On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:03:23 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: >The answer is (I think): we don't know because the number of people >who have died from H1N1 is still relatively small, and the number of >pregnant women who have died of it is vanishingly small. As is all to >common in "media epidemiology," broad generalizations are being drawn >from tiny numbers.
The question should be asked of the TV station as to where they got their numbers (though it is likely they might not remember/know). The CDC website provides some useful information about the h1n1 infection and death rates but they also provide cautions such as: |Why has CDC stopped reporting confirmed and probable novel |H1N1 flu cases? | |Because only a small proportion of persons with respiratory illness are |tested for novel H1N1, at this time, confirmed and probable case counts |represent a significant underestimation of the true number of novel H1N1 |flu cases in the U.S., so the true benefit of reporting these numbers to |track the course of the epidemic is questionable. In addition, because |of the extensive spread of novel H1N1 flu within the United States, it |has become extremely resource-intensive for states to count individual cases. http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/reportingqa.htm One can get weekly figures on total number of h1n1 cases in the U.S. from the CDC as well as the number of related deaths; see: http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/update.htm Note that there has been a total of 43,771 reported confirmed/probable cases and 302, giving a death rate of ([302/43,771]*100=) 0.6899%. However, because as the CDC acknowledges that these numbers are underestimates, one should not rely too heavily on the accuracy of such a number. The Lancet report is important because it alerts physicians to the possibility that pregnant women with h1n1 have greater risks than pregnant women in general and (apparently) pregnant women with other types of flu. As the authors write in their discussion: |Last, the estimated proportion of all pandemic H1N1 deaths in |pregnant women is an unstable estimate, in view of the small number |of deaths reported so far. If we increased the reporting period by |1 week, the proportion of pandemic H1N1 infl uenza deaths in |pregnant women would be 8% (seven of 87) instead of |13% (six of 45). -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] [email protected] wrote: > Yesterday on the news they highlighted the danger of the n1h1 virus for > pregnant women. Apparently in the US 1% of people with n1h1 have died but the > rate among pregnant women is 6%. > > The only verification of anything like this TV news story that I could find > online is this information: > http://tinyurl.com/l8ro7u > > which is a Lancet article that says there were 6 cases of death. Now, all of > othis is confounded. I clearly heard the statistic on the news as 6% but the > above two articles say 6 cases. And how many overall? I have not found a > comparable total number of deaths. So, the question is: how much more serious > is this for pregnant women? Much more, slightlyl more, not much at all > really? It seemed to me that if you give a prevalence in the general > population and then for a subgroup the issue is confounded. > > Ok, stats folks out there: HELP! > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
