2020 has been a year without a flu season in the southern hemisphere | Hacker News Reader

2020 has been a year without a flu season in the southern hemisphere

economist.com

46 pointsadenadel99 comments

I didn't want to jinx it, but no one in my family has had even a sniffle since March. And I have a 3 and 5 year old. Usually the sniffles don't stop.

I would love it if after this is over, masks were required in public from say Nov 1 to Mar 1. No shutdown or anything, bars and clubs can be open, etc, go eat and drink, whatever.

But when walking around or waiting for your food, have a mask on.

Your immune system evolved in an environment where it has stuff to do constantly, when it doesn’t have stuff to do it gets bored and finds stuff to do... from the mild inconvenience of allergies to deadly autoimmune diseases.

And when it comes down to it, government doesn’t have the authority to tell you what to wear in public, inside a business during a pandemic probably, but regularly? You’re going to find some real solid constitutional objections that are better off not tested.

We literally make people wear clothes. Especially women.

Seriously how can someone think that mask requirements cannot be legal given this precedent haha

Because covering your junk is based on judeo-christian morals which are reflected in our law in ways that certain “obscene” things have historically fallen outside of free expression rights... those are going away and you won’t successfully argue that not wearing a mask is obscene.

No one actually causes the death of someone else by not covering up an "obscene" part of their body.

And, as in the case of Typhoid Mary, people have been deprived of their liberty for being a threat to public health.

So I wouldn't be too sure about the courts siding with the anti-maskers.

Yes, quarantine has been successfully defended on individuals, small groups, or specific areas. “Quarantine” on whole populations has not and would not be.

It has nothing to do with being anti-mask, your government just doesn’t have the power to force everyone to wear masks for half the year because somebody thinks it’sa good idea to prevent their kids from getting minor infections.

The direct effect of COVID-19 on kids is not the issue, but the fact that they can spread it to vulnerable adults, including their teachers, parents, and grandparents, and whoever they infect could infect even more.

This has and will continue to cause lots of older people to die, even if the kids themselves remain mostly unharmed.

As for the government's power, see what they did in WW2. They had major propaganda campaigns to get everyone on board (like "Loose Lips Sink Ships", Presidential "fireside chat" addresses, and propaganda posters everywhere, etc), a united and determined Congress, and actual leadership that helped the entire nation become aware and engaged with the war effort.

If there was this kind of leadership, media effort, and peer-pressure today as there was during WW2, along with laws and actual enforcement against non-compliant anti-maskers, then you can believe there'd be a hell of a lot less anti-maskers even trying to get out of wearing a mask, never mind staging mass anti-mask protests (with Presidential encouragement!).

The political bickering, selfishness, and incompetency in the US has already resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and will probably cause hundreds of thousands if not millions more.

While I'm not against mandatory wearing of masks while in public(when necessary), I feel they should have been distributed by emergency services, or placed on pallets in supermarkets, at gas stations, like it happened with telephone books and yellow pages in the past. Same goes for disinfectant. Why should I have to pay overblown prices for that stuff?

Wearing a mask is not being quarantined.

You've yet to explain why the government can have the power to compel women to wear clothing over their chest, no power to compel men to do so, and no power to compel either gender to wear a mask.

Your argument for it boils down to "That's just the way things are."

Things change.

Point to the power granted to the government which allows it to force you to wear a mask, or the supreme court case which might be relevant.

The first amendment guarantees congress may make no law that limits freedom of expression. How you dress is interpreted as expression, and communicable disease has never been used to justify broad mandates about what you wear in public. Carveouts made for obscenity don't fit, you could never find a cultural context to defend not wearing a mask as obscene. Carveouts for public health risk i.e. quarantine don't fit because the people being affected have no chance to defend themselves in court when subjected, you cannot get judicial review for the entire country.

Mask mandates enforceable by law outside the regulation of commerce certainly require constitutional amendment, and that will never happen.

Covid is not worse than public health threats in the past. We have been living in relative safety when it comes to disease for several decades, and I believe that has just ended. You will have to find the political will for people to fundamentally and permanently alter the national and global norms of life in order to try to maintain the old status quo, and I just don't see it happening, and I don't see any court holding up mandates.

