On the Flu

[Latrinsorm]

On this day of catastrophic failure by the President, it's worth also memorializing the day of catastrophic failure by the President that saw the most COVID deaths in US history.

Yesterday.

And it's worth remembering all the comparisons we've heard between the coronavirus during lockdown and the flu before lockdown.
Because now we've seen what the flu looks like during lockdown versus the flu before lockdown.

https://imgur.com/SLEBY8u.png
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm#S2

We're on track for a calendar year with 3,000 flu deaths.
Not 3,000 a day.
Not 3,000 a week.
3,000 total.
Which is to say, the lockdowns will have cut flu deaths by ~95%.

So if we want to make an honest comparison,
we can compare ~3,000 yearly flu deaths in lockdown to ~500,000 yearly COVID deaths in lockdown, or
we can compare ~37,000 yearly flu deaths without lockdown to the untold millions of yearly COVID deaths that would have occurred without lockdown.

[caelric]

How are you this dumb?

[Latrinsorm]

How are you this dumb?

Do you not see the lines? The line is way less line than the other line.

[Vindicate]

So you are comparing the first year statistic (which as viruses go, is always the worst) of Covid versus year 200+ of influenza?

Its certainly misleading if not an outright bad measurement.

On your point of lockdowns somehow saving lives from influenza, the very people who are susceptible of influenza death (Old, obese, and Immunodeficient) are dying from covid instead. Which I think your chart is proving very well.

And there is the unfortunate greed factor. Hospitals certainly make more money from Federal grants per covid patient having a heart attack than someone simply having a heart attack.

[Gelston]

When are you going to create a thread called "On Latrin STFUing?"

[Parkbandit]

On this day of catastrophic failure by the President, it's worth also memorializing the day of catastrophic failure by the President that saw the most COVID deaths in US history.

Yesterday.

And it's worth remembering all the comparisons we've heard between the coronavirus during lockdown and the flu before lockdown.
Because now we've seen what the flu looks like during lockdown versus the flu before lockdown.

https://imgur.com/SLEBY8u.png
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm#S2

We're on track for a calendar year with 3,000 flu deaths.
Not 3,000 a day.
Not 3,000 a week.
3,000 total.
Which is to say, the lockdowns will have cut flu deaths by ~95%.

So if we want to make an honest comparison,
we can compare ~3,000 yearly flu deaths in lockdown to ~500,000 yearly COVID deaths in lockdown, or
we can compare ~37,000 yearly flu deaths without lockdown to the untold millions of yearly COVID deaths that would have occurred without lockdown.

Wait.. didn't you claim you left the house before and you knew you had the flu?

You should go into politics... do as I say, not as I do... "Rules for thee and not for me!"

[Latrinsorm]

So you are comparing the first year statistic (which as viruses go, is always the worst) of Covid versus year 200+ of influenza?

Its certainly misleading if not an outright bad measurement.

On your point of lockdowns somehow saving lives from influenza, the very people who are susceptible of influenza death (Old, obese, and Immunodeficient) are dying from covid instead. Which I think your chart is proving very well.

And there is the unfortunate greed factor. Hospitals certainly make more money from Federal grants per covid patient having a heart attack than someone simply having a heart attack.

I am saying that a comparison from year 1 of COVID to year 200 of influenza is more honest than a comparison from year 1 of COVID to year 199 of influenza.

As for saving lives, if it were merely that people who would have died from the flu were instead dying from COVID, we wouldn't also see significantly less cases. But we do:

https://imgur.com/4SBhcA7.png
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/

As for greed, it could be that hospitals are engaging in a national conspiracy to defraud the federal government, or it could be that you happen to be incorrect on a particular matter of fact. Which do you think is really more likely?

[caelric]

. Which do you think is really more likely?

Me personally, I think it's more likely that you are wrong about most everything you post.

[Latrinsorm]

Me personally, I think it's more likely that you are wrong about most everything you post.

I do painstakingly link sources for everything though, this is all publicly available and verifiable information.
Why would I do that if I had something to hide?
Why else would other people not do that?
Makes you wonder.