@tofor suggested your first claim (second in my post) was wrong and showed why. You came back with a different claim.
The fact is, you’re more likely to die from COVID than the flu this year. Given that you have COVID, you’re less likely to die from it than if you had the flu.
Wow, this is a lot more pessimistic than I feel. And I lost my mom, an uncle, and and aunt to covid.
It’s true that I will likely never go back to carefree indoor dining, and will instead think hard about where and when I’m willing to do it. But I’ve been to the movies. I wore a mask. I barely noticed it during the show, and enjoyed seeing “Dune” on the big screen. I just came home from an in-person funeral for a friend’s mom. I wore a mask. (about half did.) It was outdoors. I felt pretty safe. I hugged my friend, the mourner, and smiled and chatted with a bunch of our mutual friends who were also there. Yes, I’m wearing a mask to the grocery store, but I don’t think my risk is terribly high. And I’m going on vacation in 2 weeks. I held off getting boosted until last Thursday so my boosted immunity would be as fresh as possible for the vacation, which is a high-ish risk activity. But with a fresh new vaccine boost under my belt (well, in my arm) I think my risk of getting seriously ill is very low, even if I do catch covid. And I am looking forward to seeing a lot of people I haven’t seen in years.
That… does not match any numbers or any studies I can find. Covid was the number 3 cause of death in the US in 2020, killing about 350K, as compared to flu (which number actually includes both flu and random undiagnosed flu-like pneumonia - unlike covid, you don’t need a positive flu test to get into that stat) which was the 9th leading cause of death, with about 54K.
Well, you might say, that’s before vaccines. But it’s also before people stopped taking precautions. The US has more covid deaths in 2021 than in 2020.
Historically, flu deaths vary from year to year, but have run about 10K - 50K per year, with the years being counted summer-to-summer, instead of Jan1-Jan1, recognizing that flu is seasonal and most of the deaths are in the winter.
(those numbers may be “only flu”, as they are lower than the ~50K/year of "flu and pneumonia, which are more commonly published. For instance, here:
[from JAMA]
So, it looks to me like I’m about 6 times as likely to die of Covid than of Flu. Probably it’s worse than that, because “flu + influenza” includes a fair number of deaths of very young children, whereas covid deaths are more weighted towards people my age.
Yeah, I think it makes sense to make different choices now that my risk of “dying of a common virus” is about 7 times what it used to be. Not to mention that there are a lot of non-fatal outcomes of covid that I fear – a lot more than there for flu.
I think I know what claim I’m making.
The article that I linked to seems to be paywalled now for some reason but here is the same info from another source.
It should be clear that my point was always relative risk. It is ludicrous to think that I could seriously mean anything else. The most cursory glance at the figures shows deaths from Covid far exceeding even the worst flu years. Of course the absolute risk of dying from Covid has been and remains higher than the flu.
Well, three of us thought you meant something else.
That was because you were all unable to read the article to which I linked and because I used ambiguous wording which was technically correct but could be taken in two different ways.
Hopefully that is now corrected to everyone’s satisfaction.
My fault, I should have been more careful, one of my biggest quibbles with statistical reporting is the failure to distinguish between relative and absolute risk.
Also, because you were responding to someone saying, “I’m afraid to do anything, now”, and you asked, “well, were you afraid of dying of flu before?” And then claimed comparable death rates.
That only makes sense as a reply if you are taking about total risk of death, not risk of death conditional on catching the bug. Because it’s the total risk of death that makes you worry about going to the mall. The risk of my dying of ebola, if i catch it, is far far higher than my risk of dying of covid, but i never worry about ebola in my day to day life.
It sort of makes your posts off-topic (in a non-junior-modding way, of course). I mean, who cares if your risk of dying from the flu given you have the flu is higher than COVID? My risk of dying from Ebola, given I have Ebola is much higher, but I have no chance of getting Ebola so I don’t take precautions. This whole thread is about precautions, because the risk of dying from COVID is so high.
ETA: Haha! We both used Ebola as the example!
But i ninja’d you. 