And yet, both government-mandated and private dress codes (Which governments have found to be perfectly binding), ranging from the length of your shirt's sleeves (At a government-ran school), to the requirement to wear shoes to receive service, to the requirement to wear a particular color of clothing to work (Work dress codes), or to receive service, to the requirement to wear protective gear to work, to the requirement to not wear particular items of clothing in certain contexts (face veils) are all completely enforceable, even when they have nothing to do with obscenity.

It's a entirely unprincipled double-standard when a high school can censure a girl for wearing a halter top with straps that are narrower then three finger widths, but apparently can't enforce a mask mandate.

Regulating commerce is an enumerated power. Regulating dress in public is not. Government can tell you how to dress at work or what you have to require your customers to wear, they can’t tell you how to dress in public. Court cases are frequently won in schools on freedom of expression laws.

The first enumerated power in Seciton 8 of the Constitution states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

The "general Welfare of the United States" could be interpreted to include taking such measure that are necessary for the protection of public health.

As for court cases which recognized freedom of expression in public schools, did any of them do so at the expense of the health of the students, teachers, or the community?

The supreme court is of the opinion that general welfare "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."

And i have to say that’s a good opinion, if it was any other way you could basically make it mean anything. Wanting the constitution to mean that your position on one topic has to have broader considerations... if X is allowed with this argument what else would be?

"The supreme court is of the opinion that general welfare "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.""

Well, that's ironic, as it goes against a plain reading of the Constitution.

Strict constructionists must be rolling in their graves.

Constitutional protections of freedom of expression are not absolute.

The most well known such limit is that on yelling fire in a crowded theater, which is limited in the interest of public safety.

Going outdoors without a mask also impacts public safety, so the government could prohibit it if they wanted to.

The problem is that the country is not united on this, and political agendas are getting in the way of keeping people healthy and safe.

COVID-19 is definitely a worse health threat than any seen in most Americans' lifetimes. Despite all the shutdowns, social distancing, and mask use, there are already around 200k American deaths from COVID-19, and it hasn't even been a year yet. That's about 50% of American casualties during all of WW2.

People are just not taking this seriously enough, and that needs to drastically change if we want a chance of things returning to anything remotely approaching "normal" any time soon.

And what is the test for yelling “fire!” in a crowded place? Clear and present danger.

You can easily argue that one person yelling falsely in a theater could be believed to cause injury or death in an immediate sense.

You cannot make that argument for an undiagnosed person without symptoms or an entire population. Increased risk? Yes. The expectation that an individual action will have short order consequences? No.

"Clear and present danger" is a vague term -- just the kind the Supreme Court is infamous for interpreting whatever way they damn well please.

You could make a good argument that the hundreds of thousands of dead in the US alone of COVID-19 presents a "clear danger", and that the scientific evidence showing that not wearing a mask increases the odds of infection makes it a "present danger".

The danger need not cause deaths in the next minute or second to be "clear and present". Typhoid Mary was imprisoned for the rest of her life for recklessly endangering people with her asymptomatic typhoid infection. People did die because of her actions, but she was imprisoned not because of that but because of the danger she caused to society -- one that did not guarantee anyone would die, but just increase their odds of dying.

People coming from infected areas have also been regularly quarantined, even if there was no proof that any particular individual was infected. This was unarguably a limitation on the quarantined individuals' freedom, but it was deemed permissible to protect public health.

Requiring the wearing of masks is a much milder curtailment of freedom compared to quarantine, so the Supreme Court could certainly uphold such a public health measure were it to be implemented.

We make people cover certain small parts of their bodies which were historically found “obscene” to expose which circumvents the free expression right and those requirements don’t exist in many places and are generally eroding. You can’t make the same argument about masks.

Even now nowhere is it actually required to wear a mask in public. Go read an order, they’re all written in ways that say “you must” but carve out exceptions which make them impossible to enforce if they were backed by enforcement at all. This isn’t true inside commercial establishments but only in public.

If tested in court they would all fall flat that dont rely specifically on the government power to regulate commerce.

I suppose my heckling comes down to being skeptical that you are as adamant about shouting down nipple restrictions.

