Corona Virus Thread Part 4 of Unknown (MOD NOTE IN OP)

[SensibleGuy]

We're just talking about the flu vaccine.

But you can't have it both ways, either the flu vaccine is effective or it isn't. You can't say that the flu having a vaccine doesn't count because the flu vaccine isn't that good, and then turn around and say it's "anti vax BS" to question the usefulness of the flu vaccine!

Whatever. You know as well as we all do that the Flu vaccine is not always super-effective. It's a well known fact. It's always somewhat effective, and most years its quite effective.

The same may be true of Covid vaccines. It doesn't change anything. 80,000 deaths in a year with a vaccine is significantly different than 110,000 deaths in 3 months with social distancing.

 

[scelaton]

We're just talking about the flu vaccine.

But you can't have it both ways, either the flu vaccine is effective or it isn't. You can't say that the flu having a vaccine doesn't count because the flu vaccine isn't that good, and then turn around and say it's "anti vax BS" to question the usefulness of the flu vaccine!

...I have used the flu having a vaccine as a bit of a rhetorical device since vaccines are held up as some sort of panacea by the medical community.

No, it is not that binary. The flu vaccine is variably effective, depending on the year. It is not easy to predict the predominant strain in advance in any given year. What is not in dispute is that the flu vaccine saves lives and that vaccines in general have saved millions upon millions of lives.

A coronavirus vaccine would be directed toward this particular strain and would potentially be a "panacea" (to use your earlier reference) for the ills Covid-19 has wrought.

 

[Whileee]

Regular flu killed 80,000 in the US just a few years ago, and there IS a vaccine for that. So, arguably the flu is a lot worse than COVID if that's how bad flu numbers can get with a vaccine in circulation.

Zero policy on social distancing to prevent influenza. The mortality from Covid would have been much worse without social distancing.

 

[cbcwpg]

COVID-19 is killing 20 times more people per week than flu does, new paper says | Live Science

Based on data from death certificates, during the deadliest week of flu season over the last several years, the counted number of U.S. deaths due to flu ranged from 351 during the 2015 to 2016 flu season to 1,626 during the 2017 to 2018 flu season. The average number of flu deaths during the week of peak flu mortality in recent seasons (from 2013 to 2020) was 752 deaths.

In contrast, for COVID-19, there were 15,455 deaths reported in the U.S. during the week ending April 21.

 

[boanst]

I cant find a single year in the last decade where the US racked up (mid-level estimated) 80000 deaths on any given year on the CDC site. Though, they list the years as seasons (2017-18, 2013-14).

So far in recent posts, I've heard that the US averages 60000 flu deaths per year, and that it got as high as 80000 in one year recently. With flu shots. Where are we getting our info from?

 

[cbcwpg]

I cant find a single year in the last decade where the US racked up (mid-level estimated) 80000 deaths on any given year on the CDC site. Though, they list the years as seasons (2017-18, 2013-14).

So far in recent posts, I've heard that the US averages 60000 flu deaths per year, and that it got as high as 80000 in one year recently. With flu shots. Where are we getting our info from?

The whole problem with flu numbers in the U.S. at least is they are for the most part estimates based on modelling. This is because currently only 13 states track adult fatalities, where as all child fatalities from the flu have to be reported.

CDC estimates that from 2010-2011 to 2017-2018, influenza-associated deaths in the United States ranged from a low of 12,000 (during 2011-2012) to a high of 79,000 (during 2017-2018).


In Canada, we track flu by confirmed cases. So when you go to your doctor or hospital with the flu, it gets counted. And if you die from it, well, , they already know why you were in the hospital, so it gives more accurate counts. Still not 100% accurate though, because some people that get the flu never go see a doctor or it's not bad enough to end up in a hospital.

 

[lomiller1]

Something else to remember is that COVID-19 deaths are almost certainly being underestimated. The number of deaths that should be expected to occur at any given time of year are fairly well known, and the this years numbers are much higher but there are not enough deaths attributed to COVID-19 to make up the difference. At times only ~60% of these extra deaths were being attributed to COVID-19

Wile this does include some deaths that are only indirectly caused by COVID-19 it also doesn’t account for the fact deaths from other causes like the Flu, traffic accidents, etc are down due to lockdowns and social distancing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/investigations/coronavirus-excess-deaths-may/

Between March 1 and May 9, the nation recorded an estimated 101,600 excess deaths, or deaths beyond the number that would normally be expected for that time of year, according to an analysis conducted for The Washington Post by a research team led by the Yale School of Public Health. That figure reflects about 26,000 more fatalities than were attributed to covid-19 on death certificates during that period, according to federal data.

