The Repackaged Illness

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So there are two problems here. They can't explain the significant reduction and they are unable to provide estimates for 2020/21 which is strange by their own standards. Epidemiology is based on estimates and statistics and not on confirmed cases.

They have several possible explanations, but they can't confirm which on is correct.

From a statistical perspective, the truth is probably simply that people who got the flu stayed home, so their flu never made it into the data set.

No conspiracy, just people staying home.

I haven't argued in favour of conspiracies but their numbers are indeed strange and unexplained.

If one argues that the very low number of infections is due to the cheap masks and flu shots then that cannot be justified especially with a percentage decrease of over 98.7%

The explanation 'we cannot provide estimates for the 2020/21 season due to low influenza activity' is inadequate and also doesn't even agree with your own interpretation that people who got the flu simply stayed at home.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The cost of washing your hands more often is negligible, and the cost of wearing a mask is that you look a little silly.

I don't know what the cost to you of being sick in bed for a couple of days is, but it's probably more than both of the above.

Standing 2 meters away from people also has minimal cost. Certainly less than missing a couple of shifts for the average Joe.

Beyond that you need to start asking who the cost is to, and whether you're measuring young people sick in bed, or old people dead as an alternative. Or the cost to businesses.

Where I live the lockdown measures were meant to protect institutions as much as people. We only have so many critical care facilities and we needed to prevent them from being overwhelmed. So my government had to factor the cost of businesses collapsing against the cost of the critical care system collapsing, and the system won out in the end.

This was widely considered the best of two bad situations by the public here.

What was the cost to you personally?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

If one argues that the very low number of infections is due to the cheap masks and flu shots then that cannot be justified especially with a percentage decrease of over 98.7%

What if the answer is that there wasn't a 98 percent drop, just a 30 or 40 percent drop, and the rest is simply lack of reporting?

Don't forget that it's not just masks, it's social distancing, hand washing and the fact that we all stayed home for 6 months.

During that entire year I didn't go on a single train or subway, ever. Not once. Imagine how many people with the flu I was exposed to.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: ScepticScot

The cost of washing your hands more often is negligible, and the cost of wearing a mask is that you look a little silly.

I don't know what the cost to you of being sick in bed for a couple of days is, but it's probably more than both of the above.

Standing 2 meters away from people also has minimal cost. Certainly less than missing a couple of shifts for the average Joe.

Beyond that you need to start asking who the cost is to, and whether you're measuring young people sick in bed, or old people dead as an alternative. Or the cost to businesses.

Where I live the lockdown measures were meant to protect institutions as much as people. We only have so many critical care facilities and we needed to prevent them from being overwhelmed. So my government had to factor the cost of businesses collapsing against the cost of the critical care system collapsing, and the system won out in the end.

This was widely considered the best of two bad situations by the public here.

What was the cost to you personally?

By the way, lockdowns are not the topic of the conversation, but they have been debunked long time ago. Only crazies believe in them and those who like the Chinese regime...

It's like arguing that you wear a cheap mask and this will have a massive impact in the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the flu.

Same as if you wear green shoes...

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

If one argues that the very low number of infections is due to the cheap masks and flu shots then that cannot be justified especially with a percentage decrease of over 98.7%

What if the answer is that there wasn't a 98 percent drop, just a 30 or 40 percent drop, and the rest is simply lack of reporting?

Don't forget that it's not just masks, it's social distancing, hand washing and the fact that we all stayed home for 6 months.

During that entire year I didn't go on a single train or subway, ever. Not once. Imagine how many people with the flu I was exposed to.

Equally, as these numbers are still massive and need to be qualified and shown to be true. Having a 40% is still a huge decrease.

The CDC has given an estimated of 36 million infections for 2019/20 and couldn't give a single figure for 2020/21. Why?? Maybe because they cannot as they either think it's too low or something else could be going on.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Well washing your hands is frankly just good manners.

All the meaures have a cost. For example keeping a distance sounds easy but will limit capacity for businesses.

