Do Not Compare COVID-19 (Coronavirus) To Seasonal Influenza

Increased awareness and preparation in schools about Covid-19

Covid-19 should not be compared to seasonal Influenza

It’s normal to look at the CFR (case fatality rate) of seasonal influenza when considering Covid-19. After all, 20-45 million get “the flu” every year. The numbers vary depending on the year. The “low” was the 2011-2012 season with 9.3 million cases and 12,000 deaths and the high was the 2017-2018 season with 45 million cases and 61,000 deaths.1

Let us look at the worst of eight recent flu seasons. The CFR for that was 0.0014 meaning, 1.4 persons died per 1000 cases. Interestingly, if we look at the “best” of the past eight seasons (the “good” one) the CFR is 0.0013, almost the same number of deaths per thousand cases.

So, hold on to this thought...

Seasonal influenza’s average risk of dying is about one death per 750 cases.

I see and hear CFR for the Covid-19 repeatedly being quoted at around 2-3%. CFR currently (as of 2/27 12:23AM EST) is 3.4%. That is 2,810 deaths divided by 82,550 cases.

But to say that the CFR for Covid-19 is 3.4% is not wise. Why? Simply put, the CFR is not applicable are even a number that one can calculate since it's a "look-back" number.

For data current as of 2/27, click here.

CFR is a “look-back” rate

It is very useful when we look back to an epidemic/pandemic that has ended. For instance, when comparing the “good” 2011-2012 flu season to this season’s numbers. CFR is death rate / # of confirmed cases. To divide the known number of cases today by the number of deaths, we get 3.4%. But this is not wise to use because it assumes that ALL of the remaining cases (total cases today of 82,550, minus cases where the person has recovered or died) will be cured. This is “magical thinking.” Many of those remaining 46,488 will recover, but some will die.

In short, we won’t know the true CFR for another year or more. CFR is useless at this time, it will be helpful sometime next year.

Known outcomes

So, let us look at the cases with known outcomes, meaning the sum of the cases of those who have recovered plus those who have died. This population is composed of those 33,252 who have, to today, recovered plus the 2,810 who have died; thus, our population is 36,062. If we divide 2,810 (deaths) into our population of 33,252, we find an overall death rate of 8.45% or about 85 per one thousand cases with known outcome.

Please let that sink in for a bit. Today, looking at Covid-19 cases with known outcomes, 85 out of 1000 cases have died.

Should this hold, and it may, then 1 out of 12 cases will die.

Compare this to seasonal influenza where 1 out of 750 cases will die.

The death rate currently for Covid-19 is 62x the death rate of the average seasonal influenza.

These two illnesses do not compare, although we’ll really not know for a year or so, at which time we can look back to see what the true CFR rate was.

Let us look now at areas/countries to see the current death rate is, of those cases with known outcomes.

I’ll call the current fatality rate of known outcome cases: CFR-KO.

I shall call the population with known outcomes: PWKO

Total deaths / PWKO = CFR-KO or current death rate.

  • World: 2801 / 36,062 = 8.45% or ~85 deaths per 1000 cases.
  • Hubei Province: 2641 / 26,024 = 10% or ~100 deaths per 1000 cases.
  • South Korea: 13/35 = ~37.2% or 372 deaths per 1000 cases.
  • Italy: 14/54 = ~26% or 260 deaths per 1000 cases.

We see that regional epidemic outbreaks tend to drop in CFR-KO as time goes by. Whether the true “look-back” CFR will drop to 2 or 3% or some other number (lesser or higher) depends on many factors which are simply unknown. For instance, children appear to be much less at risk for Covid-19, and cases within Africa (other than the one in Egypt) seem oddly absent. Perhaps the virus does not do well in warmer climates. Perhaps the fatality rate will drop as we approach Summer in the Northern hemisphere—we do not know.

Perhaps the tendency of the media to quote the 2-3% theoretical CFR comes from the fairly recent 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic. The 2009 “swine” flu was very feared. It infected 10-200 million world-wide with estimates of death ranging from 105,700 to 395,600 and a CFR of 0.03% or 3%. (30 per 1,000 cases). (Wikipedia). It was expected to return far, far worse numbers.

The “swine” flu, which was the first pandemic of this century, turned out to be far less lethal than many expected. Triggle wrote in an article from December 10, 2009 titled, Swine flu less lethal than feared, "The swine flu pandemic is ‘considerably less lethal’ than feared, chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson says,” adding, “A study led by Sir Liam found a death rate of just 0.026% in those infected, the British Medical Journal reported.”2

Coronavirus-Symptoms.jpg.66be5b731b0f544c9be4cbc9f0b339ea.jpg

Influenza-infographic.thumb.jpg.e24b2e2d18b0883cbe3529a0a3d881c6.jpg

Will we be lucky?

