It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A/H1N1 (swine flu) hot zone mortality rates are over 1%, millions will die soon

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 12:59 PM
Buried in the aggregate numbers for overall mortality rates are some extremely scary specifics for flu "hot" zones. These figures are taken from the latest WHO (update 57) and CDC's (July 2) official numbers. I think we can all agree that these numbers err on the conservative side and are under-reported.

Argentina: 1.64%, 26 out of 1587
Colombia: 1.98%, 2 out of 101
Costa Rica: 0.88%, 2 out of 225
Dominican Republic: 1.85%, 2 out of 108
Guatemala: 0.79%, 2 out of 254
Honduras: 0.81%, 1 out of 123
Mexico: 1.16%, 119 out of 10262

US hot zones:

Arizona: 1.31%, 10 out of 761
California: 1.06%, 21 out of 1985
Michigan: 1.45%, 7 out of 484
North Carolina: 0.78%, 2 out of 255
New Jersey: 0.78%, 9 out of 1159
New York: 1.76%, 44 out of 2499
Oregon: 1.09%, 4 out of 366
Utah: 1.07%, 10 out of 920

Clearly, it seems that the mortality rates are going be north of 1%...very bad news, indeed.

Assuming global infection by 2010 at the aggregate mortality for the hot zones , 1.24%, the global mortality will be in the neighborhood of:

74,400,000 dead.

If the high end mortality is used, 1.98%, the toll becomes:

118,800,000 dead.

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that the mortality rate is going to be a lot higher than the 0.43% forecast.

Remember these are using mortality numbers that are most likely under-reported. Factor in economic and medical collapse, and I'm not sure I want to know the number. Add in secondary effects and this could be unimaginably bad.

Edit to add:

Please note: I'm trying to keep this as neutral and scientific as possible, based upon officially confirmed cases and deaths, using accepted statistical projections. Speculation based upon verifiable primary or secondary sources with links to primary is acceptable and sought after. I am trying to understand, as swiftly and accurately as possible, what is actually happening and why it's happening in a particular way in a particular place.

If you wish to debate whether it is manmade or natural, there are plenty of threads for that, please go there.

If you wish to worry over deadly vaccines, there are plenty of threads for those, too: go to them for that, please.

Everyone else, I'm looking for doctor's reports with figures, preferably firsthand. Firsthand local reports, personal reports are sought also.

I'll update these mortality rates as I get fresh info, hopefully they will go down, not up. It's still very early: correctly identifying risk factors that make the difference between living and dying are crucial...too crucial to wait to be told what's what.

I want to know before the CDC gets around to telling me.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by apacheman]

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:10 PM

Originally posted by apacheman

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that the mortality rate is going to be a lot higher than the 0.43% forecast.

Remember these are using mortality numbers that are most likely under-reported. Factor in economic and medical collapse, and I'm not sure I want to know the number. Add in secondary effects and this could be unimaginably bad.

I agree with you that the numbers are probably low estimates. But what about all the hype against the "vaccine"? I'd be willing to guestimate doubling your numbers if all turns out as people are afraid of with forced vaccinations. I hope they are wrong for everyone's sake.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:25 PM
Considering the present population of this Earth 1.4 or 2 percent is not really much. Yes, its a lot of people but not much of a dent. The thing that is troubling is that it will effect the young to age 40 and the very old. Which means that the present baby boomers will have to get back to work so the world can catch up. I wonder if thats good or bad.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by Brothers

Interesting the demographic you point out. Noteably, it seems that the people most likely to be spared are the ones on the cusp of not being able to breed anymore. The ones who are most vunerable are the ones who are either not equipped physically to handle a reversion to a 1800s style life or who are not mentally and intellectually capable (for example, kids who know nothing of the outside world except for video games)

Course I know these are generalizations and people from all age groups will survive, although in varyng numbers, but it gives me pause to think about the dynamics of it and how something like this might create a cascade effect against other things such as farming (food supplies), and subseqent population drops due to lack of effective breeding. Maybe this is how bottlenecks start?

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:32 PM
Are you serious?

What's the mortality rate of ordinary flu? I wouldn't be surprised if it's higher than one percent. Your simplistic assumption is that everyone will get infected. That is not only unlikely, it's actually impossible considering how isolated some populations are. The 1918 spanish flu was far more deadly and the plagued that swept thru Europe had mortality rates estimated as high as 70%. 1% is nothing.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by Studenofhistory

The 1918 flu pandemic (Spanish flu pandemic) was truly global, spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. The unusually severe disease killed between 2 and 20% of those infected, as opposed to the more usual flu epidemic mortality rate of 0.1%.[127][131] Another unusual feature of this pandemic was that it mostly killed young adults, with 99% of pandemic influenza deaths occurring in people under 65, and more than half in young adults 20 to 40 years old.[133] This is unusual since influenza is normally most deadly to the very young (under age 2) and the very old (over age 70). The total mortality of the 1918–1919 pandemic is not known, but it is estimated that 2.5% to 5% of the world's population was killed. As many as 25 million may have been killed in the first 25 weeks; in contrast, HIV/AIDS has killed 25 million in its first 25 years.[131]


The mortality rates quoted are from referenced works in the citations section of the article.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:35 PM
Well that will do the planet some good. Less monkeys on the planet, meh.