As a short term measure to deal with a new virus I supported the measures.

That is different from saying they should all be the new normal to deal with flu,the point networkdude was making (I assume ironically).

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: ScepticScot

The cost of washing your hands more often is negligible, and the cost of wearing a mask is that you look a little silly.

I don't know what the cost to you of being sick in bed for a couple of days is, but it's probably more than both of the above.

Standing 2 meters away from people also has minimal cost. Certainly less than missing a couple of shifts for the average Joe.

Beyond that you need to start asking who the cost is to, and whether you're measuring young people sick in bed, or old people dead as an alternative. Or the cost to businesses.

Where I live the lockdown measures were meant to protect institutions as much as people. We only have so many critical care facilities and we needed to prevent them from being overwhelmed. So my government had to factor the cost of businesses collapsing against the cost of the critical care system collapsing, and the system won out in the end.

This was widely considered the best of two bad situations by the public here.

What was the cost to you personally?

By the way, lockdowns are the not the topic of the conversation, but they have been debunked long time ago. Only crazies believe in them and those who like the Chinese regime...

It's like arguing that you wear a cheap mask and this will have a massive impact in the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the flu.

Same as if you wear green shoes...

Again you seem confused with the difference between your opinion and facts.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: ScepticScot

The cost of washing your hands more often is negligible, and the cost of wearing a mask is that you look a little silly.

I don't know what the cost to you of being sick in bed for a couple of days is, but it's probably more than both of the above.

Standing 2 meters away from people also has minimal cost. Certainly less than missing a couple of shifts for the average Joe.

Beyond that you need to start asking who the cost is to, and whether you're measuring young people sick in bed, or old people dead as an alternative. Or the cost to businesses.

Where I live the lockdown measures were meant to protect institutions as much as people. We only have so many critical care facilities and we needed to prevent them from being overwhelmed. So my government had to factor the cost of businesses collapsing against the cost of the critical care system collapsing, and the system won out in the end.

This was widely considered the best of two bad situations by the public here.

What was the cost to you personally?

By the way, lockdowns are the not the topic of the conversation, but they have been debunked long time ago. Only crazies believe in them and those who like the Chinese regime...

It's like arguing that you wear a cheap mask and this will have a massive impact in the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the flu.

Same as if you wear green shoes...

Again you seem confused with the difference between your opinion and facts.

I wouldn't think so.
I am quite good.

I am not the one who claims that there would be a massive reduction in flu cases when we wear cheap masks and take flu shots or stand 2 metres apart from each other as if were to maintain the same distance for 24hours a day without coming to closer proximity...

I am sure you did support the lockdowns and other restrictions but so do many other from a...left wing background. You see left wing activism isn't compatible with science.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: ScepticScot

The cost of washing your hands more often is negligible, and the cost of wearing a mask is that you look a little silly.

I don't know what the cost to you of being sick in bed for a couple of days is, but it's probably more than both of the above.

Standing 2 meters away from people also has minimal cost. Certainly less than missing a couple of shifts for the average Joe.

Beyond that you need to start asking who the cost is to, and whether you're measuring young people sick in bed, or old people dead as an alternative. Or the cost to businesses.

Where I live the lockdown measures were meant to protect institutions as much as people. We only have so many critical care facilities and we needed to prevent them from being overwhelmed. So my government had to factor the cost of businesses collapsing against the cost of the critical care system collapsing, and the system won out in the end.

This was widely considered the best of two bad situations by the public here.

What was the cost to you personally?

By the way, lockdowns are the not the topic of the conversation, but they have been debunked long time ago. Only crazies believe in them and those who like the Chinese regime...

It's like arguing that you wear a cheap mask and this will have a massive impact in the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the flu.

Same as if you wear green shoes...

Again you seem confused with the difference between your opinion and facts.

I wouldn't think so.
I am quite good.