 

[boanst]

The whole problem with flu numbers in the U.S. at least is they are for the most part estimates based on modelling. This is because currently only 13 states track adult fatalities, where as all child fatalities from the flu have to be reported.

CDC estimates that from 2010-2011 to 2017-2018, influenza-associated deaths in the United States ranged from a low of 12,000 (during 2011-2012) to a high of 79,000 (during 2017-2018).


In Canada, we track flu by confirmed cases. So when you go to your doctor or hospital with the flu, it gets counted. And if you die from it, well, , they already know why you were in the hospital, so it gives more accurate counts. Still not 100% accurate though, because some people that get the flu never go see a doctor or it's not bad enough to end up in a hospital.

The lack of tracking in the US on this stuff is really jaw dropping to me.

 

[HannuJ]

We're just talking about the flu vaccine.

But you can't have it both ways, either the flu vaccine is effective or it isn't. You can't say that the flu having a vaccine doesn't count because the flu vaccine isn't that good, and then turn around and say it's "anti vax BS" to question the usefulness of the flu vaccine!

the flu vaccine is effective when the predicative model is correct and you vaccinate approximately 70% of the population.

sir, i'm a healthcare professional. i will be more than happy to discuss this with you and break down the errors of your unfactual claims if you like. i don't think you'll be overly receptive to being proven wrong in front of a group of strangers, but if you want to try, i'll remain logged in and politely show you how you're wrong in almost all of your ascertations. i ready did it in one post that you conveniently cherrypicked and i'm happy to do it again.

summary: COVID >>> influenza, both in transmission rate and number of people who may die from it.

 

[10Ducky10]

the flu vaccine is effective when the predicative model is correct and you vaccinate approximately 70% of the population.

sir, i'm a healthcare professional. i will be more than happy to discuss this with you and break down the errors of your unfactual claims if you like. i don't think you'll be overly receptive to being proven wrong in front of a group of strangers, but if you want to try, i'll remain logged in and politely show you how you're wrong in almost all of your ascertations. i ready did it in one post that you conveniently cherrypicked and i'm happy to do it again.

summary: COVID >>> influenza, both in transmission rate and number of people who may die from it.

Isn't that 70% correct only if the vaccine is 100% effective?

 

[Ducky10]

I guess I'd defer to a scientist as well, but surely vaccines and lockdowns both have the same intention -- to stop people from getting the disease. And the way vaccines are talked about, one gets the impression that they are VERY effective to the point that surely SOME comparison can be made?

Agreed though that for a true/accurate/scientific comparison you'd need the scenario you described.



The only "narrative" I'm trying to foster is that we'll see what happens in weeks whether all these protests lead to an outbreak. And if they don't, I think that really hurts the argument that small businesses and churches needed to be shut down. Because even if a stadium of 6,000 people is more dangerous, surely a small business or a church using some social distancing and cleaning protocols is not more dangerous and therefore should have been allowed open.

Maybe in Kansas City the protestors have been practicing social distancing, but watching the live helicopter cameras of protests/riots in Chicago, New York, and Minneapolis over the weekend, there were tens of thousands of people very closely packed together. Just for some visual examples:

Minneapolis:

Oakland:

Minneapolis:

 

[Buffdog]

the flu vaccine is effective when the predicative model is correct and you vaccinate approximately 70% of the population.

sir, i'm a healthcare professional. i will be more than happy to discuss this with you and break down the errors of your unfactual claims if you like. i don't think you'll be overly receptive to being proven wrong in front of a group of strangers, but if you want to try, i'll remain logged in and politely show you how you're wrong in almost all of your ascertations. i ready did it in one post that you conveniently cherrypicked and i'm happy to do it again.

summary: COVID >>> influenza, both in transmission rate and number of people who may die from it.

I could be wrong, but I think you're confusing efficacy with effectiveness.

