5 ms·

The 2019 graph shows nicely that the 2019/2020 flu seasons saw a lot of Influenza B cases, which was not as much present in 2018/2019. AFAIK Influenza B has alw

The 2019 graph shows nicely that the 2019/2020 flu seasons saw a lot of Influenza B cases, which was not as much present in 2018/2019. AFAIK Influenza B has always been the more severe and deadly type of the flu and to skeptics like myself this underlines even more the suspicion that we have falsly attributed a lot of deaths in our last Winter to COVID when it might have been the flu in many cases. Previous studies have already proven that when a patient had tested positive for the flu and COVID that all these cases have been only counted as COVID deaths. Things like this make it problematic to build trust in the wider population and ask people to follow silly rules when there is so much ground for mistrust in the severity of COVID.

kolinko 6y ago
There were virtually no deaths attributed to COVID last winter - everything started in March, past the influenza peak. This winter the number of deaths from COVID will be an order of magnitude higher than the deaths from flu on an average tear. So even if we attributed every sobgle death from flu to covid, it wouldn’t change the overall picture on Covid really.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Testing didn't really start until March, so you can't possibly know the answer to that. We're already back to average death levels (maybe even below average if the recent provisional numbers hold up): https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm Click "percent of expected deaths" column to see. We thought Covid was an order of magnitude deadlier than the flu, but it's looking more and more like that's not the case. Covid may have hit a large population of vulnerable people with weak immune systems at once, and is currently becoming less deadly as it spreads among younger, healthier populations. Covid had the element of surprise in the spring, for both immune systems and healthcare systems. Going forward, unless it mutates into some hellish form, it's not likely to continue.
  - sgt101 6y ago
    I hope you are right. But from your link : is important to note that it can take several weeks for death records to be submitted to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), processed, coded, and tabulated. Therefore, the data shown on this page may be incomplete, and will likely not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for the more recent time periods.
  - Volundr 6y ago
    I'd be a little careful with that chart. I was working with the raw data provided on this page: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm, and the CDC warns that even the data going back into August may be incomplete. I'd assume this data comes with the same caveat, so we may well see these numbers increase the reporting comes in. Edit: from the asterisk on the page you linked: "*Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death."
ithkuil 6y ago
why do you say "silly rules"? I grant that there is, in principle, a possibility that health authorities are wrong and that these rules are not necessary because the problem has been inflated as you said. Also, there is the possibility that, in principle, the rules themselves are ineffective. However, if the rules are wrong, that's even more so a problem of COVID is a real problem. If COVID has been overinflated, then the problem is not that the rules are silly but that they are not necessary (and thus their negative sideffects are worse than the benefits). Colouring the rules themselves as "silly" only reveals a bias in your argument and probably will reduce the effectiveness in communicating your point to those in a different echo chamber.
- dustinmoris 6y ago
  > Is COVID a real problem? Not to the vast majority in every age category. I personally had COVID and it was less severe than the last time I had the flu, so why should I treat COVID different than the flu or care at all? > Are the current rules effective? Not in liberal democracies, that's what the data shows. If you live in an authoritarian regime where people are willing to completely give up their lives then it is effective, but at that point you might argue are they still living or just existing like zombies? In all Western nations it didn't matter if one took more stringent or more lenient actions, everyone had a first wave, everyone has a second wave. Nobody invented a testing regime, a track and trace regime which allows us to live normally, so what's the point in taking those measures when they didn't prevent a second wave for anyone? > Colouring the rules themselves as "silly" only reveals a bias in your argument Fair point. Young generations have been taught for many decades now that we are not in this world together. Nobody pays off your debt. Nobody else will look after your health if you don't do it yourself. Nobody will come and provide you shelter when you become homeless. Look at the most woke state in the USA - California - every woke person walks past homeless people and couldn't are less. People who claim we are in this or in anything else together are selfish afraid human beings who want to control the population out of their own fear. The notion that we are in this together is wrong and that is the education that young people have been given for many years now. This is how it was in the last economic crisis, this is how it will be in this one too. So as far as I'm concerned COVID was nothing to me and my wife and it is not a threat to our family, so why should we care any longer about this? Other people's problems is not our problem. Just like every woke Californian walks past homeless people and doesn't care, I walk past the COVID death statistics and equally don't care. Why am I the villain now?