Perhaps we’ll be lucky this time, too, although I suspect we won’t be as lucky as we were for the “swine flu.”

Specializes in Cardiology, Research, Family Practice.
On 3/26/2020 at 3:58 PM, 2BS Nurse said:

I'm in no way comparing this to influenza, but during flu season, I've seen so many providers prescribe Tamiflu without bothering to lab test the patient first. What about them? They aren't swabbed, so are they officially diagnosed with influenza? Are we counting positive flu swabs only? There are many + flu patients who never went to the doctor.

not to mention the number of false negatives, considering rapid flu tests have a sensitivity varying between 10%-80%

Specializes in Perioperative / RN Circulator.
On 3/26/2020 at 5:16 PM, myoglobin said:

One of the best lines of evidence for a CFR of one percent or less is from the Diamond Princess Cruise ship as examined in this article https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-outbreak-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-death-rate . This was a "closed system" where everyone was tested and followed intensely and their were six deaths out of around 700 infections. When the authors adjusted for the "older ages" of the cruise ship members (relative to the general population) they concluded it was likely that the actual infection fatality rate was closer to 0.5 of 1%. Again, if more tests were available we would likely see a case fatality rate that was much lower than WHO figures.

A few comments on the Diamond Princess

- deaths are up to 11 of 712 dx with covid19 1.5%.

- 98 people are still sick

- 15 are in serious or critical condition

- if 1/3 of those die it brings the fatality rate to 2.2%

- there were 3711 people on the ship when the first novel coronavirus infection on the ship was discovered

- almost all of those 3711 passengers and crew were tested

- excepting the possibility of false negatives, people who'd already been through the disease course and no longer tested positive (testing started around Feb 4?) just over 19% tested positive

- slightly more than half of the people testing positive were asymptomatic At the time (but not 5x or 10x)

I'm not trained or prepared to make any assertions about this data; my last stats class was a long time ago, but I will speculate and maybe prompt some discussion

* the evidence from this case suggests that predictions of 40-80% infection rate may be overstated. I think 40% is the high end and can be held under 20% with appropriate measures (social distancing, adequate PPE.)

* I suspect the ratio of asymptomatic (or mild and untested) cases to symptomatic is much closer to 1:1 than 5:1 or 10:1 as others are suggesting. If I recall correctly the numbers from Iceland (near universal testing) they were also close to 50/50.

So, hypothesis: covid19 doesn't spread as easily as current models suggest, symptomatic vs asymptomatic is close to 1:1, CFR is probably around 1.5-2.5% with high level medical care available and up to double that where it's not. The proverbial good news and bad news.

I think I'm probably wrong on this and would like someone to explain why / where I'm wrong

On 3/4/2020 at 10:33 PM, myoglobin said:

Not to make the case for socialized medicine but the Netherlands, Germany, Norway and Sweden have around double the cases (confirmed) as in the United States, but haven't recorded a single death between them. What are they doing that our King County health system is failing to accomplish (keeping in mind that most of the deaths here are from older people many of whom are from a single institution)?

They didn't require this dumb useless quarantine to healthy people. They only kept those sick quarantined. Basically how we would do in normal cases if animals or anything came in out of country on boat. Animals coming to US quarantine for this same reason to keep infections from becoming an epidemic.
I know this from horses. If any signs/symptoms occur they are euthanized.

As far as the OP the numbers just don't line up. The data is coming from outdated empirical models that give bizarre numbers all over the board. The outliers alone would be crazy putting all other data out of check. But as with any statistical data it is biased to whom is submitting it. They tend to use whatever they find useful and present only those as so called facts. Look at politics and polls. Depending on which media channel followed someone is up or done 3+\- they might be using a 60% confidence rate or a 90% with that same range. All data points would come out differently.

Idiots in Toronto have been protesting against public health measures. I feel like these people who are endangering the public and adding burden on the healthcare system should be denied medical treatment if they become infected with COVID19:

https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/04/protest-in-toronto-queens-park-shutdown/

Specializes in Occupational Health; Adult ICU.
15 hours ago, Chunkybubblz3 said:
On 3/5/2020 at 1:33 AM, myoglobin said:

Not to make the case for socialized medicine but the Netherlands, Germany, Norway and Sweden have around double the cases (confirmed) as in the United States, but haven't recorded a single death between them. What are they doing that our King County health system is failing to accomplish (keeping in mind that most of the deaths here are from older people many of whom are from a single institution)?

They didn't require this dumb useless quarantine to healthy people.

It's funny how things change as time marches on.

