By Chris Gillham
As one of the audit team for Jo Nova’s blog, I have been looking at the question of whether lockdowns work and their potential suppression of communicable diseases other than COVID-19.
Since the current pandemic only began killing people this year, there is no previous year with which it can be compared. However, lockdowns – to the extent that they work – will work not only against the current COVID-19 infection but also for other viral infections.
Take influenza as an example. The World Health Organization monitors positive and negative influenza notifications from laboratory tests in various countries (https://www.who.int/influenza/gisrs_laboratory/updates/summaryreport/en/), and this seems to be about the only up-to-date data on their website. So we can compare the flu test results in relevant post-lockdown weeks in 2020 with flu results in 2019 to see whether there is a marked difference.
Since the WHO publishes them, it might be assumed that these laboratory test results have some correlation with community influenza numbers in the different countries.
I have selected 17 countries based partly on their population size and prominence over the past few weeks in the COVID-19 crisis, and partly on whether or not they supplied sufficient weekly reports within the timeframe. My analysis starts in week 14 of 2019 and goes to week 18 of 2020, which was at the end of April. Their total influenza test positives can be presented graphically but are constrained by the most recent notifications, the US a laggard with its last notification in week 14 2020.
Fig. 1 shows flu positives in 11 countries with the most up-to-date data from week 14 of 2019 to week 18 of 2020. The significance of this graph is that normally the worst of the winter flu epidemic is over by week 14.
However, separate figures for excess deaths in weeks 14 to 18 of 2020 compared with the average for the previous five years in Britain and Europe have shown a spike well above the normal excess deaths for those weeks. The likelihood is that most of those excess deaths were caused either by the SARS-COV2 virus itself or by consequences of the lockdowns, such as a sharp reduction in normal surgical interventions.
Compare directly the flu positives for weeks 14-18 of 2020 with the corresponding weeks from 2019. For the same 11 countries, over those five weeks the number of flu positives was just 1,550 in 2020, but it was 12,934 – more than eight times greater – in 2019. That 88% reduction in flu positives is an indication that the lockdowns may be inhibiting the usual transmission of flu:
Looking just at week 14, six more countries can be added. Then the 2020 reduction is 90.9%:
The difference between reported flu positives in 2019 and 2020 becomes still more stark if the analysis is confined to the 14 countries meeting our criteria that have updated their data to week 17 of 2020 (Fig. 4):
Here, the reduction in positive laboratory influenza test notifications over the two comparable periods is an impressive 92.6%.
Naturally, there are many confounders. Ideally one would want to average the previous five years’ data for weeks 14-18. And one would want to discover whether under-reporting of flu cases has increased because health personnel are busy coping with the pandemic. Nevertheless, the figures suggest that lockdowns do achieve their primary purpose, which is to reduce the transmission of infections.
As more data become available, it will be possible to make direct comparisons between both cases and deaths from flu and from the new infection. From the point of view of ending lockdowns, the comparison should be age-based because it is possible that for those under 60, and certainly for those under 50, the new infection is less fatal than flu.
It’s worth a closer look at influenza test positive results from several countries:
| Australia | China | Japan | Russia | Spain | UK | USA | |
| Week(s) | 14-18 | 14-17 | 14-16 | 14-18 | 14-18 | 14-18 | 14 |
| 2020 | 29 | 63 | 2 | 924 | 67 | 49 | 215 |
| 2019 | 852 | 9250 | 449 | 926 | 1541 | 2262 | 6903 |
| % fall | 96.6% | 99.3% | 99.6% | 0.2% | 95.4% | 97.8% | 96.9% |
The Russian results are an interesting outlier because Putin didn’t get serious about a lockdown until late March. That is a good indication that lockdowns work well and are the easiest to bring to an end if they are imposed early.
Russia’s flu positives were 537 in week 14, 231 in week 15, 99 in week 16, 47 in week 17 and 10 in week 18, from which I deduce Russia should soon start reporting a reduction in COVID-19 cases.