Yeah, it’s an easy example of an infectious disease with a really high mortality rate that has been in the news but that few people on this board ever worry about.
The Daily Mail article indicates a sevenfold drop in mortality when Omicron came on the scene. From 0.2% to 0.03%. The 0.03% is comparable to flu.
So this applies to Omicron only, anything before that does not apply.
Probably too soon to tell how likely it is to be infected with Omicron in a years’ time versus flu, because we don’t have a years’ worth of data, and we don’t know if Omicron will be reinfecting people at the same rates in January 2023 as it did in January 2022.
Article says the lower rate is due to “sky-high” immunity and milder Omicron. So this study is at odds with the other study stating that Omicron is just as deadly. I disagree with that other study, I do think that Omicron being milder does factor into the change, not just immunity.
My reply initially was to give some perspective regarding risk to someone who is limiting their whole life because of fear of Covid.
Taking extreme precautions to avoid something which, even if they did get it, is highly unlikely to kill them (unless there is medical information I am not privy to)
My point of comparing it to flu is that there have been years when flu has been on the rampage, has been prevelant in the community and has killed tens of thousands and yet I suspect the poster did not take such extreme measures then. Cancer, heart attacks, strokes etc. All death risks of the same order of magnitude as Covid is now, if not more. All things for which one could take extreme preventative measures. Does the poster do that for all of them? if not why not?
In round numbers, covid is an order of magnitude more deadly than the flu.
People who perceive themselves to be at high risk for a cancer or heart disease often DO change their lives. They stop eating red meat, or have body parts removed to reduce their risk. Those two are only twice as likely to kill you as covid, so in round numbers, on the same order of magnitude.
And as I said earlier, I’m not just worried about dying of covid. I’m also worried about brain damage, which is awfully common (“brain fog” is a euphemism) and somewhat worried about diabetes, heart disease, and kidney disease, all of which are somewhat common sequelae of covid. And chronic fatigue syndrome would suck, too.
at the moment, yes.
In some cases yes, but do they limit their lives to the same extent as the poster does for each equivalent risk? Does the poster themself do that for each equivalent risk?
This was me merely trying to nudge the poster into questioning and contextualising the risk. The poster themselves said they did not like feeling that way and I assume they feel terrible about restricting themselves in that way too.
I guess a bunch of us are pointing out that your contextualizing was poor, since you greatly underestimated his actual risk from covid.
I agree that it makes sense to compare the risks we are willing to accept in some way that’s related to their absolute magnitude. (I’m fond of micromorts, when i can find them, although of course they don’t tell the whole story.) But making false comparisons isn’t helpful. It leads to poor decisions if you trust it, and a sense that you can’t trust anything if you don’t.
You are younger, or have a lower risk profile, or a higher personal risk threshold than some of us. Those are all fine. But they shouldn’t be an excuse for promoting misleading comparisons to try to drag others closer to your choices.
What do you mean by “actual risk”? Because I never spoke about his absolute risk at all and accurately referred to the relative risk.
I did no such thing. You are stuck on thinking I was making a comparison of absolute risk.
I did not promote a misleading comparison at all, I resent the implication. My record on this subject has been one of realism, pragmatism and a sensible interpretation of the science.
My first response to this poster was to draw their attention to their approach to risks prior to 2020, i.e. pre covid when multiple equivalent threats to their life existed and yet I suspect they did not take such life limiting extreme measures then.
Given the fluctuating nature of the viruses (flu and covid), both temporaly and geographically there is little doubt that they have existed and will exist in a covid environment that provides an equivalent risk to that from flu in previous years. It is perfectly relevant to draw people’s attention to that especially if the intention is to help people contextualise the risk and see a way back to something approaching a normal life.
The only approach they see is…
That, to me is not reasonable or proportionate and must be crippling to ones mental health.
It’s not really worth arguing with you, because I don’t see that you’ll ever admit error or misstatement, but here’s your original post. Anyone can see that you didn’t talk about relative or absolute risk, and you mentioned something prior to February 2020 and the flu. That implies you’re talking about your overall risk of dying from the flu vs. COVID, and you’re off by an order of magnitude. The Ebola point is right on – I took no precautions about Ebola because my total risk of dying from it was and is miniscule.
