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

reply to post by harvib


Nobody's panicking here, we're just keeping track of the numbers. However, if you feel like panicking after reading the South/Central American numbers, feel free to do so. You get five minutes to run and scream, then go back to paying attention and preparing. It's not like anyone can run and hide from this bug: accurate early information is the only way I know to prepare oneself and one's family. If it fades in the fall, great, nothing lost but a bit of time. But if I see the trend lines continuing to go up, I can limit my exposure and put measures in place to provide the necessities in case of severe illness with little outside support.



[edit on 19-7-2009 by apacheman]

Update as of 21 July:

ecdc.europa.eu...

Mediterranean & Middle East:

*Egypt: 0.8%, 1 of 130

North America:

Mexico: 0.9%, 128 of 14229
*USA: 0.7%, 263 of 40617

aggregate: 0.7%, 391 of 54,846


Central America:

Costa Rica: 2.2%, 11 of 503
Dominican Republic: 1.9%, 2 of 108
El Salvador: 1.1%, 5 of 453
Honduras: 0.8%, 1 of 123
Jamiaca: 4.4%, 2 of 44

aggregate: 1.7%, 21 of 1231


South America:

Argentina: 4.5%, 137 of 3056
Colombia: 4.0%, 8 of 202
Ecuador: 1.3%, 5 of 394
Paraguay: 5.7%, 10 of 175
Uruguay: 3.6%, 20 of 550

aggregate: 4.1%, 180 of 4377


Australia & Pacific:

*Tonga: 50%, 1 of 2

Hot zones aggregate: 1.0%, 594 of 60586

Global aggregate: 0.6%, 780 of 126,660

* = first appearance on hot list
nl = not listed previously (on trend lines)

I'll publish trend lines every Friday, unless I spot something important happening, then I'll go to a Tuesday/Friday schedule.

I'll report the USA states hot zones breakdown from the CDC report every Friday.

From now on, I'll try to keep the format consistent with this one.

Comment:

I suspect the South American numbers are somewhat lower than what's visible due to lack of modern commincation structures under-reporting the number of ill versus dead. By how much I don't know and can't tell yet. Even so, those numbers are very to extremely disturbing.

Obviously, at 0.6%, the current global mortality rate exceeds the predicted high of 0.43% by nearly half. Statistically speaking, that's a lot.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by apacheman]

Today's CDC numbers:

Arizona: 1.6%, 15 of 947
California: 1.6%, 52 of 3161
*Florida: 0.8%, 23 of 2915
Michigan: 1.7%, 9 of 515
Missouri: 1.3%, 1 of 76
New jersey: 1.1%, 15 of 1414
New York: 2.3%, 63 of 2738
North Carolina: 1.0%, 5 of 483
Oregon: 1.0%, 5 of 524
Rhode Island: 1.0%, 2 of 192
Utah: 1.6%, 16 of 988
*Washington: 1.1%, 7 of 658

Overall US hot zones mortality rate: 1.5%, 213 of 14611

*Overall US mortality rate: 0.7%, 302 of 43,771

Trend lines:

Arizona: 1.3%, 1.4%, 1.4%, 1.6%
California 1.1%, 1.3%, 1.6%, 1.6%
*Florida: nl, nl, nl, 0.8%
Michigan: 1.5%, 1.6%, 1.6%, 1.7%
Missouri: nl (not listed), 1.5%, 1.4%, 1.3%
New jersey: 0.8%, 0.8%, 1.0%, 1.1%
New York: 1.76%, 2.0%, 2.1%, 2.3%
North Carolina: 0.8%, nl, 1.0%, 1.0%
Ohio: nl, 0.7%, nl, nl
Oklahoma: nl, 0.7%, nl, nl
Oregon: 1.1%, 1.0%, 1.1%, 1.0%
Rhode Island: nl, 1.1%, 1.1%, 1.0%
Utah: 1.1%, 1.5%. 1.4%, 1.6%
Virginia: nl, 0.7%, nl, nl
*Washington: nl, nl, nl, 1.1%

overall: 1.3%, 1.4%, 1.6%, 1.5%

Update as of 24 July:

ecdc.europa.eu...

