Yahoo posted an article about the myths of the coronavirus. Most of the myths I agree are myths. One I think is really disputable. The author makes the case that the coronavirus is not deadlier than the flu. I think that is debatable based on how you look at the data: absolute numbers versus percentages.
“Coronavirus is obviously worrisome and dangerous with about a three percent fatality rate, but in the U.S. this flu season, we’ve seen more than 8,000 flu deaths and some of those are children,” says [Dr. Purvi] Parikh [a infectious disease specialist at NYU Langone Health]. According to the CDC, more than 15 million Americans have been infected with the flu in the 2019-2020 season and more than 140,000 have been hospitalized with the virus.
However, Lauren Sauer, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, cautions that we don’t have all of the data yet when it comes to the coronavirus. “We don’t have a great understanding in terms of the overall severity of the novel coronavirus,” Sauer tells Yahoo Lifestyle . . .
That said, Sauer points out that, so far, the coronavirus cases in the U.S. have been constrained to “a very minimal spread” — unlike this year’s flu season, which is shaping up to be one of the worst ones in years. With coronavirus, she says, “We’re not seeing these massive community transmission events.”
So yes, on an absolute basis, the flu is far more deadly than the coronavirus. We have 8,000 deaths in the US alone related to the flu. The article doesn't say how many have died worldwide from the flu. But on a percentage basis, we have a different story. The article states that the coronavirus has a fatality rate of 3%. The flu is currently at about 0.05%. Both percentages could be over or under-stated. Final percentages haven't been determined as both the coronavirus and the flu are still spreading across the globe. So on a mortality percentage basis, the coronavirus is definitely more deadly. So is it really a myth when people argue that the coronavirus is more deadly than the flu? I don't think so.
Wired has an opinion article up that takes a look at this case from a sociological aspect. It looks at the theories put forth by Philip Strong. The theory states that when looking at an epidemic, we go through 3 stages: fear, moralization, action. The article also states that using militaristic language is not useful when dealing with the coronavirus.
Here is what I consider the main arguments:
Although it is still early for a definitive view, the challenge to governments and international organizations may not be the militaristic one of fighting a war against the virus but in helping people adjust to a “new normal.” Perhaps they should spend more time communicating that the coronavirus may be just another virus, broadly comparable in risk to a bad seasonal influenza or, at worst the 1918 influenza pandemic, that will circulate in human populations for a number of years.
. . . The risks of death or serious illness from the coronavirus currently seem to be broadly comparable to those that we accept every year as a result of influenza. It’s not desirable if you are in a vulnerable population group, but it’s better than total disruption of your usual health care in search of an unachievable victory. Would it be less damaging to social and economic life to accept that most people are quite likely to become mildly infected by the coronavirus, and that this will, in itself, reduce the possibilities for transmission as more people develop antibodies, and that biomedical science will eventually develop vaccines and therapies, much as happened with HIV?
One reason that I suspect governments are approaching this from a militaristic perspective is that they do think this could turn out to be the 1918 influenza pandemic. I think most people are aware of the 1918 influenza pandemic, which means this is a period of history that is taught in high school history 100 years after it happened. The fact that the author brings this up as a possibility and that we shouldn't try to stop the virus in its tracks sort of shows a mindset that underlines the argument. For context, History states that 500 million (1/3 of global population) came down with the Spanish Flu and 20 - 50 million died from it. That is a range of 4% - 10% mortality. We currently have a world population of around 7.7 billion. If the coronavirus were to be similar to the Spanish Flu, that would come out to about 2.5 billion getting the virus. On the low end of the mortality rate, 100 million would die. To me, either the writer didn't do the math or he did and the article shows how many deaths he is willing to deal with in order to not over-react. Of course, if 100 million died over the next 2 years, social and economic life would be greatly damaged.
For some people, I think they are willing to take their ethics to the extreme.
No comments:
Post a Comment