However, the UK and USA have been criticised for a perceived slow lockdown reaction to COVID-19, and Sweden had a 95.7% reduction in positive influenza test results comparing weeks 14-18 in 2019 and 2020 (1,541 > 67) despite only a partial lockdown.
Ignoring numerous other confounders such as population age and density, these discrepancies suggest some questions might be asked about the efficacy of lockdowns. However, laboratory flu test results from most countries indicate that social isolation has suppressed the spread of communicable diseases other than COVID-19, and this logically is evidence that lockdowns have done the same with the coronavirus itself.
These results cover just over a third of the world’s population from 17 different countries.
Therefore, if positive laboratory influenza tests are a moderately accurate reflection of infection percentages in their broader communities, and if influenza is a common indicator of community infection among the several dozen other communicable diseases, it might be said that the COVID-19 lockdowns have resulted in a ~90% reduction in global infections.
It may prove to be a lower percentage reduction, possibly dependent upon learned social distancing practices after lockdowns are lifted and the spread speed of different diseases, but the WHO influenza evidence suggests lockdowns have public health benefits beyond the targeted COVID-19.
- I am grateful to Lord Monckton for assistance in preparing the graphs.
There are plenty of comments as to why these figures may be misleading as to why this type of analysis gives a impression that the lockdowns were a successful strategy. Because the coronavirus deaths have been so skewed towards the elderly and sick the lockdowns and spread of the virus through aged care facilities has probably produced thousands if not tens of thousands of premature deaths. In effect coronavirus has brought forward deaths that would’ve occurred over the next one to two years, and quite possibly from influenza. The influenza numbers should be less because the corona virus has killed the vulnerable instead. Literally the influenza has been reduced because the victims were already dead.Whether lockdowns work can be only reviewed by looking at future death rates not compared to past death rates and smoothed out over a three to five year period. The reality is that people can’t die twice so allocating people as victims of corona are the same people who would’ve been victims of next / this years flu.
I have no doubts in particular baring in mind the economic carnage caused to global economies that the tough lockdowns were exactly the wrong strategy economically and healthwise with total deaths over the 2020-2023 period likely to tally not much less or more than expected but potentially boosted not by the virus but by collateral deaths that could’ve been avoided such as those that didn’t get hospital care for normal conditions because of fear of going to hospitals and doctors as well as suicide caused by the economic crisis.
I think a proper review of this virus will conclude that lockdowns in the future is not the appropriate response for future pandemics.
“I am grateful to Lord Monckton for preparation of these graphs”
I am not a statistician however one of the first text books handed to one at the start of an Open University course in the latter part of the ’70’s (which I didn’t complete), was G>L> Huff’s how to lie with statistics.
His Lordship has been at the crayons again. It’s as if this has been prepared for a less literate and numerically astute audience and uses visual methods that are propaganda at it’s most base. Why are the colours transposed for the figures. In that the purpose of the graph and it’s title are in opposition to the statement of the graph so the less numerate take away an impression of the graph that is simply untrue.
Seems his Lordship can’t leave his propaganda roots behind even for a literate audience.
David Hartley says: “I am not a statistician however…” and then concludes: “Seems his Lordship can’t leave his propaganda roots behind even for a literate audience.” And we are supposed to believe and accept David’s OPINION?
Not I!
It was about psychology and the use of visuals to muddy a picture not the statistics themselves. Many who are have taken the Graphs and conclusions to pieces in this comment section, I just had to leave it to them. It is not the first criticism of his Lordship I may add.
We’ve got no idea about the quality of the data, especially with the WHO and politics involved, and especially in the distracting CV19 obsessed period.
“That 88% reduction in flu positives is an indication that the lockdowns may be inhibiting the usual transmission of flu:”
Certainly in the UK, the flu season was already on the way out in January – the European winter was very mild.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-flu-levels-according-to-phe-statistics-2019-to-2020
Yes, there are too many compounding factors and data questions to make any conclusion about anything.
All this speculation and counter speculation just goes in circles. It avoids the issue, we have CV19, there is no way out until it has run its course. On the balance of probabilities disrupting it is futile and far too counter-productive/damaging.
