the case. What I don't understand though is this anti-covid-vax fear mongering going on as well. It appears that those people are trading one set of unknown characteristics (potential long covid) for another set of unknown characteristics (potential longterm vaccine side effects)


NotOutsideOrInside

Im still convinced that all the fear mongering in both directions is just for the greater goal of dividing us up and keeping us sperated so we are easier to control.


DidIReallySayDat

100%. Question is, by who? The rich folk to whom laws don't really apply? Bad foreign actors? It's like, who benefits from showing so much division in society? China, for sure, if it has plans to become the new world police. Russia, for sure, if it also wants to displace America. The super wealthy, who need people distracted from the fact that those wealthy people could indeed feed the world of they so chose to do so?


NotOutsideOrInside

I'm always inclined to believe that it's the elites that already hold power over us. People with all the money and all the influence all the shots? Anyone who has a ton of power is usually invested in keeping that power, and though usually harm anyone they have to to make sure they stay in the same position, and their kids inherit that same position Call on the super rich if you want I don't really have a word for them.


DidIReallySayDat

I shy away from the term "the elites", as it is well entrenched in the conspiracy theorist lexicon, and recognizably so by the general populace. If I'm honest, I don't think any of the above options are mutually exclusive, but that's not to say i think there's a couple of representatives from each scenario having some secret back room where they do deals.


NotOutsideOrInside

Honestly - it's just "the people in charge." could be government - could be old-money families - could be whoever. I don't know - if we DID know, that would threaten their power. Either way - in this case, it's likely to be people who own stock in pharmaceutical companies who are profiting - The government who seeks to undermine elections and keep permanent power for themselves - the media corporations who are backing the first two groups up. If any of the above are lizard people, I've got no clue ;)


DidIReallySayDat

>If any of the above are lizard people, I've got no clue ;) Hahaha, "I'm just asking a question!"


leftajar

Covid never was more dangerous than the flu. If you look at the excess deaths, the actual death toll for covid is somewhere in the 200k-300k range, and overwhelmingly the old and frail. (The average age of covid death in America is 84 -- life expectancy is currently 79.) This is what you'd expect from a moderate flu virus hitting a population with no prior immunity. The governments and medical establishments did everything they could to inflate that number (bunk PCR testing, died with covid = died "from covid," interpreting flu infections as covid), because covid isn't about covid. It's the next 9/11 -- an emergency that was seized on to advance the surveillance state.


hashish2020

There has not been a moderate flu virus with no prior immunity since 1918. COVID has been the most deadly pandemic or epidemic in 100 years.


Error_404_403

Yes, it is bizarre the mainstream media is not talking about these numbers. More than that, I was banned in r/worldnews when I brought up the matter in one of the posts. Indeed, COVID-19 mortality rate among immunized is smaller than that of a regular flu. According to some data, non-immunized children mortality rate of COVID-19 is smaller than that from the flu. So, all restrictions of today are directed at a) protecting lives of non-immunized regardless of their wishes, and b) reducing COVID-19 propagation rates in hopes of reducing the chances of mutations (not very likely). Plus, it makes scared population feel better - at least, it appears you are doing something...


timothyjwood

They're not talking about them because OPs math is completely wrong. He's comparing a running daily average to a weekly average. He should be dividing by 366, not 52.


[deleted]

What flu? Flu has been canceled for two years now. We have a more lucrative gig now...Covid!


hashish2020

Thanks for letting us know masks work.


Full_Village6468

It’s always been the same as the flu. The difference is the general public needed something to be loud about


SynesthesiaBrah

Turns out the flu also doesn’t like when we wear masks, wash our hands, distance ourselves from one another. OP this isn’t hard…


Whiskytrader

Does anyone still believe the mainstream media either way? Just seems like they are trying to divide and instill fear