Ok so on a serious note, I think people are going to have to save their worrying for the actual flu season this year. That will be the proving grounds. If it gets way out of hand and then dies out again, then we can all panic.

If it's anything like that Spanish Flu all those years ago it will come it in spurts, starting off small and then mutating.

Are they still at a level 6?


posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:52 PM
My whole family has the flu right now and we went to the doctor and we weren't tested for swine flu at all. So how do we know these numbers are right? There's a lot of people out there who might have swine flu and aren't being tested, so they aren't being figured into these numbers. Maybe the mortality rate is really a lot lower than the figures show because they are only testing certain cases? Maybe only people that show severe symptoms and end up hospitalized are tested for swine flu? In that case the figures would definitely show a higher mortality rate. Just a thought.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by theyreadmymind]

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Yes they are still at level 6, and dont like the way this thing is going .. i realy fear this winter.

WHO lvl

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 02:06 PM
There will be millions of deaths, from the flu, don't take vaccines they

are poison! TPTB have an agenda and were part of it, IMO.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by truth/seeker]

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by Studenofhistory

Why? The actual numbers are so easy to find, why would you discredit yourself? And with such a lofty handle as student of history?

Seasonal flu kills between .05 and .1%

Swine flu overall kills .5 and according to the op, even more in certain areas.

Don't spread ignorance over such an impotant topic. If people die because they didn't prepare based on bad information you made up whose hands are covered in their blood?

Maybe you could become a student of math and statistics?

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by Studenofhistory

The 1918 flu had a mortality rate of just over 2.5%. I think you are confusing the morbidity rate, the rate of infection, with the mortality rate, the rate of death. Big difference.

Standard flu in 2008-2009 killed approximatley 40,000 in the US at the high end of estimates. The mortality rate of seasonal flu is less than 0.05%, which means about 80 million caught it. So based on the reported numbers, at a minimum, using the .43% mortality estimate of WHO, you can expect about 9 times as many deaths as with seasonal flu if you had the same number of people falling ill. That's not likely to the point of impossible.

The morbidity is more likely to be nearly 100%, or more than 4 times normal. So 4 times as many people will get sick, and of that number, at least 9 times as many will die. If the numbers I'm looking at stay about the same, then more like 25 times as many people will die.

The numbers are pretty clear and simple (not simplistic). Morbidity times mortality equals number of deaths. The morbidity is projected to be near 100%, that is, nearly everyone will get it as no one has any immunity, save for those exposed to the '57 flu pandemic.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by theyreadmymind

The flu in the fall will be a mutated one, man made, and lethal, not like

the flu's going on now, so much.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 02:46 PM
We cannot be sure of any of these figures.

People do not ALL rush to the doctor when they get sick, hence the flu is under reported and so the mortality may appear worse than it really is.

As for the autumn / winter flu, time to prepare now!

Refuse any untested vaccine!
You are not a guinea pig!

Stock up on vitamin C, zinc ( up to 45mg), Vitamin D, echinacea, Sambucol, garlic pills, olive leaf tincture and wild oregano oil!

Start on the echinacea, garlic and Vitamin D NOW and as soon as you start with flu symptoms take 1000 mg of vitamin c ever 2 -4 hours and up to 10 000mg in 24 hours! Worse this will give you is diahorrea.

If you have asthma, stay regular with your steroid inhaler until this flu season is well and truly over.

Yarrow tea, should you commence with flu, will help to shorten its duration and prevent lung bleeding!

Good luck all!!

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Elliot]

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by makeitso

On the one hand, the story is using projected figures: 1 million cases.

On the other hand, you are using confirmed cases.

To be relevent, the figures must use the same bases.

If you accept the given CDC mortality rates, the the projected number of deaths attributable to the swine flu is 5,000 deaths already, not 170.

The headline would have just as accurately said "5,000 dead in US already, according to CDC projections".

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by apacheman

Alrighty then... Same links as before

CDC - Roughly 287,000 Confirmed US Cases.

CDC - 170 Confirmed U.S. Deaths.

.059% Death Rate

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by makeitso

Here are the official confirmed and dead, according to the CDC's July 2, 2:30 PM ET, 2009 summary:

33,902 cases confirmed.

170 deaths confirmed.

How much more official do you want?

[edit on 5-7-2009 by apacheman]

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 04:26 PM
Same link as before

Anne Schuchat, Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC told a news briefing.

"Reported cases are really just the tip of the iceberg," she said of the roughly 287,000 confirmed cases of (A)H1N1 flu in the United States

That statement seem pretty official.

[edit on 7/5/09 by makeitso]

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by makeitso

Notice she didn't mention confirmed deaths to go along with that? Nor did she say who exactly confirmed them. Perhaps she should update the official website. No offense, but until the figures are actually published, it's hearsay, no matter who from.

I'm trying to work from veriable figures (I know, I know) or at least officially published figures. When she officially publishes those numbers I'll be happy to take them into account.

edit to add:

I completely agree that it's the tip of the iceberg and I stipulate that the numbers are probably close to correct. But until I get the corresponding numbers for dead, I can only go by what's published. If they release a death number for the iceberg, I'll match it up against the 287,000 to get a moartality number.

I don't have any particular axe to grind here, I'm just trying to understand what's happening.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by apacheman]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in