OK, I give up. just exactly where are you getting your data? You say:
I went there but I couldn’t find anything but the most recent data. No previous year’s data.
You seem to think this is a climate alarmist site where data doesn’t count. It’s not. Please provide a link to the exact data AS USED.
w.
Seriously? No answer? Well, I’ll ask again more slowly.
Where. Did. You. Get. Your. Data???
w.
Hi Willis. It may be sleep time in OZ. On the link you referenced, at the bottom of the graph in very fine letters is a source link. It goes to (https://www.who.int/influenza/gisrs_laboratory/flunet/en/).
On that page under the heading ‘FluNet functions’ the first link appears to be only recent data. The second link ‘Download influenza laboratory surveillance data from any week’ leads to a page where there appears to be customizable downloadable data. Page is https://apps.who.int/flumart/Default?ReportNo=12 . It’s probably not anything you can scrape or easily pull into excel or R but, with work, it’s probably the source of the charts.
Willis … hopefully PHil’s reply has steered you to the WHO data source. I linked to the FluNet explanatory page because the data interface page needs a bit of explaining and the link to weekly data is fairly prominent. It has weekly influenza data for 71 countries dating back to 1995.
I didn’t know WUWT had posted this article till late last night and, apart from sleep time in OZ, I’ve also been busy earning some income, researching and helping Jo Nova put together a post at http://joannenova.com.au/2020/05/lockdowns-work-influenza-cases-are-90-down-across-17-countries/ which is similar to this one but has averages for corresponding weeks at the 17 countries since 2014 and the latest data from Australia’s notifiable diseases surveillance system comparing 67 other diseases apart from COVID-19.
In this reply I may as well address a few other criticisms on this page.
I’ve been looking at whether lockdowns work simply because it’s likely that social distancing will affect all communicable disease transmissions, and in turn these disease trends might be a useful indicator whether the lockdowns are having a significant impact. If the data showed or suggested no reduction in such diseases, I’d still be pointing to it as something worth knowing.
I’m not arguing whether lockdowns do or don’t work or are or are not worth the expense, even though the early data does suggest lockdowns, or something, has suppressed various communicable diseases.
I’ve read many claims and counter-claims: the economic, employment, suicide, alcoholism catastrophes being caused; that infections and deaths would be the same without lockdowns; the lack of herd immunity will make things even worse the sick people have stayed at home because they’re scared of COVID; GPs have told people to go to ED instead of their clinics; the flu is disappearing because summer’s approaching in the northern hemisphere; the doctors are blaming deaths on coronavirus instead of the flu; the hospitals are getting more money if they report COVID instead of flu, etc, etc.
Maybe. Maybe not. I’m just saying forget those arguments for a moment and be aware of the very early data that supports a fairly logical “other” disease suppression through social distancing.
I’m not suggesting savings from an infectious disease decline would go anywhere near the financial cost of the lockdowns and I’m not suggesting the lockdowns become permanent so that nobody ever gets sick again.
I’m simply saying, hey, this data is interesting and worth knowing about. It may turn out that all the discrediting of the WHO data is accurate and the huge reduction in positive flu tests among a third of the world’s population is a blip or nothing to do with social distancing.
Here in Western Australia, just 20 cases of influenza were recorded in April, the lowest monthly total in history. In the two weeks to 7 May, two flu cases were reported – the lowest weekly rate in history. Maybe they’re inaccurate figures because WA health authorities can’t tell the difference between the flu and COVID-19, or sick people are staying home, and maybe the historic lows won’t result in fewer people dying from influenza – but it’s still worth knowing there might be something interesting happening with other infectious diseases.
I analysed from week 14 to week 18 simply because week 14 is the most recent notification from the US, and I wanted the US to pitch in. I could have started in an earlier week but there’s not much point comparing weeks in 2020 before widespread lockdowns had been established. I didn’t include Taiwan because Taiwan doesn’t report any data at all.
The Jo Nova “audit team” is perhaps better phrased as Jo’s “BoM audit team” because we research RAW and homogenised ACORN data from the bureau, as well as endless other climate curiosities and occasionally topics such as the COVID crisis.