 

[Jets 31]

Our head doctor in Manitoba said everyone should get the flu vaccine this year, i've never had one but i'm going to get one this year.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

I had posted in one of the earlier Covid threads that we have two different friends who have lost family members to covid. One of those two friends had a second family member who was still critical with covid - under intubation - when I posted.

Unfortunately, that second family member of a friend passed last night, after nearly a month in the hospital. These two families, who have lost three family members between them to Covid are devastated. Very sad time for many people in the US. Canada should keep the border closed with the states for a lot longer. Now with the demonstrations taking place all over the country due to the execution of a minority in broad daylight while being filmed live, the poor soul stating that he couldn't breath and calling for his mother with his last breaths, Covid 19 cases will likely shoot up again. America is a mess.

 

[KCjetsfan]

I had posted in one of the earlier Covid threads that we have two different friends who have lost family members to covid. One of those two friends had a second family member who was still critical with covid - under intubation - when I posted.

Unfortunately, that second family member of a friend passed last night, after nearly a month in the hospital. These two families, who have lost three family members between them to Covid are devastated. Very sad time for many people in the US. Canada should keep the border closed with the states for a lot longer. Now with the demonstrations taking place all over the country due to the execution of a minority in broad daylight while being filmed live, the poor soul stating that he couldn't breath and calling for his mother with his last breaths, Covid 19 cases will likely shoot up again. America is a mess.

i'm sorry for the loss(es) so close to home. I've been blessed so far not to have to experience that and consider myself lucky in that sense. I hope your friends can find peace and avoid any further tragedy in their lives.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

i'm sorry for the loss(es) so close to home. I've been blessed so far not to have to experience that and consider myself lucky in that sense. I hope your friends can find peace and avoid any further tragedy in their lives.

Thank you for your kind words. This is my wife's very close friend. I know them well from community activities, dinners, events. But I am not nearly as close to them as my wife. Unfortunately, this is the family that lost two family members to Covid. My wife was in tears this morning, and has been on the phone with her much of the morning. I originally posted because there was a claim by someone that probably no one on the forum here knew anyone impacted by Covid. And for those in Canada, maybe that's more likely. It's a mess down here, was getting better, but getting worse again. We had a family member recently tested. It took 8 days to get the test back that thankfully was a negative.

 

[ERYX]

sir, i'm a healthcare professional. i will be more than happy to discuss this with you and break down the errors of your unfactual claims if you like. i don't think you'll be overly receptive to being proven wrong in front of a group of strangers, but if you want to try, i'll remain logged in and politely show you how you're wrong in almost all of your ascertations. i ready did it in one post that you conveniently cherrypicked and i'm happy to do it again.

summary: COVID >>> influenza, both in transmission rate and number of people who may die from it.

I'm fine with being prove spectacularly wrong in a public setting if it will help others understand better. Especially since I post here anonymously

I'm prepared to accept that COVID-19 is much worse than influenza ... for me the real question has always been: is the cure (locking down society and all the evils that come with such draconian measures) worse than the disease? Now, this depends on exactly how bad COVID-19 is and I think this is something to be assessed on its own without reference to influenza.

As a healthcare professional perhaps you can help me out with what the models predicted as worst case scenario without any interventions. If we assume that worst case scenario and then compare it to the deaths due to cancelled "non-essential" medial procedures, due to drug overdoses/depression/suicide, malnutrition, stress, heart disease and all the other ills then we can start to consider this. Unfortunately most people just say "we don't know" but why don't we know, why aren't there models for that?

 

[Gm0ney]

Our head doctor in Manitoba said everyone should get the flu vaccine this year, i've never had one but i'm going to get one this year.

It's freely available to anyone who wants it. You can get it at just about any pharmacy. Very few people typically get the vaccine though: < 25% in Manitoba.

 

[cbcwpg]

As a healthcare professional perhaps you can help me out with what the models predicted as worst case scenario without any interventions. If we assume that worst case scenario and then compare it to the deaths due to cancelled "non-essential" medial procedures, due to drug overdoses/depression/suicide, malnutrition, stress, heart disease and all the other ills then we can start to consider this. Unfortunately most people just say "we don't know" but why don't we know, why aren't there models for that?

I also work in healthcare, so i'm adding my 2 cents...

The problem is this...

