3 ms·

I'm not talking about asymptomatic or abortive infections and talking about typical symptomatic infections in otherwise healthy (but unvaccinated) adults. Rhin

I'm not talking about asymptomatic or abortive infections and talking about typical symptomatic infections in otherwise healthy (but unvaccinated) adults. Rhinovirus, common cold coronaviruses, metapneumovirus and even RSV don't commonly cause the high fever seen in typical symptomatic influenza cases--which is what the influenza vaccine is seeking to avoid. And the whole point is that vaccination will help to prevent a symptomatic infection typically characterized by ~103F fever for up to 3 days with one of those asymptomatic infections that you mention. And the problem is that most adults may go years or even decades between those severe enough flu infections. They're mostly likely just catching colds. Maybe they caught a flu strain and their adaptive or innate immune system fought it off so they really did have "24 hour flu". But the point is that those very mild respiratory infections are not characteristic of a typical symptomatic influenza presentation which can be prevented by the vaccine. People become complacent talking about those symptoms as being typical of influenza, while typical symptomatic presentation of influenza is much worse. And even if you want to go down the rabbit hold of arguing PCR this or that and maybe there's a wild amount of asymptomatic influenza infections every year -- it doesn't really matter -- the point is the severity of the infection on the higher end of the distribution. And rhinoviruses really do lack that level of severity because they don't carry the same disease burden and don't kill as many people.

lamontcg 4y ago
It is also ridiculous that we now "know" so much about viruses that I have to type out that much crap in order to just say "influenza virus kicks your ass way harder than the common cold".
- _benedict 4y ago
  If you just said “flu kicks your ass more than the common cold” we’d be in agreement, since “common cold” means a mild non-specific viral infection, and “flu” means a severe non-specific viral infection. But once you arbitrarily declare somebody didn’t have flu if they weren’t sick for three or more days, or didn’t get a high enough fever, well then I don’t think that’s valid either in common usage or scientifically. Since you brought up people misusing terms, I think that’s a pretty valid response.
_benedict 4y ago
I am responding to two claims: 1) that influenza knocks you out and anything that doesn’t isn’t influenza; 2) that flu even means influenza in common usage, and so appeals to influenza symptoms are meaningless. > typically characterised by What are you basing this on? I have only found estimates of asymptomatic infection, but do you have any studies that performed a random sample of the population looking at disease severity by positive PCR? Covid was a much more severe illness with very little endemic immunity and we still saw dramatic variation in outcome. It seems to be estimated that a third of influenza infections are asymptomatic - do you propose that the distribution is entirely bimodal and that everyone else had severe symptoms? This seems implausible given the broad (and highly differentiated by prior variant) level of population immunity. The only studies I could find (with an admittedly cursory search) look at people already suffering from ILI and testing the likelihood that the ILI is influenza, which does not tell you what proportion of people experience mild symptoms with influenza infection. It does however tell you that many of these people are not suffering from influenza, but would have likely said they had “flu” and met your criteria. My point therefore is that “flu” doesn’t mean influenza, since there’s no common definition that is either sufficient or necessary to correctly identify an influenza infection, and we do not require a PCR test to use the term. It therefore means a severe non-specific viral illness, or perhaps an “influenza like illness” It also means criticising people for using the term for a mild illness is probably fair, but not because it doesn’t meet the criteria of being influenza, and I really wish people would stop using this kind of argumentation about it, as though they have any idea what a specific influenza infection looks like.

lamontcg 4y ago

It is also ridiculous that we now "know" so much about viruses that I have to type out that much crap in order to just say "influenza virus kicks your ass way harder than the common cold".

_benedict 4y ago
If you just said “flu kicks your ass more than the common cold” we’d be in agreement, since “common cold” means a mild non-specific viral infection, and “flu” means a severe non-specific viral infection. But once you arbitrarily declare somebody didn’t have flu if they weren’t sick for three or more days, or didn’t get a high enough fever, well then I don’t think that’s valid either in common usage or scientifically. Since you brought up people misusing terms, I think that’s a pretty valid response.

_benedict 4y ago

I am responding to two claims: 1) that influenza knocks you out and anything that doesn’t isn’t influenza; 2) that flu even means influenza in common usage, and so appeals to influenza symptoms are meaningless. > typically characterised by What are you basing this on? I have only found estimates of asymptomatic infection, but do you have any studies that performed a random sample of the population looking at disease severity by positive PCR? Covid was a much more severe illness with very little endemic immunity and we still saw dramatic variation in outcome. It seems to be estimated that a third of influenza infections are asymptomatic - do you propose that the distribution is entirely bimodal and that everyone else had severe symptoms? This seems implausible given the broad (and highly differentiated by prior variant) level of population immunity. The only studies I could find (with an admittedly cursory search) look at people already suffering from ILI and testing the likelihood that the ILI is influenza, which does not tell you what proportion of people experience mild symptoms with influenza infection. It does however tell you that many of these people are not suffering from influenza, but would have likely said they had “flu” and met your criteria. My point therefore is that “flu” doesn’t mean influenza, since there’s no common definition that is either sufficient or necessary to correctly identify an influenza infection, and we do not require a PCR test to use the term. It therefore means a severe non-specific viral illness, or perhaps an “influenza like illness” It also means criticising people for using the term for a mild illness is probably fair, but not because it doesn’t meet the criteria of being influenza, and I really wish people would stop using this kind of argumentation about it, as though they have any idea what a specific influenza infection looks like.