Coronavirus

[oddoneout]

I suspect also there was less flu because people didn’t go out and catch or spread it.

Another reason for embracing the idea of more flexible working arrangements where possible?

[Bryn]

Another reason for embracing the idea of more flexible working arrangements where possible?

And for general barrier mask-wearing and hand salinization during the flu season.

[cloughie]

And for general barrier mask-wearing and hand salinization during the flu season.

...and not having choir rehearsals ever again, but for me that would a measure too far!

[teamsaint]

And for general barrier mask-wearing and hand salinization during the flu season.

I'm all for people not going out and about when the have respiratory infections. There has been far too much of that in the past, pre covid, esp in work places. Terrible idea.
And obviously cleanliness is next to godliness, even in this ungodly age.

But the mask wearing can't go in the bin soon enough, IMO.

[french frank]

The reasons I highlighted in bold are not unique to this year - they apply to every flue season. What is unique to this flue season has been the lockdown and IMO this the main reason why influenza has been largely absent this year.

Yes I didn't understand the point that the incidence of flu was down because 30% of the population had been infected in previous years. That - surely - isn't even part of the reason why 'flu did not show up this year'; he contradicts himself by saying this 'typically' is the case so, precisely, why is this year different? The article also suggests that both public behaviour and local policies are key factors. In the exact context, the example of clusters in the United States, it suggests that the 'local policies' to open up against medical advice and not to mandate the wearing of masks resulted in those clusters.

[oddoneout]

Yes I didn't understand the point that the incidence of flu was down because 30% of the population had been infected in previous years. That - surely - isn't even part of the reason why 'flu did not show up this year'; he contradicts himself by saying this 'typically' is the case so, precisely, why is this year different? The article also suggests that both public behaviour and local policies are key factors. In the exact context, the example of clusters in the United States, it suggests that the 'local policies' to open up against medical advice and not to mandate the wearing of masks resulted in those clusters.

Is it a case of ducks in a row? Depending on what strains of flu are around in a given year a percentage of the population will have immunity, and if the medics have got their predictions right then the flu vaccine will add to that percentage. This year the means of flu spreading(crowded into public transport and workplaces etc) has been considerably limited by the covid precautions so further reducing the chances of catching it. It's been noticeable that norovirus(winter vomiting bug), a seasonal scourge in this part of the world for some reason, has been to all intents and purposes absent, and I imagine that's down to space and sanitise. Ironically two cases I know of that initially were assumed to be norovirus turned out to be corona virus - fortunately very mild and quickly gone - and only picked up as such due to circumstances requiring covid tests to be done.

[Simon B]

Yes I didn't understand the point that the incidence of flu was down because 30% of the population had been infected in previous years. That - surely - isn't even part of the reason why 'flu did not show up this year'; he contradicts himself by saying this 'typically' is the case so, precisely, why is this year different?

Doesn't it go like this:

Define R0 as the reproduction rate of a virus at time 0. Time 0 is when the virus is new. There is no natural or vaccine induced immunity in the population.

Define R as the reproduction rate at the current later time, suppressed by a degree of immunity but in the *absence* of NPIs (lockdown, masks).

Say R0 of both flu and Covid is about the same - 3 for the sake of argument.

Flu is an endemic disease that's been circulating since time immemorial. Covid is new. Thus, in 2020 R{flu} is 1.3 because it's an endemic disease and a meaningful %age of the popn have good immunity to each circulating strain. Meanwhile, R{Covid} is still close to its initial value, R0 = 3. This was still broadly true in the UK until quite recently and could be again in the presence of a mutant that escapes extant antibodies etc.

Introduce some NPIs which knock 1.3 or more off R and R{flu} = 0. Flu has apparently disappeared. Meanwhile, R{Covid} = 1.7 and you still have an explosive epidemic, just a more slowly exploding one. The maths isn't really that simple, but it'll do.

The confusion arises from the distinction between R0 and R not being drawn carefully enough and then comparing an endemic disease with a novel one. The assertion is that novel Covid is effectively much more infectious than endemic flu. This isn't in contradiction with both viruses being intrinsically similarly infectious.

Careless reporting or use of terminology again?

[James Wonnacott]

My condolences to his family and friends but the BBC is conducting itself in an absurd manner - we have not had wall to wall coverage on BBC1 and 2 a d BBc4 suspended for the 126,000 plus dead from Covid .

within 28 days of a positive test. The great majority died of something other than the virus.

[mikealdren]

within 28 days of a positive test. The great majority died of something other than the virus.

An extraordinarily ignorant statement, I suggest you talk to a medic from a Covid ward.

[Bryn]

An extraordinarily ignorant statement, I suggest you talk to a medic from a Covid ward.

Indeed. Though from a highly selective sample, only two of my close friends died in the past year, both from COVID-19. Another survived it without extended hospitalization but has 'long covid' which has triggered severe type 2 diabetes which is not responding well to treatment. See https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us...es-coronavirus

[James Wonnacott]

An extraordinarily ignorant statement, I suggest you talk to a medic from a Covid ward.

Turn off the TV and do some research.

[mikealdren]

Turn off the TV and do some research.

TV??? Research where? I talk to medic relatives and friends on the front line seeing people die, that's research enough for me. The only doubt is among the stupid, believing what they read in the Internet.

[PHS]

TV??? Research where? I talk to medic relatives and friends on the front line seeing people die, that's research enough for me. The only doubt is among the stupid, believing what they read in the Internet.

[johnb]

within 28 days of a positive test. The great majority died of something other than the virus.

Can you point to where you get that information from?

The current figures are:

Deaths within 28 days of a Covid-19 test: 127,080
Deaths with Covid-19 on the death certificate: 149,968 (to 26th March)

(The bulk of the difference between the two figures occurred during the first wave when Covid testing was very restricted.)

[duncan]

within 28 days of a positive test. The great majority died of something other than the virus.

Oh dear, another hobby Epidemiologist. Source please.