I am not the one who claims that there would be a massive reduction in flu cases when we wear cheap masks and take flu shots or stand 2 metres apart from each other as if were to maintain the same distance for 24hours a day without coming to closer proximity...

I am sure you did support the lockdowns and other restrictions but so do many other from a...left wing background. You see left wing activism isn't compatible with science.

I am saying the evidence supports that. Certainly more than flu being covid.

Yes I keep forgetting how its overwhelmingly left wing posters on this site who disagree with scientific consensus.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: ScepticScot

The cost of washing your hands more often is negligible, and the cost of wearing a mask is that you look a little silly.

I don't know what the cost to you of being sick in bed for a couple of days is, but it's probably more than both of the above.

Standing 2 meters away from people also has minimal cost. Certainly less than missing a couple of shifts for the average Joe.

Beyond that you need to start asking who the cost is to, and whether you're measuring young people sick in bed, or old people dead as an alternative. Or the cost to businesses.

Where I live the lockdown measures were meant to protect institutions as much as people. We only have so many critical care facilities and we needed to prevent them from being overwhelmed. So my government had to factor the cost of businesses collapsing against the cost of the critical care system collapsing, and the system won out in the end.

This was widely considered the best of two bad situations by the public here.

What was the cost to you personally?

By the way, lockdowns are the not the topic of the conversation, but they have been debunked long time ago. Only crazies believe in them and those who like the Chinese regime...

It's like arguing that you wear a cheap mask and this will have a massive impact in the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the flu.

Same as if you wear green shoes...

Again you seem confused with the difference between your opinion and facts.

I wouldn't think so.
I am quite good.

I am not the one who claims that there would be a massive reduction in flu cases when we wear cheap masks and take flu shots or stand 2 metres apart from each other as if were to maintain the same distance for 24hours a day without coming to closer proximity...

I am sure you did support the lockdowns and other restrictions but so do many other from a...left wing background. You see left wing activism isn't compatible with science.

I am saying the evidence supports that. Certainly more than flu being covid.

Yes I keep forgetting how its overwhelmingly left wing posters on this site who disagree with scientific consensus.

This doesn't change the fact that left wing activism is incompatible with science.

I don't know why you present your opinions on scientific matters as scientific consensus. When you do this then everyone else disagrees with you. It's more than obvious.

And when you argue that by wearing cheap masks and take flu shots or stand 2 metres apart could prevent significantly transmission and infection to the point is reduced by over 98.7% then you are not going to find any allies on this matter.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: ScepticScot

The cost of washing your hands more often is negligible, and the cost of wearing a mask is that you look a little silly.

I don't know what the cost to you of being sick in bed for a couple of days is, but it's probably more than both of the above.

Standing 2 meters away from people also has minimal cost. Certainly less than missing a couple of shifts for the average Joe.

Beyond that you need to start asking who the cost is to, and whether you're measuring young people sick in bed, or old people dead as an alternative. Or the cost to businesses.

Where I live the lockdown measures were meant to protect institutions as much as people. We only have so many critical care facilities and we needed to prevent them from being overwhelmed. So my government had to factor the cost of businesses collapsing against the cost of the critical care system collapsing, and the system won out in the end.

This was widely considered the best of two bad situations by the public here.

What was the cost to you personally?

By the way, lockdowns are the not the topic of the conversation, but they have been debunked long time ago. Only crazies believe in them and those who like the Chinese regime...

It's like arguing that you wear a cheap mask and this will have a massive impact in the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the flu.

Same as if you wear green shoes...

Again you seem confused with the difference between your opinion and facts.

I wouldn't think so.
I am quite good.

I am not the one who claims that there would be a massive reduction in flu cases when we wear cheap masks and take flu shots or stand 2 metres apart from each other as if were to maintain the same distance for 24hours a day without coming to closer proximity...

I am sure you did support the lockdowns and other restrictions but so do many other from a...left wing background. You see left wing activism isn't compatible with science.

I am saying the evidence supports that. Certainly more than flu being covid.