Not to be crass but young men leading the charge on the free the nipple campaigns seems counter productive... I’ll leave that filed under causes I support but will leave the fighting to those with skin in the game.

millions of years of evolution wasnt expecting densely populated metros and near instantaneous world travel. the speed with which we can traverse the world in the last 100 years, at scale, changes everything.

Dense cities with no sanitation and global travel existed thousands of years ago, epidemics were frequent and easily actually much worse from a spreading potential, i don’t think the fact that a disease took six months to span continents instead of days or weeks really does change much in a significant way.

Evidence of epidemic diseases exist just as long as evidence of human civilization.

People are over rating the current situation compared to historical contexts. It is not that it is not bad, it simply might just be the new normal. Or to put it other way, humans might have experienced a brief holiday in low disease risk which is over.

How about we try to encourage people who are feeling sick to wear a mask and leave it at that. Making everyone do it outside of a pandemic is absurd.

The problem is that if you're infected you can spread the disease before you start feeling sick.

And, again, how does it hurt you to wear a mask? If it can lower the chance of some people dying isn't it worth it?

Wearing a mask is disgusting. Make a suggestion if you like but god help the politician who pushes for permanent compulsion.

So, wait, your offended sense of fashion is worth killing people over?

Telling people theyre killing others is manipulative. Are you ok with banning all cars because you might accidentally run someone over? Every single time you go to the grocery store, school, work, etc you might hit someone. You might hit a tree and only hurt yourself, or you could cause a pileup that takes several others and disrupts the whole city.

That's a strawman, because no one is seriously proposing getting rid of all cars, and there's just no possibility of it happening any time in the foreseeable future.

Wearing masks is a real, tangible possibility, and has already been accomplished on a very wide scale, though not everyone has been convinced yet. We are close, though, and the more people get on board, the more lives will be saved.

Also, getting rid of cars has many actual practical negative consequences, particularly in places with poor public transportation (much of the US). People without cars in such places can't get to work or shop, not to mention all the deliveries that need to be made by truck.

By contrast, there are absolutely no practical negative consequences of wearing a mask. It's a purely cosmetic choice.

Why some people value how they look more than another human's life is simply beyond me.

I'd be perfectly OK with banning all private cars. At least in cities. They make no sense there.

Society has functioned for thousands of years without banning exposed faces/mouths. Perhaps we can focus on balancing risk-reward vs some utilitarian-authoritarian ideal that completely neglects people's individual freedoms in exchange for an unrealistic and unreasonable pursuit of a statistically aesthetic(zero deaths) outcome? These kind of well intentioned platitudes like "if we can prevent one death, one single death then any and all measures are worth it without consideration of cost+freedom" wouldnt make sense if you were talking about, for example, banning all driving to prevent millions of deaths every year.

"Society has functioned for thousands of years without banning exposed faces/mouths"

Yes, at the cost of tens if not hundreds of millions of deaths during the 1918 flu pandemic, for instance.

Do we really want to repeat that mistake so that some people can have the "freedom" of not wearing masks (and not social distancing either, because apparently many people think that infringes on their freedom too).

"Perhaps we can focus on balancing risk-reward vs some utilitarian-authoritarian ideal ... if we can prevent one death, one single death then any and all measures are worth it"

Authoritarian ideal? Any and all measures? Really?

Can we please get some perspective here?

We're not talking about some extreme measures like those truly authoritarian societies are infamous for, like making people slaves and working them to death, exterminating entire populations and political opponents, depriving minorities of all rights and property and then throwing them in to ghettoes, or completely (and I mean completely) making everyone subservient to their leaders.

Let's not trivialize the horrors of true authoritarianism by conflating them with people covering their faces to save thousands of lives.

I bet we could save even more lives by banning tobacco and alcohol.

I remember circa 1985 I said the solution to smoking was to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes by 5% a year.

Society has functioned for thousands of years while accepting slavery. Society has functioned for thousands of years while banning freedom of religion. Society has functioned for thousands of years without antibiotics etc. Just because we've done things for thousands of years, it doesn't mean we can't improve.

Your driving argument actually reinforces the parent's point. In most places in the world, you can't drive beyond a speed limit and you can't drive while drunk. These are restrictions on people's individual freedoms.

Society has functioned for thousands of years not brushing their teeth doesn't mean we have to keep doing that.