People look at the worst case scenario as being how many people die from covid-19 without a lock down (X) VS the other stuff you mentioned ( deaths due to cancelled "non-essential" medial procedures, due to drug overdoses/depression/suicide, malnutrition, stress, heart disease and all the other ills ) that occurs because a lock down (Y). X vs Y.

What they are forgetting is that without a lock down the medical system would have been overwhelmed to the point that it would have not been able to treat anyone suffering from non-covid issues. If all your beds are taken up by covid- people, then people that call 911 because they have a heart attack would have been out of luck. So without a lock down you potentially get X + Y vs just Y.

The other issue is that it has been proven that a high number of healthcare workers got covid-19 from the people they were having to treat, so then those healthcare workers had to stay home. So too many covid-19 patients leads to less healthcare professionals to take care of them and everyone else that needs a hospital bed.

We talked about the numbers at work, and to put it simply... the lock down was not to stop 1000's of people from dying, it was to stop them from all dying at the same time. Flattening the curve is what the politicians talk about... not having to turn away someone who calls 911 is what healthcare professionals talk about.

And just to add... this is no different then what would happen in any city that suffers a disaster like a plane crash or a building collapse. If 100's of people all of the sudden need hospitals in a short time frame, those hospitals will become overwhelmed, and they will have a problem treating the "normal" flow. Why? Because our current healthcare system does not have a buffer. It costs too much to have empty beds waiting in case something bad happens.

 

[KCjetsfan]

It's freely available to anyone who wants it. You can get it at just about any pharmacy. Very few people typically get the vaccine though: < 25% in Manitoba.

that # is shocking to me. i can't believe in that measure the US has at least Manitoba beat.

 

[kcin94]

that # is shocking to me. i can't believe in that measure the US has at least Manitoba beat.

A lot of people don't look at the flu as something that will hurt them or the people they care about. I got the flu shot this year when I found out it was killing kids more than usual. That's the first time since my kids were infants.

 

[mondo3]

Just a quick note - pharmacies will provide the flu vaccine, but due to the virus situation, you might have to get your doctor to do the injection.

 

[Buffdog]

This isn't meant to be a comment on the effectiveness of HCQ as a treatment (I honestly don't know enough onnthe topic to form an opinion), but rather on "trust the science" and "large study says", etc

Apparently after some research the company (Surgishpere) that funded the recent retrospective observational study has been shown to be less than respectable and some big discrepancies in date have emerged.

The Lancet published this today:
https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/ar...n=lancet&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

For those of you who used this study to back claims, you may have wanted to dig a bit deeper into it before using it as a validation or vindication of your position.

I always say that you should use the same level of skepticism for information that backs your beliefs and claims as you would with info that refutes them. How many times have you seen someone post a study or a link only to see "yeah but sample size" or "that's observational, not DBRCT", or even attack the authors of the study or the journal it was published in.

More info on the concerns surrounding Surgisphere:

Disputed Hydroxychloroquine Study Brings Scrutiny to Surgisphere

 

[Whileee]

This isn't meant to be a comment on the effectiveness of HCQ as a treatment (I honestly don't know enough onnthe topic to form an opinion), but rather on "trust the science" and "large study says", etc

Apparently after some research the company (Surgishpere) that funded the recent retrospective observational study has been shown to be less than respectable and some big discrepancies in date have emerged.

The Lancet published this today:
https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/ar...n=lancet&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

For those of you who used this study to back claims, you may have wanted to dig a bit deeper into it before using it as a validation or vindication of your position.

I always say that you should use the same level of skepticism for information that backs your beliefs and claims as you would with info that refutes them. How many times have you seen someone post a study or a link only to see "yeah but sample size" or "that's observational, not DBRCT", or even attack the authors of the study or the journal it was published in.

More info on the concerns surrounding Surgisphere:

Disputed Hydroxychloroquine Study Brings Scrutiny to Surgisphere

This sort of scrutiny is exactly why peer review and open dialogue about results are crucial. If these findings turn out to be false or bogus, the scientific community will openly admit this and adjust scientific consensus.

 

[Buffdog]

This sort of scrutiny is exactly why peer review and open dialogue about results are crucial. If these findings turn out to be false or bogus, the scientific community will openly admit this and adjust scientific consensus.

Just curious... has it made you rethink your stance on HCQ at all, or at least dig a little deeper on other studies and sources?

I wonder how this passed peer review in the first place