CDC using unethical method to calculate Covid-19 mortality rate, not the same as they use for flu

I have tried to spread the word that the way the CDC is calculating the covid-19 mortality rate is not the same way they calculate the flu mortality rates. I’d like to find an expert to verify or invalidate this. If this is true, this is highly unethical. Why would they knowing overestimate covid-19 mortality if not to scare or for political motivations? The CDC publishes how they calculate the rates and anyone can do the math.

The difference is that with the flu they use hospitalization rates to estimate total infections. Meaning, if 3 people come into the hospital with the flu, they assume 97 did not, as historically they know that only 3% have systems that need medical attention. Then they use 100 as the total count and divide the number of people that died by the total infections. For covid-19, they are using the 3 people that came into the hospital for the count, not the 100 total infections estimated. We do know that with covid-19, the more series rate is about 80% to 85% of the total based on China, Italy, etc. Using the hospitalization rate and not the total infection estimates, pushes covid-19 rate 80% higher than it should be when comparing it to the flu. I have found some articles that suggestion using age demographics as well. But I cannot be sure if the CDC does or does not use the age demographics for their flu mortality rates. If they do, that would the covid-19 mortality rate another 50% or more higher than it should be compared to the flu. I’m hoping an expert can verify.

The problem here is that they are comparing it to the flu, which is calculated much differently. They need to calculate them the same, as not doing so is extremely unethical. We need an expert to very this and someone needs to call them out on this if this is true.

If you recalculate the rates based on US data, the rate I come up with would be .0037, or about three-tenths of 1%… not the 3.4% they are reporting.

I think it would be worth someone looking into this and verifying. If they are unethically reporting higher rates, they need to be called out on it.



They are using confirmed cases (not “hospitalization”) at this point and have caveated that this number will change with better testing and understanding of infection rates.

This is a new virus, they can’t just make up numbers based on the flu.

Welcome aboard, @jrothlander

Unskewed mortality rates.


As more numbers come in regarding official cases and deaths, the mortality rates drops by tenths/hundredths of a percent.

Just follow the math as this plays out. To hell with the angry forum experts.


Ahh. CDC is part of the deep state out to get Trump

The flu is “well understood”. This is an evolving situation.

When a pandemic is unfolding, two numbers are tracked.

First rate looks at total deaths/total confirmed cases. This is the 3-4% that you hear being reported, and, as has been pointed out, is caveated that it will change as we get a better handle on how many people have gotten this.

The second looks at resolved cases. This would be cases where an outcome has happened- either the patient has recovered, or has died. This number of course will be higher because most of the confirmed cases are still sick, since this illness takes 1-2 weeks to resolve.

Eventually the two numbers will converge, and the final number will be somewhere between the two.


Because as we know, Italy’s death rates are “sky high” because their system buckled under the pressure, whereas other countries like South Korea and Taiwan have managed their cases in a more controlled manner and have mortality rates between 0.5% and 1.0%.

There’s ways to estimate what a “controlled COVID season” would look like which I can provide links to if anyone is interested, but the 0.5%-1.0% range is what some experts are beginning to converge on for a “controlled seasonal situation”.

Which STILL makes it 5-10x more deadly than the flu.

But again- it is early days.

Well, unskewed mortality counts… not rates. Rates are what I think are messed up. But even so, they are only messed up if you then use them to compare to the flu. If you are going to compare two different mortality rates, they should both be calculated using the same method.

But they can explain what they are doing and they can use the numbers they have seen in China, Italy, etc. which tell them the hospitalization rate to actual cases is about 80%. Not explaining what they are doing is unethical because it causes unwarranted fear.

They could use the 80% number and it would be just as valid as they get with the flu. If you read how they estimate the flu, it is pretty rough as well… and in no way is supposed to be accurate, just a best estimate and something they can use as a base to compare year to year. It works. But then comparing covid-19 to those flu numbers without explaining any of this, is unethical in my mind.

I spent 4-hours putting all of the numbers together based on CDC publications that show how they do it. I come up with .00372 and they came up with .034… much different. In my posting, I am just explaining why the difference.

1 Like

The day before yesterday, there were 3,487 confirmed cases with 68 confirmed dead posted on the CDC website.

That is a known 1.95% mortality rate.

Yesterday, the CDC had 4,226 confirmed cases with 75 confirmed dead posted on their website.

That is a known 1.77% mortality rate.

Last night, a poster claimed the new number was 5,204 confirmed cases, 92 confirmed deaths.

Again, a 1.77% mortality rate.

Hopefully on the next update today, the mortality rate drops again. A downward pattern would be a nice sight.


When they have more data, they will.

This is an evolving situation and they’ve been upfront about that.

This is SOP in an evolving pandemic.

The mortality rate will continue drooping as testing expands. Relax, it isn’t a conspiracy.


Exactly. But my point is that they are not explaining these details. I think the details are the key to understanding the numbers correctly.

Dems have been saying for the last 3-years they want the economy to fail and hurt Trump. So why would anyone be surprised? Plus the media and dems have admitted to suppression H1N1 information when it came out, which explains the 6-month of ignoring it, so that it would not hurt Obama. Why wouldn’t you expect them to respond the same here and try t hurt Trump through this? They are certainly trying every chance they get. Using mortality rates is just another way to do it.

In the end, Trump saying that the rate is less than 1% is going to be correct. I suspect this is why they are saying that.

1 Like

We don’t even know if it will mutate and be recurring virus every year.

They are explaining these details.

There is some expectation that people need to do some of their own work.

You really expect that it has to be caveated that the numbers are evolving each and every time they’re being reported+

Are people completely incapable of learning?

1 Like

Its easier to spout conspiracy theories and be victims of everything.

1 Like

Gives us something to do while self isolating. :slight_smile:

Mostly correct. They are only testing the more serious cases, which would be equivalent of hospitalizations with the flu. The only thing you really need is a method to estimate counts you have vs. counts you don’t. With covid-19 we have estimates for total infections to series cases, being about 80% to 85%. So that works for the stats, the same as hospitalizations and can be used to as effectively estimate total infections as hospitalizations is used to estimate it for the flu.

If you read how they do this, the hospitalization rate to estimate totals is not a perfected method and they know that. The point is that it is statistically valid and works. The same is true for the serous cases they are testing compared back to estimate total infections. It is not perfect, but just about as reasonable and valid as hospitalizations to total for the flu.

But my real point is… in the end we are going to see less than 1% mortality rate. What the whitehouse is saying that it will be 1%, is actually going to be true in the end. I suspect this is why.