Europe:

*Hungary: 2.1%, 1 of 47

Mediterranean & Middle East:


North America:

Mexico: 0.9%, 138 of 14,861
USA: 0.7%, 302 of 43,771

aggregate: 0.8%, 440 of 58,632


Central America:

Costa Rica: 2.1%, 12 of 560
Dominican Republic: 1.9%, 2 of 108
El Salvador: 1.1%, 5 of 453
*Guatemala: 1.9%, 2 of 395
Jamiaca: 3.8%, 2 of 53

aggregate: 1.5%, 23 of 1569


South America:

Argentina: 4.5%, 137 of 3056
*Brazil: 2.2%, 34 of 1566
Colombia: 3.7%, 9 of 245
Ecuador: 1.6%, 7 of 439
Paraguay: 5.7%, 10 of 175
Uruguay: 3.6%, 20 of 550

aggregate: 3.6%, 217 of 6031

Southeast Asia:

*Laos: 2.0%, 1 of 51


Australia & Pacific:

*Tonga: 50%, 1 of 2

Hot zones aggregate: 1.0%, 683 of 66,332

Global aggregate: 0.7%, 882 of 134,603

Trend lines:

Mexico: 1.2%, 1.2%, 0.9%, 0.9%
US: nl, nl, 0.7%, 0.7%

Costa Rica: 0.9%, 1.1%, 1.6%, 2.1%
Dominican Republic: 1.9%, 1.9%, 2.0%,1.9%
El Salvador: nl, nl, 0.7%, 1.1%
Honduras: 0.8%, 0.8% 0.8%, nl
*Guatemala: nl, nl, nl, 1.9%
Jamaica: nl, nl, 4.5%, 4.4%


Argentina: 1.6%, 3.1%, 4.5%, 4.5%
*Brazil: nl, nl, nl, 2.2%
Colombia: 2.0%, 1.7%, 4.0%, 3.7%
Ecuador: nl, nl, 0.8%, 1.6%
Paraguay: nl, 0.9%, 2.0%, 5.7%
Uruguay: nl, 2.1%, 1.6%, 3.7%

* = first appearance on hot list
nl = not listed previously (on trend lines)

Comment:

Bear in mind these numbers are about a week or so behind realtime. Right now the number of dead in Argentina and Thailand are 195 and 44 respectively. It is beginning to get difficult to get numbers that are reliable for infections vs deaths, so these figures should be taken as snapshots for guidance, not hard and fast numbers.

The current estimates for morbidity run from 40% to 78% of global population. At a global pop of 6.773 billion, this works out to 2.71 billion to 5.28 billion infections. With a global mortality rate of 0.66%, that projects into 17.9 million to 34.9 million deaths, currently. If the hot zone figures are more accurate, then the toll rises to 27.1 million to 52.8 million. this gives a probable range of 17.9 million to 52.8 million over the next year or so.



[edit on 24-7-2009 by apacheman]

reply to post by apacheman


The problem with these percentages is the actual number infected could be ten times more, or it could be ten time less.


There coould be thousands with the flu, just staying geting on with life because after all, IT'S JUST THE DAMN FLU!

Or there could be thousands of people that haven't got the flu, but are being diagnosed with it anyway, which means the actual severity of it is higher, since the actual mortality rate would be higher.

Personally I go with the first one.

Either way there's less to worry about, either a lot more people have it and it's less dangerous than we are being led to believe, or less people are getting seriously ill (although a higher percentage are dead) which means there are less total cases.

The media has a lot to answer for.

Originally posted by kiwifoot
reply to post by apacheman

 

The problem with these percentages is the actual number infected could be ten times more, or it could be ten time less.


There coould be thousands with the flu, just staying geting on with life because after all, IT'S JUST THE DAMN FLU!

Or there could be thousands of people that haven't got the flu, but are being diagnosed with it anyway, which means the actual severity of it is higher, since the actual mortality rate would be higher.

Personally I go with the first one.

Either way there's less to worry about, either a lot more people have it and it's less dangerous than we are being led to believe, or less people are getting seriously ill (although a higher percentage are dead) which means there are less total cases.

The media has a lot to answer for.

I just posted on the news and updates thread thread about the number of infected in Mexico which the ECDC reported on the 24th July as 14,861 with 138 deaths.

With Mexico's population over 102 million in 2000 and with 5500 people per kilometer in Mexico City how come they have so few cases when it was supposedly so rampant when the news first broke? What stopped/slowed the spread?

This flu supposedly started there but other countries are reporting much higher numbers of people getting sick. Is Mexico just lying about it's numbers? Aren't there any reports from people, in Mexico, about how the flu is affecting them now? Just seems very strange that there's no official or unofficial news, coming out of Mexico, telling us that this is a lot worse than the numbers say. Surely, we should expect somebody to leak info if the numbers are much higher and it's still rampantly spreading?