> a magnitude more deadly

Probably not. Case fatality rates don't accurately show the "deadliness" since many people have likely been infected but been asymptomatic or had mild illness that didn't cause them to seek medical advice.

> significant long term health consequences for many who survive

There is no evidence for that, and it doesn't make sense given the available data. Some number of people have long-term health consequences, and if you only compare that number to the number of people who went to hospital with serious illness, you might see a high percentage, but that's a huge distortion of reality.

Yes, it is a magnitude deadlier than the flu.

We now have 4 independent estimates that place the Infection Fatality Ratio at about 0.5% to 1.7% which is between 5x and 17x deadlier than the flu (0.1%): https://twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1230977769795776512 Incidentally, this makes COVID19 comparable to the 1918 Spanish Flu (IFR ~2%) according to experts (see link above). And keep in mind the IFR, unlike the CFR, is the metric that takes into account undetected mild or asymptomatic cases.

«There is no evidence for that»

There is, see https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... : In those who survive intensive care, [...] aberrant and excessive immune responses lead to long-term lung damage and fibrosis, causing functional disability and reduced quality of life.

I agree that exact rates are difficult to determine, will change over time and one should not overreact, but there is plenty of evidence for what I said. If this virus would be just like flu, then Wuhan wouldn't have much problem coping.

If it was a brand new flu, to which people had no immunity, which was initially covered up and then largely "responded to" by crowding everyone who might possibly have been infected into overcrowded, shared quarantine centres where they are now virtually guaranteed to get it, I bet they would have the same problem coping.

> Probably not. Case fatality rates don't accurately show the "deadliness" since many people have likely been infected but been asymptomatic or had mild illness that didn't cause them to seek medical advice.

I agree with this point but would also like to point out the possibility that way more people get infected by SARS-CoV-2 than the flu.

I also want to note that the flu also has the same asymptomatic or mild illness factor and that the deadliness would be only comparing people who sought medical treatment.

Agree, I hate to quote Trump, but there seems to be many “doomers” among us, who seem to take some kind of pleasure in entertaining the idea that we are in the middle of some big disaster. For the moment the numbers I see (mentioned in my other post [1]) seem to support something slightly worse than the common flu, but nothing that should be really concerning.

Also the comparison to the Spanish flu often ignores the fact that we are way better equipped to deal with the symptoms than in 1918.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22421649