Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2muchcoffeeman | Hacker News Reader

> Sure, but how many of those people would have died from the normal flu?

I’ve been comparing flu stats for Australia. 2019 a BAD flu season was over 400 deaths. A NORMAL season is roughly 150 deaths. I think 146 in 2018. 2020 has 36 deaths.

Melbourne deaths peaked at 25 for a single day. The current outbreak in VIC totally blows past the flu death rate for the entire country.

Total COVID deaths in Australia (450) already matches a bad flu season in a “locked down” environment and we still have 5 months to go for 2020.

Thankfully in Australia it’s possible to make mask wearing mandatory.

View on HN

Although I agree with your post, 2019 wasn't a BAD flu season. 2017 was and Australia recorded 1,255 deaths:

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject...

Wow!

When I was trying to google data I don’t think I ever came across the ABS site in the results. 2016 was also 400ish deaths.

This far in I don't think I can believe that people that are still clamoring to compare covid to regular seasonal flus are arguing in good faith. Sharing data with them isn't going to do much, although I guess it might stop some others from believing bullshit.

In this forum we should assume good faith nonetheless.

The flu certainly makes for a better comparison for discussion's sake than something like smallpox or the bubonic plague. Let's not forget the Spanish flu was also a flu.

The rules say "strongest plausible interpretation" not "assume good faith all the time".

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

When you look at the demographic curve of fatalities it's similar to the flu: it's not deadly to the young and healthy, but it is to the old and sick.

When you look at overall mortality it's not similar to the flu. It's worse. Covid is a bigger killer, with a major reason being the lack of population resistance, vaccination, treatment protocols etc.

I think most discussion misses this point, it is similar in some ways and not in others.

In my view a rational and evidence-based approach would have focused on protecting vulnerable populations from day one. Such policies received little emphasis. Instead, we panicked and implemented measures that destroyed the jobs of healthy people who were living paycheck to paycheck. It's hard to imagine a worse response than one that fails to focus on the core problem and injures millions in the process.

I agree with all of that. My point wasn't to say that COVID was the same as the flu, rather that predominantly the people who are dying, are the same people who get killed off by the flu.

Saying its just a flu, also discounts the potential life long impacts of a COVID infection, which appears to damage the hearts and lungs of some people who survived.

The broader point is, that there is no one right answer, all answers cause pain and suffering for different groups. To dumb it down to a black and white response does a massive disservice.

That's with the flu having been around the year before, the year before that, one before that, etc. In any given year the most likely people to die from flu have already died from flu, and the others have already had the flu when they were young and otherwise healthy.

Can't really make a comparison with a long standing disease when covid19 is still doing its first rounds.

Look, I actually agree with what the actions the Australian Government have taken. I do think its important to play devils advocate, to properly evaluate the decisions that are being made.

What makes you think "playing devils advocate" during a global pandemic when there's already a lot of malicious misinformation going around is at all a good idea?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com