kolinko 6y ago

There were virtually no deaths attributed to COVID last winter - everything started in March, past the influenza peak. This winter the number of deaths from COVID will be an order of magnitude higher than the deaths from flu on an average tear. So even if we attributed every sobgle death from flu to covid, it wouldn’t change the overall picture on Covid really.

chrisco255 6y ago
Testing didn't really start until March, so you can't possibly know the answer to that. We're already back to average death levels (maybe even below average if the recent provisional numbers hold up): https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm Click "percent of expected deaths" column to see. We thought Covid was an order of magnitude deadlier than the flu, but it's looking more and more like that's not the case. Covid may have hit a large population of vulnerable people with weak immune systems at once, and is currently becoming less deadly as it spreads among younger, healthier populations. Covid had the element of surprise in the spring, for both immune systems and healthcare systems. Going forward, unless it mutates into some hellish form, it's not likely to continue.
- sgt101 6y ago
  I hope you are right. But from your link : is important to note that it can take several weeks for death records to be submitted to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), processed, coded, and tabulated. Therefore, the data shown on this page may be incomplete, and will likely not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for the more recent time periods.
- Volundr 6y ago
  I'd be a little careful with that chart. I was working with the raw data provided on this page: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm, and the CDC warns that even the data going back into August may be incomplete. I'd assume this data comes with the same caveat, so we may well see these numbers increase the reporting comes in. Edit: from the asterisk on the page you linked: "*Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death."

ithkuil 6y ago

why do you say "silly rules"? I grant that there is, in principle, a possibility that health authorities are wrong and that these rules are not necessary because the problem has been inflated as you said. Also, there is the possibility that, in principle, the rules themselves are ineffective. However, if the rules are wrong, that's even more so a problem of COVID is a real problem. If COVID has been overinflated, then the problem is not that the rules are silly but that they are not necessary (and thus their negative sideffects are worse than the benefits). Colouring the rules themselves as "silly" only reveals a bias in your argument and probably will reduce the effectiveness in communicating your point to those in a different echo chamber.

dustinmoris 6y ago
> Is COVID a real problem? Not to the vast majority in every age category. I personally had COVID and it was less severe than the last time I had the flu, so why should I treat COVID different than the flu or care at all? > Are the current rules effective? Not in liberal democracies, that's what the data shows. If you live in an authoritarian regime where people are willing to completely give up their lives then it is effective, but at that point you might argue are they still living or just existing like zombies? In all Western nations it didn't matter if one took more stringent or more lenient actions, everyone had a first wave, everyone has a second wave. Nobody invented a testing regime, a track and trace regime which allows us to live normally, so what's the point in taking those measures when they didn't prevent a second wave for anyone? > Colouring the rules themselves as "silly" only reveals a bias in your argument Fair point. Young generations have been taught for many decades now that we are not in this world together. Nobody pays off your debt. Nobody else will look after your health if you don't do it yourself. Nobody will come and provide you shelter when you become homeless. Look at the most woke state in the USA - California - every woke person walks past homeless people and couldn't are less. People who claim we are in this or in anything else together are selfish afraid human beings who want to control the population out of their own fear. The notion that we are in this together is wrong and that is the education that young people have been given for many years now. This is how it was in the last economic crisis, this is how it will be in this one too. So as far as I'm concerned COVID was nothing to me and my wife and it is not a threat to our family, so why should we care any longer about this? Other people's problems is not our problem. Just like every woke Californian walks past homeless people and doesn't care, I walk past the COVID death statistics and equally don't care. Why am I the villain now?