Just listened to an interview [1] with a doctor that claimed we probably over-estimate the risk associated with the seasonal flu.

[1]: https://reason.com/podcast/we-make-the-weather-why-voluntary...

Closer to 4x and only between 10M and 40M people in the US get the flu every year. Coronavirus could be >4x more deadly and have >10x more people infected.

Lets ballpark and say it's 3x more deadly and only 3x more people get it than the flu, 40M * 3x * .0003 == 36k deaths. However, we've blown past that many deaths already, and we have nowhere near 120M infected people so far, so the math just doesn't work. It's far more than 3x more deadly than the flu, or we have far more infections than we can account for in any study.

Also keep in mind that the death statistics have largely only counted people with positive tests who died in a hospital, so it's going to be strictly under counting.

New York, Italy and Wuhan are all the evidence you need. The virus is perfectly capable of overwhelming local health care systems, at which point shut downs are the only responsible option.

In high density areas or with a substantial older population, yes.

Sweden didn't shut down and their health system isn't at the point of any of those locations. [They have a lot of people dying though - so that's not to say not shutting down is a good idea].

It's also pretty unclear from Seattle's trajectory pre-lockdown it was every going to be overwhelmed if it didn't shut down.

I don't know how you can say that when hospitals have already hit the breaking point. It's not like our health care professionals have been sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

Only a few hospitals in the very worst hotspots have hit the breaking point. I don't mean to say that we could have or should have done nothing, but the idea that there's been some widespread breakdown in medical care is just not accurate.

How can you interpret many countries across the globe facing hospital and ICU bed shortages and not call that widespread?

I'd definitely call it widespread. In many places across the world, hospitals faced bed and ICU shortages and had to go to heroic efforts to prevent them. But most of them were successful, remediating their shortages before anyone had to be denied care.

Wrong. They were more successful if they had proper supplies of masks, citizens cooperative with lockdowns, enough testing capacity, and so on. Otherwise, no, they were having triage when they normally would be able to treat everyone.

A shortage means a denial of care took place.

Sure, that's a reasonable definition, in which case it's untrue that more than a handful of places around the world have had a shortage.

And many more hospitals were only 1-2 doubling periods away from faring as bad or worse. Doubling periods that were avoided because the surrounding regions took the actions they did.

That's not what you'd believe if you watched cable news ;)

People should downvote confident assertions like this that lack supporting data, along with the dismissiveness that people are fearmongering.

There's a chance you're right, and people want this to be true, but when you're wrong you're very wrong and people die.

What is the relevance of people having immunity to the flu or taking flu vaccines?

Of course there isn't any. Sure, it would matter if this were a buzzfeed listicle about "most dangerous viruses of all time". The flu might be higher in that list. But the actual question is "given this virus, which we don't have acquired immunity to, and don't have a vaccine for, how many people will it kill, and what are reasonable steps to lower that number"?