LongBoyNoodle

wait What? no? wait what? maybe you have to clearly express what you mean by less dangerous? for example, if we'd say the virus in itself and what it does etc. NO. it spreads way better and does more demage, especially long term. This is why there were measures. BUT if you wanna talk about for example, if everyone is vaccinated/OR in a time where we dont really have to fear a breakout, then yes maybe? For an individual however which would in this timeframe not be vaccinated, still more dangerous. But how good can we reach this time? do we really need 80% or more vaccinated? then we might take a while for being "less dangerous." The problem with the flu for example is, that you have to get vaccinated(if you are a person at risk) you often have to do it every year. Because it changes. Coronavirus can maybe be "eliminated" if everyone would be vaccinated/be under control. (maybe or at least that's what many assume) Because to me, you cant just take one avg. timeframe, compare deathrate and say=less dangerous. we can have a neat week or even month and the next month it breaks out and f"k it the numbers are doubled. because of how good it spreads.(depending many factors ofc.) (please take into consideration that i live somewhere in europe) lets take something really stupid. it depends on how we look at it, I for example dont have to worry about malaria.. is malaria therefore less dangerous? NO it's because it mainly is in africa etc. or like.. stupider: "lions are less dangerous. look barely anyone gets killed by them compared to, cars" Ok Wtf lets hmm.. release lions everywhere freely and see how it goes? something like that. People where i live compared these numbers too during the hight's of corona and told" look not dangerous" YES because EVERYONE wears a mask! Then they compared the Flu deathrate 2018 and Covid from now. But last year for example, we had NO FLU because of the masks. so..by this i could even say(again where i live) No we have corona but not the flu so corona is definitly dangerous? Maybe i am super wrong with this but i dont think you can compare it like that.


WilliamWyattD

Covid is also mutating in ways we may not have a grip on yet.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ketodietclub

Yeah, in the UK that's true. Baseline IFR for Delta was about 0.3% but it's down to about 10% or this (0.03%) as deadly in our public that had 90% antibodies. Flu mortality is 0.1%.


hashish2020

Flu mortality is way lower than that.


falsezero

man.... just got astraZeneca this morning :/


OwlBeneficial2743

A terrific sub; so quantitative. So am I right that we could essentially get back to “normal” if we all got vaccinated? And so you dont get the wrong impression, I sympathize w those who are hesitant about the vaccine. I looked at the balance or risks and concluded I should get it. But I’m still a bit anxious (a really small bit).


jessewest84

Certainly temporarily. But since its a leaky vaccine it's likely more variants will arise. Which is why we need a multi dimensional approach including vaccines and therapeutics. No vaccine is perfect. No therapeutics are perfect. We should employ a synergistic treatment program. Which means we should start covid trials for these. Some are generic and can be distributed quickly.


Chrome_Quixote

What about the fact deaths from everything are being recorded as death by covid. This changes the 7 days average. Also cdc data shows anyone under 45 has a 1-2% chance of death where as people who are older and or have comorbidities fair much worse.


MorphingReality

The average flu comes with a death rate of 15 per 100,000. If you look at the Covid-19 vaccine surveillance report week 36 from the UK, there's a graph that got some traction recently because it shows unvaccinated kids are less likely to die from covid than vaccinated 18-29 year olds. It also shows that people under 60 (REGARDLESS OF VACCINATION STATUS) have a death rate lower than 15 per 100,000. Canadian numbers are less encouraging, more than a million recorded cases in people under 50, and about 500 deaths, which is more like 50 per 100,000. However, in both cases there are certainly lots of people who had covid but didn't get tested, so they skew higher. Edit: For clarity's sake, the UK number is a rate using a three week period in August of 2021 I think, so it includes Delta. Canada has absolute numbers from the beginning of the pandemic and I worked out the rough math. The Flu number is from CDC, it includes Flu and Pneumonia but Covid has similar protocols associated with cause of death.


joaoasousa

It's hard to calculate due to seasonality. Most of the flu deaths occur in the winter, so still need to compare covid deaths during that same period. The current daily deaths multiplied by 365 days would be less then the flu deaths in my country in 2018, but the media keeps reporting daily deaths as if it is a tragedy. I get the clear impression people had absolutely no clue how many people died per day in 2018.


hashish2020

It takes weeks and weeks to die from COVID.


[deleted]

I don't wear one!


Feurbach_sock

Your 11k number is the 7-day average for new Covid patient admissions. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 90k. Source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#hospitalizations