It might not be worth it. We don’t know what effects to mental health mask wearing has, it’s certainly isn’t something natural. And rule of thumb is, if something is not natural, it has some adverse effects.

We seem to be getting by with shoes, coats, gloves, hats, sunglasses, and sunscreen just fine

> I would love it if after this is over, masks were required in public from say Nov 1 to Mar 1.

This is exactly why there are anti-mask protests -- people worried that temporary measures turn into permanent restrictions and security theater a la TSA. By proving them right -- that you'd love to gently normalize new restrictions -- you're making it a lot harder to get people onto the same page about truly temporary worthwhile measures.

You are giving anti mask folks a lot of credit here.

I think plenty of people will just wear masks in public in general going forward. There's really barely any downside. If anything, hiding my face in public & making me less approachable is worth it without the health benefits!

That's great for you. Other people have a problem with being forced to do something that's not great for them.

My hope is that a plurality of people do masks permanently so it's socially acceptable and people who don't wear them have to see mask usage everywhere for a little bit of social pressure.

Downsides: Humidity

Staleness after a few hours

Face ID is now useless

Fogs up glasses

Having to speak louder

Having to repeat things for people who cant read lips

Increased difficulty reading facial cues

Having a harder time remembering people you met while they were wearing a mask(not people you already knew last year)

Imprint + tan lines on your face

There's no substitute for taking a deep breath of fresh air outside.

These are all downsides Ive experienced and Ive tried a variety of masks including fitted premium ones(under armor sportsmask w/face measurements taken, Tommie Copper, etc). I follow the law, I wear a mask every day to prevent spreading this thing, but dont try to make this a permanent thing and dont say "just wear a mask it's nothing"

Could it also be that they are counting flu as something else?

I am reminded of this quote from Demolition Man "In the future all restaurants are Taco Bell"

Yep, there's a fair amount of overlap between CoVID and the usual ILI, with CoVID being misdiagnosed resulting in things like this: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/#S2 where the US either had the worst flu season in decades... or undiagnosed CoVID deaths.

The flu test results are way lower. So it’s most likely under counted COVID deaths if we were to apply the Australian results to the US.

> Could it also be that they are counting flu as something else?

The article raises that question, but it does not reach this conclusion. In particular, it states:

>> [In the six countries with robust data] the total number of influenza tests has fallen by just 20%, while the share of tests that have come up positive has plummeted to record lows.

It appears to be a legitimate effect.

The UK'S Office of National Statistics (ONS) just showed that since June, UK influenza deaths are higher than Covid deaths. If this is true, then wearing masks has no effect on deaths from airborne viral transmission. And it might explain why The Economist is trying to shift the narrative.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

The data you link would not support your conclusion. It’s not flu season in UK, so the constant low rate is within normal variation, even if mask-wearing is impacting decreased flu transmission. You’re talking about ~100 deaths for each covid and flu in the time period cited, and for covid (which so far doesn’t have a cycle like flu) the effect on decreasing is very stark.

In other words, this particular data would have nothing to say. It’s consistent with random variation of off-season flu, it’s also consistent with masks having a big effect on reducing covid spread (especially with covid’s much higher transmission rate and airborne properties), and it’s also consistent with some third exogenous factor causing the covid reduction in a way that has no bearing on flu.

If one of two airborne transmissions remains within normal variation while the other drops significantly, then masks had an insignificant effect.

The more plausible explanation is that mask wearing had a tiny impact on both covid and flu. The reduction in covid results from something else. Not everything has to do with masks. Masks don't discriminate between flu and covid.

> “ If one of two airborne transmissions remains within normal variation while the other drops significantly, then masks had an insignificant effect.”

Statistically speaking, it’s a large error to assert this or draw this conclusion.

There are too many confounders, the hugest being that it’s not flu season there and the sample size is way too low to have confidence in any conclusion based on the UK flu sample. Given the significance of the data in southern hemisphere countries, it suggests there is an effect on flu transmission and the UK data (by confounders and small sample) are consistent with that possibility.

> “Masks don't discriminate between flu and covid.”

