Skip to main content

Is Coronavirus Different from the 'Flu'?


Early on, when the first coronavirus infections starting springing up in the U.S, I wondered if these infections and the threat they posed were truly qualitatively different from seasonal influenza.  As I became more informed, I recognized that the health experts were correct; this is not the flu.

I was not persuaded, however, by the high mortality rates which were initially quoted.  Even today, we will hear and read that mortality rate for COVID-19 may be 10 times higher than that of seasonal flu, which is in the range of 0.1%.  We simply cannot make such an assertion authoritatively. The truth is that may be grossly overestimating COVID-19 mortality for a simple mathematical reason – we simply don’t know the extent of infected Americans who have mild disease or remain asymptomatic.  With widespread testing, we will likely verify that the percentage of COVID-19 fatalities is much lower than originally thought.  In simple terms, the larger the population segment there is with mild disease, the lower the mortality rate will be.   When the dust clears, we may find that mortality rate to approach that of ‘the flu’.  Let's all hope so.

But even if the mortality rates are similar, the threat of the 2 viruses is quite different. 


The 'Flu' vs Coronavirus!


Experts have pointed out that the novel coronavirus is more contagious than seasonal flu.  An individual infected with seasonal influenza transmits the infection to 1.3 others.  In contrast, those infected with the novel coronavirus at it's peak was believed to be transmitting the infection to multiple people, although its contagiousness has been revised as more data accumulates.  So, coronavirus can reach a larger population more efficiently and deeply than the ‘flu’ can.

While the ‘flu shot’ is not an ideal vaccine, it does offer us some protection.  There is no vaccine against coronavirus.  And, many of us have some partial natural immunity against the ‘flu’, as we have been exposed to various 'flu' strains that descend upon us each year.  The novel coronavirus is new on the scene, so our immune systems are more vulnerable and less equipped to battle it.
And, finally, there are effective treatments for the ‘flu’ and very few therapeutic options for coronavirus, despite the false claims that chloroquine andhydroxychloroquine were gamechangers. 

What does all this mean?   Well, without natural immunity, a vaccine or any effective treatment, it becomes imperative to avoid infection.  Are you familiar with the phrase, social distancing?  It has been dismaying to see so many of us mingling closely in bars and restaurants without a mask in sight.  And, just this week, case rates in the majority of U.S. states are increasing raising fears of more illness, hospitalizations, deaths, economic lockdowns and fear.   Is wearing a mask and keeping one's distance really too much to expect?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Stop Medical Malpractice: The White Coat Wall of Silence

Photo Credit Leisure Guy, one of my most faithful commenters, opines that I am omitting an important aspect of the tort reform argument. He has implored me repeatedly to read a particular book that I suspect buttresses his views, but this worthy pursuit is simply not near the top of my priority pyramid. Since he’s retired, he enjoys the luxury of burrowing deeply into the base of his priority pyramid. With 4 tuitions to go, retirement is a distant mirage for me. I’m can be a ‘leisure guy’, but only in my dreams. I have written throughout this blog and elsewhere that there are too many frivolous lawsuits against physicians. I have admitted that caps on non-economic damages are not ideal, because they deny some worthy plaintiffs of complete compensation, but I support them because I believe they serve the greater good. I have ranted that there is no effective filter to screen out physicians who should never be invited to the litigation party in the first place. I believe that the...

When Should Doctors Retire?

I am asked with some regularity whether I am aiming to retire in the near term.  Years ago, I never received such inquiries.  Why now?   Might it be because my coiffure and goatee – although finely-manicured – has long entered the gray area?  Could it be because many other even younger physicians have given up their stethoscopes for lives of leisure? (Hopefully, my inquiring patients are not suspecting me of professional performance lapses!) Interestingly, a nurse in my office recently approached me and asked me sotto voce that she heard I was retiring.    “Interesting,” I remarked.   Since I was unaware of this retirement news, I asked her when would be my last day at work.   I have no idea where this erroneous rumor originated from.   I requested that my nurse-friend contact her flawed intel source and set him or her straight.   Retirement might seem tempting to me as I have so many other interests.   Indeed, reading and ...

Will Smarter Lawyers End Frivolous Lawsuits?

How do you know if a lawyer is any good?  Of course, they've all passed the bar, but now their profession is lowering it.  While most of us strive for excellence, and raise our children to value this virtue, prominent legal educators are establishing a new quality intitiative for their profession.  Who says that lawyers can't reform themselves?  Perhaps, we physicians can follow their bold example and raise the credentials of our pre-medical students.  I’ll present the facts. You be the judge. I have written a dozen posts on tort reform on this blog, which always generate spirited and adversarial retorts from attorneys and their supporters. They accuse me and other tort reform advocates of carrying water for insurance companies. They repeatedly point out that I know nothing about the legal system and are unqualified to opine on its flaws. They deride me when I argue that effective tort reform would reduce the practice of defensive medicine, despite the re...