As I say, there’s a bit more interesting data on non-COVID-19 disease rates at Jo’s link above. A teaser …
Weeks 14-18 across 2014-2019 in 11 countries averaged 10,432 positive flu tests, compared to 1,550 in 2020 – an 85.1% reduction.
“and cull of vulnerable people the year before”
In the UK, about 600,000 people are born and about 600,000 die. Each and every year with slight changes from year to year.
This means each year a new batch of vulnerable people are available to be infected.
The OP demonstrates a good correlation between lockdowns and infection spread. He also states that the data is rough and ready and needs to be redone when the data stabilizes.
What I don’t understand is why people go on about staying at home is the worst thing you can do re catching the virus.
If you live with you household unit, AND everyone is virus free. Then, IF you go to the shops infrequently to buy food etc, AND others in other households do the same. You greatly minimize the risk of infection.
Can it be simpler than that?
Yes, there will be some people how have to commute, doctors, nurses, delivery people, police, fire, ambulance etc etc. They are the ones involved in the slow spread which is unavoidable.
If we all reverted to ‘normal’ behavior then infection rates will drastically increase.
Does anyone remember the news clips of the Italian lady in the highly infected area of Italy. She could barely breath, a day or two from death, but not allowed into hospital since it was full of people who were closer to death than her. Lifting the lockdown too early and allowing the selfish to do what they want is not appealing.
You say:
There are a host of reasons why flu cases may be down. In addition to the ones you mention, flu season might have been late last year and early this year. And I doubt many people with a cough are going to go to the ER or to their doctors to get tested for flu—generally, the hospitals are empty because nobody wants to go there. That alone would have a huge effect on the count of infections.
Finally, many flu cases are likely being counted as COVID cases.
And as a result, I find it to be extremely premature to claim any detectable effect until you actually DEAL WITH the confounding issues. It makes it look as though you started out with a conclusion, found a tiny bit of evidence, and rushed off to proclaim that you are right … sorry, I’ll wait to draw conclusions until you actually do something more than merely mentioning the confounding factors, and only some of them at that.
w.
“Finally, many flu cases are likely being counted as COVID cases.”
And what if the flu makes you more susceptible to getting COVID?
Late February 2020, I went to clinic and got tested positive for influenza A. Early April, I went to the same clinic for another reason (broken foot). While being treated, I asked about if there are still any influenza A cases. The worker said they are NO longer testing for influenza A. The influenza A testing was stopped because of concerns for Covid19.
Obviously, influenza and covid19 are confounded if testing is only done for covid19.
I have been missing a crucial piece of information in the report:
“and Sweden had a 95.7% reduction in positive influenza test results comparing weeks 14-18 in 2019 and 2020 (1,541 > 67) despite only a partial lock-down.”
Sweden had NO lock-down as far as I am informed. They advised the public to respect social distance, hygiene (washing your hands etc.), but restaurants and such are open.
Here in the Netherlands and Germany, Austria etc. we have partial lock-downs. NOT in Sweden (and Iceland, Latvia and more), nevertheless Sweden (and the other non-lock-down countries) did better, per 100.000 inhabitants, then my country or even Germany.
This is IMHO a clear sign that strickt lock-downs appear not to work, the highest death toll is in those countries that have strict lock-downs, like Italy and Spain….
The size of the “reduction” in other diseases is so great that you have to attribuite some of the effect to a lockdown. You cannot ignore the effect Chris has shown (with reservations clearly stated).
Also, Chris is not arguing that there has to be an accounting balance, as many propose, where the savings from lockdown are seen against the costs of lockdown (that are yet to be calculated).
Let us hear more firm evidence, from the figures Chris had shown, that the lockdown is NOT causing a large reduction in disease.
There will clearly be swings and roundabouts.
More suicide less murders ( maybe)
The road toll appears strange. Here in Victoria, More urban fatalities but less rural and overall a small decrease.
Lockdowns in Australia are NOT causing a large reduction in road toll.