That’s right - suggesting a big effect on reducing both, with confounders that would make such a comparison meaningless if you tried to make it in a country like UK right now.

because R0 covid is 2 - 6 where flu is 1.4 < any measures made for corona would stop it dead in its tracks. for posterity's sake here is a picture with ranges: https://cdn.the-scientist.com/assets/articleNo/67690/iImg/38...

The image is transparent. Here's the same link wrapped in HTML so you can read it:

  data:text/html,<img src="https://cdn.the-scientist.com/assets/articleNo/67690/iImg/38474/uploads/what%20is%20r.png" style="max-width:100vw;max-height:100vh;"/>

Also, I don't see the annual flu on that graph.

Could it also be that due to all the attention that Covid gets and the saturation of the health infrastructure, no one is bothering noting down the normal flu numbers in those countries?

If anything probably the opposite. You're much more likely to get medical treatment if you have some "undefined respiratory symptoms" right now, and doctors will usually try to find out if you have covid or something else.

If anything, I would think the data quality of temperature and respiratory issues at the time of patient intake would be higher.

Will this have a lasting impact on the spread of the viruses or it's only limited to the time when people are wearing masks and practicing physical distancing?

Even if we managed to shut down the world simultaneously, the viruses can linger in animals, so we’d presumably eventually be back to where we are today.

My hope is that, at least for some portion of society, this pandemic has normalized the practice of wearing a mask if you must go out and are sick. So even if diseases aren't totally eradicated, we can have significant reductions in spread. Maybe a false hope, but a hope nonetheless.

> has normalized the practice of wearing a mask if you must go out and are sick

This is one of the reasons people who are against mask wearing are against mask wearing - they encourage people to break the rules that we have good evidence for (self isolation) in favour of rules we have weak evidence for (mask wearing).

Please do not go out and about if you have symptoms. That mask isn't doing much to prevent the spread of your disease.

> Please do not go out and about if you have symptoms.

This is hardly a rule that anyone follows, unless symptoms are severe. That's one of the reasons COVID spreads more widely than the flu - mild symptoms don't make anyone change behavior.

That should be a call to arms for governments to build better support systems for the sick and elderly, so they can receive care and supplies at home. Maybe Amazon and Wal-mart will fill that need, maybe not.

It would be nice to have a "im sick" button that auto delivers some chicken soup.

But if someone's going to be going out anyway, how exactly is it going to hurt them if they wear a mask?

Even if the chance of reducing the spread of the disease by wearing a mask is low, isn't it worth doing to increase the odds of saving some lives?

> we have good evidence for (self isolation) in favour of rules we have weak evidence for (mask wearing).

> That mask isn't doing much to prevent the spread of your disease.

What is the weak evidence for mask wearing?

People should wear masks. Masks may help prevent the spread of covid-19.

This study talks about N95 or 12 to 16 layer cotton masks. Most members of the public are using much less. It rates the quality of evidence for masks as "low certainty", which means masks might be very much less effective (or very much more effective) than they estimate.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

> Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty)

> Further high-quality research, including randomised trials of the optimum physical distance and the effectiveness of different types of masks in the general population and for health-care workers' protection, is urgently needed.

> Although direct evidence is limited, the optimum use of face masks, in particular N95 or similar respirators in health-care settings and 12–16-layer cotton or surgical masks in the community, could depend on contextual factors; action is needed at all levels to address the paucity of better evidence. Eye protection might provide additional benefits. Globally collaborative and well conducted studies, including randomised trials, of different personal protective strategies are needed regardless of the challenges, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence could be considered to inform interim guidance.

Norway have some interesting modelling: https://www.fhi.no/globalassets/dokumenterfiler/rapporter/20...

> Given the low prevalence of COVID-19 currently, even if facemasks are assumed to be effective, the difference in infection rates between using facemasks and not using facemasks would be small.Assuming that 20% of people infectious with SARS-CoV-2 do not have symptoms,and assuming a risk reduction of 40% for wearing facemask, 200000 people would need to wear facemasks to prevent one new infection per week in the current epidemiological situation.

One of the problems of DIY cloth masks being recommended to the public is that they start to lose effectiveness as soon as you put them on. https://www.ijic.info/article/view/10788

> One of the problems of DIY cloth masks being recommended to the public is that they start to lose effectiveness as soon as you put them on. https://www.ijic.info/article/view/10788

Your summary doesn’t match that of the linked study, which says:

> Face masks significantly decreased bacterial dispersal initially but became almost ineffective after two hours of use.