Yes I keep forgetting how its overwhelmingly left wing posters on this site who disagree with scientific consensus.

This doesn't change the fact that left wing activism is incompatible with science.

I don't know why you present your opinions on scientific matters as scientific consensus. When you do this then everyone else disagrees with you. It's more than obvious.

And when you argue that by wearing cheap masks and take flu shots or stand 2 metres apart could prevent significantly transmission and infection to the point is reduced by over 98.7% then you are not going to find any allies on this matter.

Well most of us are not wearing masks, getting vaccinations nor standing far apart and the children's hospitals are full. EDIT: not full, overflowing.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again you seem confused by difference between your opinion and fact.

I am not offering my opinion as anything other than my opinion. You on the other hand have repeatedly offered your opinion as 'everyone knows' or similar.

If you think majority opinion on an anonymous conspiracy site is an indication of anything then you are even more delusional.

You can keep repeating the same nonsense about what I apparently believe. The only thing it's is highlighting is your lack of understanding.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: ScepticScot

just check the CDC numbers mate .

for the most part they corroborate the OP's chart.

The FLU numbers from 2019 to 2021 took a sharp drop off and the Covid-19 numbers picked up the slack .

Didn't deny flu numbers reduced drastically. It would have been more surprising if they didn't.

That doesn't change that the figures in the OP are highly misleading and that the covid is really flu theory is one of the most stupid of all the covid conspiracy theories.

The theory from some is that the Flu disappeared and that seems really strange knowing at the beginning, everything was covid even without a test. At this stage it's data gathering and trying to comprehend if what is reported is possible, or bullsh!t.

But I am curious as to why you feel flu numbers would have had to go down. Please explain that.

Reasons already given.

The whole range of measures to reduce the spread of covid would have an impact on the spread of other viruses as well.

That's not believable and especially when the reduction in cases is massive. In the year 2020/21 there were 1,657 confirmed cases. If you want to increase this number and make an estimate it will still be in their thousands. This is extremely low and the CDC describes it as 'unusually low'. That is down from an average of 39.67 million estimated cases in the last 3 years.

The percentage decrease in the summer of flu cases is over 99.99% and the cheap masks together with the social distancing cannot achieve such results unless someone is naive or stupid to believe such claims.

See post above.

While there is a dramatic decline you are comparing two different figures.

then you provide the data. Show us where this is wrong.

This has been covered. its 2 different metrics.

See even asmodeus post, he gets it.

There is some issue here as to who gets what. The CDC provided only the number of confirmed cases for 2020/21 and not the estimated ones. I had to do the math for the estimated ones but even in this case the percentage reduction is 98.725%

Network dude said 99% and he isn't that far away.

Now if you also claim that you are a mathematics expert of an expert in biology let us know. I don't think you have any expertise in either of these two subjects

He didnt say 99% in the post I replied to and I said nothing about what the % was. So apparently I can read at least...

Scott, you have proven to be a maths person. I'm actually trying to understand this, and will likely do a lengthy thread today. But if I'm going to present your side of this, I really need to know your side with regard to the data. So if you could please confirm or deny the data presented, and state your position based on the data.

The data shows that there is a large decrease in the number of flu cases. It's not as large as the OP suggests but still a major decrease.

This data is pretty consistent across different countries that applied similar measures.

There is a logical mechanism to explain how these case numbers would be reduced by these measures.

Other viruses have also had lower case numbers over the same period.

There may well be factors involved in the decrease as well.

None of that offers any evidence that flu has been relabelled as covid.

That is a summary of my position.

I don't understand how you can make that assertion without verifiable data? You say that data is wrong, but then make a proclamation based on something, I can only assume is that same data. Or do you have better numbers?

I said the data used in the OP is wrong as its comparing two different things.

We know that the actual lab results declined massively so I am not disputing that there where less flu cases*

* unless someone can show a plausible reason why less positive results. In which case it still doesn't support the claim of this thread.