Even if the lockdown worked, are we suggesting the every year we lockdown to prevent flu deaths? After all we spend billions deveoping flu vaccines every year, that maybe pointless.
Viruses are going to be around forever, and our go to response cannot be to trash the economy ever year.
I do believe Maureen gets it! The question implied/posed in this article is not whether lock downs work, but whether their economic cost is worth it? Maureen’s solution: “Viruses are going to be around forever, and our go to response cannot be to trash the economy ever year.” is the valid subject to be studied.
It is unlikely we will SOON return to our previous life styles during flu seasons after analysis, such as the one in this article is completed. Lock downs are also unlikely to be the proposed standard response. They are just too costly. Modified behavior, however, with the associated cleaning agents are likely.
Another effect this global shutdown will have to flu is that not many will get the flu this year and thus not many will have fresh antibodies for the flu season 2020/2021. Can we expect the next flu season to hit us harder and spread faster due to this?
In Sweden we are close to 0 new flu cases in week 14. Much lower than any of the previous 2 seasons.
By just looking on the excess mortality it would appear as if covid19 causes less people to die than a normal year in southern Sweden. Thats the voluntary distancing in action if applied in time,
The outbreak in Stockholm probably appeard earlier in than in rest in Sweden which made it spread much more before the voluntary restrictions where in place.
Below is data for deaths, all cases not just covid19, in the 4 southernmost regions of Sweden.
Second kolumn is average mortality 2015-2019 for week 1-18.
Third column is mortality 2020 week 1-18
Fourth column is excess mortality.
REGION AVG 15-19 2020 DIFF
Kalmar 1 002 971 -31
Blekinge 620 562 -58
Skåne 4 242 4 121 -121
Halland 1 062 1 054 -8
And as comparision Stockholm and all regions in Sweden
Stockholm 5 732 7 411 1 679
All regions 32 910 34 867 1 957
Confirmed covid19 deaths for Sweden week 18 was 2718 which is 761 more than the excess mortality. Obviously the voluntary distancing has stoped many other non covid19 related deaths. Unknown what at this time.
ok so some people avoided the docs
I remember reading when docs went on strike somewhere LESS people died anyway
with the iatrogenic toll thats credible;-)
a week/month or so delay for most cancers really shouldnt make much differnce, unless it was already advanced?
and it means probably better life quality for a time before they make you wish you were dead with chemo etc.
as for the claims of all the mental health/suicides to come
huge increases in SSSRI meds in usa already
well the addictive ssri and side effects will prob assist deaths
if weve bred such weak useless people they cant cope with a month or 6 weeks not going out to party play sport or workthen we have a far bigger issue to look at
very few places havent taken care to supply food and income support
the ones that didnt already had pretty shit health and social systems to begin with ie Brazil Africa etc
Go out, enjoy yourself and give your immune system a boost.
“Sweden never locked down, and they never closed their bars, restaurants or public schools”
Compare the population demographics of Sweden and the US. Apples and oranges.
Florida has different demographics to New York
or Japan and European countries.
I spoke with my daughter today. She lives in Trelleborg in SE Sweden. I asked her about the lock down situation. She told me that Sweden did not issue mandatory lock down/stay at home orders. However, the national health service issued “advice” to do such. She relates that such “advice” is taken as close to an order as you can get without actually issuing one. Her explanation was that no national emergency was declared which would have been the only legal way for a mandatory lock down/stay at home order. Again, her explanation was that most businesses and citizens take the “advice” as if it was an order. She works for Malmo U and normally would commute daily. She has been working at home for over a month. She tells me the voluntary adherence to the “advice” is well spread. She also credits the fact that Denmark closed it’s border into Sweden as a leading factor that helped prevent additional spread from that area. I told her the news here is that Sweden has carried on without precautions and it is doing fine. She laughed and said, NO, many people are taking this seriously and taking precautions such as social distancing and working from home. The number of people using trains and buses is way down.
So when I hear that Sweden has been doing just fine without precautions, well, there is always the rest of the story.