Also the study takes its measurement at 10-12cm away. I would be interested in other distances, bc idk about you but I’m never usually that close to someone’s face in public.

Viral load in the area tested (a theatre in this instance), both with and without masks, would have been something of interest too.

If we could also have real-world data comparing infection rates between two control groups, even better.

There’s also stuff like this[0]:

> If two people are wearing masks, the viral particles can travel about 5 feet away from each individual. When an infected person is not wearing a mask, those particles can float through the air 30 feet or more and stay alive for up to 30 hours.

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond and provide sources for your claim.

However, I find that your linked resources are not compelling and do not support your original statement. The Norwegian article is particularly light on details/data - which I can forgive seeing as it’s literally labelled a “memo” and a also a “rapid review”

[0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/stanford-scie...

> However, I find that your linked resources are not compelling

If you're going to ignore a major study published by The fucking Lancet there's nothing I could say that would persuade you, is there?

Self-isolating when you have a cold has never been a standard thing to do in the united states.

I've been kinda fantasizing about operationalizing a simultaneous worldwide lockdown where some international agency can push a button and have the entire world hunker down for just a couple of weeks or even just one. How much easier would that be than this dragged out, partially effective partial lockdown. It would be so much cheaper, and could be used repeatedly even for non-COVID diseases maybe even to flush out cold/flu epidemics.

No lasting impact, but it may take influenza a few years to return to previous levels.

In general biological systems always run at maximum [carrying] capacity. If something blocks them it might take they a while to return to maximum, but they always do so.

Like imagine a fire almost, but not completely, put out. It might take a little time to engulf things again, but it will eventually do so. (Unless of course the environment is no longer hospitable.)

because masks work and social distancing works.

Nobody is really doubting that. The question is, is shutting down the country to avoid flu season a good trade off (in more normal times)?

That's not actually a question anyone is asking.

There are many out there for whom it may not be worth it.

At least in the German mainstream discourse the proportionality of specific policies as well as it's costs and benefits are reoccuring, if not central themes.

This is, of course, currently about covid-19, but I think that the political arguments mostly apply to infectious diseases in general. ..once they gain a certain significance.

I don't doubt your perception though. The discourse might vary greatly between countries, languages, etc.

No need to shut down the country to practice social distancing, though.

You'd restrict an enormous amount of commerce.

I don’t think so. People are very good at adapting once confronted with a situation.

Wearing a mask in public doesn't restrict any commerce

Social distancing restricts some, but even without any legal enforcement I wouldn't be surprised if people just don't want to be close to others like before anymore. And for perfectly acceptable reasons!

I, for one, wouldn't support practicing social distancing every year to prevent the flu season. And this always has economic effects as well.

Well there's negative economic effects to the flu in any case.

There's a variety of relatively low cost preventable steps that would just help in general if people followed them (may or may not fit your definition of social distancing).

I'm thinking of stuff like

- Contactless payments

- Head nods instead of handshakes for greetings

- More remote work options (where applicable).

- Mask wearing on public transit or by people with lots of personal contact

Depends what your metrics are, but very likely no. Even if you could prove it was a "good trade off", good luck convincing anyone. In America we're seeing how stubborn people are to take any actual steps against a deadly virus, they would absolutely scoff at any intrusive measure meant to prevent the flu.

Saying "nobody" may be putting to much faith on your fellow humans.

This is the healthiest I've been in a long time because of social distancing.

It's not healthy long term though because humans have to exchange bacteria and get sick.

The article itself is behind a paywall, so this might have been in the text.

But... could that be explained by all respiratory illnesses being called "covid" this year? The numbers are simply hiding in another graph?

From the article

> In the first two weeks of August, the who processed nearly 200,000 influenza tests, and found just 46 were positive. In a typical year, the number would be closer to 3,500.

So sounds like this is based on a test, making misclassification unlikely to be the root cause?

Unpaywalled: https://archive.is/VEQl7

obviously we know why. they count the flu as covid. just like in the us where you can get funding by classifying a death as covid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com