As of 4/26/2020


Germany: 157,177 cases. 5,913 deaths. 664 new cases yesterday.


Netherlands: 37,845 cases. 4,475 deaths. 665 new cases yesterday.


Sweden: 18,640 cases. 2,194 deaths. 463 new cases yesterday.


Norway: 7,511 cases. 201 deaths. 18 new cases yesterday.


See: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries


[Video] Coronavirus quarantine has turned Amsterdam into a ghost town.

See: https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-expat-news/video-coronavirus-quarantine-has-turned-amsterdam-ghost-town

Germany is interesting see: “The Secret to Germany’s COVID-19 Success: Angela Merkel Is a Scientist”


https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/angela-merkel-germany-coronavirus-pandemic/610225/


Sweden’s approach is interesting also, see: “Coronavirus: Has Sweden got its science right?”


“On the face of it little has shut down. But data suggests the vast majority of the population have taken to voluntary social distancing, which is the crux of Sweden's strategy to slow the spread of the virus.”


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52395866

Specializes in Occupational Health; Adult ICU.
16 hours ago, Chunkybubblz3 said:

As far as the OP the numbers just don't line up. The data is coming from outdated empirical models that give bizarre numbers all over the board. The outliers alone would be crazy putting all other data out of check. But as with any statistical data it is biased to whom is submitting it. They tend to use whatever they find useful and present only those as so called facts. Look at politics and polls. Depending on which media channel followed someone is up or done 3+\- they might be using a 60% confidence rate or a 90% with that same range. All data points would come out differently

I find it fascinating that this rather ancient post has come back to life, a bit.

Frankly, the article which simply suggested that nurses not compare Covid-19 to the flu has run its course. A repetitive theme that I tried to convey is that the CFR (case fatality rate) is a “look-back,” rate and is not reliable until the pandemic has long since run its course.


Chunkybubblz3, no, the numbers don’t “line-up,” and they will continue to not “line-up,“ until the pandemic has died out or until a year or two has passed. I agree that the numbers one sees are not valid, though I’ll disagree as to the “outdated empirical models.” Politics influence so much in so many ways so I’ll agree that politics affect numbers.


I think that the lack of validity of numbers is actually simple. The numbers you see are not a true indication of infections, but rather an indication of infections that were tested. Delays in having a supply of reliable test kits (caused IMHO by politics) meant that, at least, at the early stages, only those who exhibited significant symptoms/history were tested. These, of course, often proved positive.


Lately we hear many stories that indicate widespread asymptomatic cases. For instance Rettner wrote in “Surprising number of pregnant women at NYC hospitals test positive for COVID-19, “ that "More than one of eight asymptomatic patients who were admitted to the labor and delivery unit were positive for SARS-CoV-2.”


Another article is self-explanatory: “96% of nearly 3,300 inmates with coronavirus were asymptomatic, survey shows.” “96% of 3,277 inmates in state prison systems in Arkansas, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia who tested positive for the coronavirus did not show symptoms" Reuters.


More interesting is that the often heard, “it kills older folk with pre-existing conditions,” appears to have failed at Marian Correction Institute. “Marion Correctional Institution, which houses 2,500 prisoners in north central Ohio, many of them older with pre-existing health conditions. After testing 2,300 inmates for the coronavirus, they were shocked. Of the 2,028 who tested positive, close to 95% had no symptoms.”


So, a cursory review today sees one report of 1in 8 as asymptomatic, and another as 96 in 100 asymptomatic.


One of the leaders of Iran, long ago (I cannot find the source today, it was sometime in March) called Covid-19, “the liar virus.” I like that. There are many questions that are currently unanswered. Answers will come as time passes and it’s nice to see clusters of asymptomatic cases, for it is those cases which bring the CFR down to 1% or less.


I recommend, to those interested, this article: “Global Covid-19 Case Fatality Rates,” (note: it’s constantly updated) by CEBM (The Center for Evidence-Based Medicine). See: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/


For me, two points stick out as useful data for nurses:


“In those without pre-existing health conditions, and over 70, the data suggests the IFR will likely not exceed 1%.”


Additionally, I found this both interesting and positive: “Mortality in children seems to be near zero (unlike flu)," which is also reassuring and will act to drive down the IFR significantly.” Nice!


The article is a great one for coronavirus CFR/IFR data.

Sources were chosen for lack of a paywall.

Rettner, https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-in-pregnant-woman-high-nyc.html


Reuters article: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-prisons-testing-in/in-four-u-s-state-prisons-nearly-3300-inmates-test-positive-for-coronavirus-96-without-symptoms-idUSKCN2270RX

This is a great overview - thank you.