Is this comparison not badly confounded by the inherent reporting delays. Can you find a May 2019 report of the influenza data to that date and then do the comparison to the 2020 data?
A question
Why is COVID19 hitting large urban areas worse than open country areas.
What is the difference between a city and the countryside?
Surely it is proximity of people?
So
closely packed = high number of cases
Widely spaced = low number of cases
Lockdown surely emulates a widely spaced population making transfer of virus less likely.
So why do yo think lockdown has no effect?
If catching the flu were the only thing that mattered, then, by all means, we should do a lockdown every year. All year. Other than that, ….
Covid19 does not just give you flu like symptoms. It also sometimes permanently(?) damages other organs. Do we really want a generation of physically deficient people?
You do realize that the flu does that too, right?
The data needed to figure out what is happening; what works and what does not simply doesn’t exist at present, and may never exist. Back on March 31 I wrote a blog opinion piece meant to show the array of factors that impact the basic reproductive factor (R0), why it would vary from place to place, and population to population; and expressed doubt as to whether we possessed data to make real-time modeling worthwhile, or could collect data that would allow a credible analysis after the fact.
What do we have that we can count on at present?
1. We can use deaths as a proxy for spread of the disease, but the CDC has offered guidance, and there are financial and political incentives, to inflate the deaths due to COVID-19. Yet some people argue it is actually undercounted.
2. We can use the “tested positive” category data as a proxy, but testing has generally gone up over time, and the public do not get normalized data of any sort. There is also the question of the asymptomatic people. This can’t be a good, that is credible, data set. There are also questions of where to place the infection in time relative to when the test results come back from a lab. The private clinics are doing a brisk business in testing, but the technicians tell me it takes forever for results to come back. There are reasonable questions about what the assays are actually measuring, or if the various brands measure the same thing.
3. Don’t even ask about risk factors aiding in the adjustment of sketchy data. We are just starting to get a picture of the full array of factors, and there are examples aplenty that retrospective surveys used to tease out such factors point in many immaterial directions and can often mislead people.
There is no gold standard. There are interesting anecdotes. An entry on this site spoke of testing at Los Angeles area clinics in mid march indicating a late season drop in influenza positives, a rise in ILIs (influenza like illnesses), and a fraction of about 1/20 of these ILIs testing positive for COVID-19. In Wyoming, the data show a rapid rise in “positives” during the week of March 24-31, thus a rapid rise in infection probably in the March 15-21 period, which is exactly where the dept. of health has placed them. Then the epidemic went flat, just like that, with a slowly declining number of new cases each week even as testing increased. As the orders to close certain businesses and social distance came in the March 18-23 period, its hard to argue they were the cause of the rapid flattening of the epidemic — perhaps they have had the effect of keeping the epidemic tamped down. Yet, as someone suggested above we have been able to go from store to store, and walk or ride bikes widely; so how rigorous has the distancing been? The social distancing of six feet has become an article of faith rather than a guideline. An analysis of nearby Colorado produces results similar in some ways, and very different in others.
The most disturbing observation is this. We have had all of 8 cases in a population near 30,000. All of the cases are stale, the victims recovered, and I am not sure any were ever hospitalized. There is no evidence at all of a disease being present. Yet, people are becoming more militant about wearing masks everywhere, and give ridiculously wide berths when passing in public — they cross streets to avoid one another. None of this seems healthy for a return to sane civil society. Superstitions have set in about all sorts of things, and it all appears to fall along predictable political fault lines.
This is irrelevant data. The author mentions in passing that the reduction in positive flu tests may have some relationship to the fact that medical personnel are busy with COVID-19 without even really considering the impact on the medical industry on lockdowns.
Most outpatient medical facilities have been virtually shut down for the past two months. Normally, if I thought I had the flu, I’d make an appointment with my doctor and they’d diagnose me, write a prescription and do the test. Now, there are no physical appointments. The best I could hope for is a video conference with the doctor, following which he would send prescriptions to my pharmacy to be filled without the opportunity for testing.