My total risk of dying from COVID is an order of magnitude higher than the flu. Your advice makes no sense in the context of this thread. It would be like saying, “did you take those kinds of crazy precautions about Ebola? Your risk of dying from COVID is lower than your risk of dying from Ebola.”
This will be my last post on this subject with you, because I’ve been round and round with you before and don’t enjoy it. Feel free to get in the last word. Or, you know, admit that you misstated the risks or badly miscommunicated whatever it was you were trying to say.
This is the assumption that people are disputing.
After a quick Google to pull up some numbers to show how obviously wrong you are, I’m not entirely sure your point is wrong.
How many people get the flu each year? Google says between 9 million and 41 million Americans got the flu each year before the pandemic. Google also says America has had 80 million or so COVID cases. Covid has existed for 2 years, so what, 40 million per year?
Those two numbers are similar enough to have me wondering whether threat levels really are similar.
I thought covid was more of a threat than the flu because more people get covid than get the flu, but apparently the yearly rates aren’t that different.
Am I misunderstanding the numbers? Did I get the wrong numbers? Are they the right numbers but bullshit, like I suspect in several of these types of “total number of people who x” numbers?
If the flu is deadlier once caught, how is covid killing so many more people? 9 to 41 million flu cases every year, deadlier than covid, that just doesn’t add up to me. Little help?
did you miss the bit where I said
I used ambiguous wording which was technically correct but could be taken in two different ways.
Hopefully that is now corrected to everyone’s satisfaction.
My fault, I should have been more careful, one of my biggest quibbles with statistical reporting is the failure to distinguish between relative and absolute risk.
Hopefully you’ll admit that you are wrong about my willingness to admit error…yes?
OK, since you asked me directly, I’ll respond. Your post makes no sense in the context of this thread. Your correction removes any relevancy to this thread, since precautions that people take for COVID reflect their total risk of dying, not their risk of dying once they get it.
I didn’t take any precautions for the flu, other than get the vaccine and rest if I caught it, because my total risk of dying is 1/10 of what it is for COVID (approximately – maybe COVID is higher still for me since I’m over 50?). I didn’t take any precautions for Ebola for the same reason, although there are a few more orders of magnitude difference.
I suspect both the case numbers for flu and Covid are subject to substantial over and under reporting and it is very difficult to quote a perfectly accurate lethality.
There is also the fact that vaccination, treatment and prior infection from Covid has change how lethal it is now versus when the pandemic started (when it was estimate to be >10x more lethal than flu)
For flu that has not been the case but with medical progress for Covid we may see similar gains made with flu and in the future the absolute risk from flu may drop substantially lower than that of Covid.
As it stands the relative risk of dying once infected with Covid appears to be slightly less than that of flu. The absolute risk from Covid is higher because there is more of it about (and flu has been greatly suppressed through social distancing, masking and possibly increased vaccination rates) but flu will make a comeback and Covid will wane, at some point it is likely that flu will represent a greater absolute risk than Covid and of course vice-versa.
The flu is not deadlier once caught. For people with prior immune exposure, the risk of death once you are diagnosed with either is quite similar, with the strains of both that are circulating today, and the treatments available today. And the covid numbers are supposed a little in the population because more people were recently vaccinated against covid than flu. For comparable immune status, i bet covid remains deadlier. But not by a ton.
And basically everyone has prior immune exposure to the flu. Whereas there are still pockets of people, even vulnerable old people, who are immunologically naive to covid.
Also, at the moment, i know a dozen people with or recovering from covid, and no one with the flu. Your local risk will vary, of course, but my risk of being exposed to covid right now is at least an order of magnitude higher than my risk of being exposed to the flu. If everyone i knew had it was likely recently exposed to flu, i might be taking flu precautions.
You do have to be careful about “flu deaths”, though, because the mostly widely distributed numbers for the US are the CDC counts for “flu and pneumonia”. That includes people who caught a cold (such as one of the older coronaviruses still circulating) and it progressed to pneumonia and death.