The only way to get an actual test is to go to the emergency room…which is so focused on COVID-19, are they even running regular flu tests? My wife went to the emergency room experiencing symptoms that could be either. They tested her for COVID-19, which came back negative, but never tested her for the flu.
So…do the numbers demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective in preventing the flu? Or only that the lockdowns were effective in preventing people from being tested for the flu?
We can’t know…which makes these number meaningless.
How many actual tests were performed? Who is going to go to the hospital when they think it is a petri dish of covid-19 death?
Emergency rooms are saying 70% of heart attack victims and 70% of stroke victims are not showing up to emergency rooms to get treatment.
Another thing, the flu is almost never actually tested for. It is in the range of 10s of thousands of tests per year in the United States when the claim is tens of millions of cases per year. Basically, the claim is that 1 in 6 Americans get the flu each year. 2.8 million people die per year. My guess, is that 1 in 6 of those 2.8 million people would have tested positive for one of the flu viruses if tested. If we counted flu deaths the way they count covid-19 deaths, there would be between 250,000 and 600,000 flu deaths per year.
Simple.
Quit going to work sick!
Quit sending your kids to school sick!
This is a terribly misleading and dishonest analysis.
“Ooh, let’s compare the Wuhan Plague to influenza, since some symptoms are similar.”
Influenza isn’t caused by corona viruses. The means of transmission are different, susceptibility to humidity is different, seasonal effects are different.
Why don’t you compare thee Wuhan Plague to other coronavirus diseases, like the common cold?
Are lock-downs effective in eradicating the common cold?
Did the common cold run through the population once and then die out?
Do we have herd immunity to the common cold?
After a century of trying, do we have even one vaccine against any corona virus?
The problem with the argument is the widespread nature of the disease in locked down places compared to open for business places.
Sweden has lost about 0.031% of their total population to supposed covid-19. They estimate that 30% of their population in Stockholm has contracted the disease. If the disease spreads through 100% of the population, that would be a death rate of 0.1% which is comparable to a moderate flu season infection fatality ratio.
But like every other place, they determine the cause of death fairly loosely. Anyone who has SARS-COV-2 virus (test positive) and dies is counted. But only about 10-20% of those with the virus ever have the disease, it is likely a large number of the dead died of something other than the disease. They also have determined that anyone who dies in an old people’s home is automatically counted. So, they deem people to have died of the disease, like New York City does.
So, in reality, the infection is not killing everyone counted, but just a fraction of them. My estimate is that the Infection Fatality Ratio that is most likely when all is said and done with is about 0.025%. That is 1/4 of a moderate flu season IFR.
The only thing that makes this disease special is that it is new and nearly no one starts off immune from it.
“They estimate that 30% of their population in Stockholm has contracted the disease.”
Link to this statement is to find where exactly?
“Swedish Ambassador Says Stockholm Expected To Reach ‘Herd Immunity’ In May “
Okay. No data. Just wishful thinking.
There is data. But apparently your google skillz are lacking. Maybe you should sign up for an online course on how to search for things on the internet… Maybe your mother can be called down to the basement to help you find the class.
Took a while, but I was able to pull the United States of America information going back to 2017.
Funny thing is, there really is not much difference year to year, in fact, this year, the flu season looks very much like the 2018 flu season.
This flu season started in week 42, 2019 started in week 44, 2018 started in week 44.
There is about a 20% drop in the number of tests compared to 2018…
I have no idea how to drop an excel graph in here.
But suffice to say, it does not appear that this season is any different than any other season. This season started its dramatic drop around February 3.
Go visit the SyndromicTrends.com website to see the pattern for the US, where BioFire FilmArray data are aggregated.
If you look at respiratory disease, the positivity rate is way down (covid positives do not show up in the data). But if you click down below on FluA and FluB, the combined detection rate is the same or higher in 2020 vs 2019.
Most of the peak happened in February or early March, so perhaps it’s possible that the lockdowns curtailed the end of the season a bit, but I don’t see any major benefit in the trend.
Parainfluenza looks like it has a bimodal trend with peaks in May/June and November, and that trend is absolutely crushed this year. Last year it peaked in May, but right now we’re near zero!