I'm not so interested in the claim of the thread, as I am to get verifiable numbers, What you don't seem to grasp is that if all this is true, we have the tools to remove the flu from our worries. And we can save millions of lives around the globe. set aside your ego for a second and think of the bigger picture.

Well I think the topic of the thread is probably relevant while on this thread.

We could end road traffic deaths by setting the speed limit at 1mph and making people wear bubbles wrap when leaving the house.

All things have an opportunity cost.

Now we are getting somewhere, you see masking as equal to being forced to drive 1 mph. A nuisance we just cannot live with.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Been saying it since the beginning, Covid is just the flu rebranded. Covid showed up and the flu magically disappeared. If you listen to the idiots, they will tell you that random pieces of cloth placed over faces prevented the flu from spreading. Yet many of us never wore the mask because we have basic common sense and did actual research unlike these so called “medical experts”. Funny how we always would catch them not following their own guidelines.

Covid was all about power and control. It’s still being used in that manner today.

I don't disagree with this.

Here's my story: I had not been to a doctor since 1998. I had to get the vaccine because the school I teach at wanted to let the community know that all faculty and staff was vaccinated. After getting the vaccine, I ended up in the ICU for nine weeks and almost died. The doctors even brought my wife and children to say "goodbye". It was terrible, and I still have nightmares.

The narrative that the media puts out about the effectiveness of vaccines is, at best, misconstrued, and at worst, fatal.

I was lucky to have it only be misconstrued.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So there are two problems here. They can't explain the significant reduction and they are unable to provide estimates for 2020/21 which is strange by their own standards. Epidemiology is based on estimates and statistics and not on confirmed cases.

They have several possible explanations, but they can't confirm which on is correct.

From a statistical perspective, the truth is probably simply that people who got the flu stayed home, so their flu never made it into the data set.

No conspiracy, just people staying home.

again, this one fascinates me. In your wisdom, you feel that people were able to differentiate between flu and Covid, when the symptoms are almost identical, one stayed home, and the other went screaming to the ER for a test. You should alert someone to study your brain when you die.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: ScepticScot

just check the CDC numbers mate .

for the most part they corroborate the OP's chart.

The FLU numbers from 2019 to 2021 took a sharp drop off and the Covid-19 numbers picked up the slack .

Didn't deny flu numbers reduced drastically. It would have been more surprising if they didn't.

That doesn't change that the figures in the OP are highly misleading and that the covid is really flu theory is one of the most stupid of all the covid conspiracy theories.

The theory from some is that the Flu disappeared and that seems really strange knowing at the beginning, everything was covid even without a test. At this stage it's data gathering and trying to comprehend if what is reported is possible, or bullsh!t.

But I am curious as to why you feel flu numbers would have had to go down. Please explain that.

Reasons already given.

The whole range of measures to reduce the spread of covid would have an impact on the spread of other viruses as well.

That's not believable and especially when the reduction in cases is massive. In the year 2020/21 there were 1,657 confirmed cases. If you want to increase this number and make an estimate it will still be in their thousands. This is extremely low and the CDC describes it as 'unusually low'. That is down from an average of 39.67 million estimated cases in the last 3 years.

The percentage decrease in the summer of flu cases is over 99.99% and the cheap masks together with the social distancing cannot achieve such results unless someone is naive or stupid to believe such claims.

See post above.

While there is a dramatic decline you are comparing two different figures.

then you provide the data. Show us where this is wrong.

This has been covered. its 2 different metrics.

See even asmodeus post, he gets it.

There is some issue here as to who gets what. The CDC provided only the number of confirmed cases for 2020/21 and not the estimated ones. I had to do the math for the estimated ones but even in this case the percentage reduction is 98.725%

Network dude said 99% and he isn't that far away.

Now if you also claim that you are a mathematics expert of an expert in biology let us know. I don't think you have any expertise in either of these two subjects

He didnt say 99% in the post I replied to and I said nothing about what the % was. So apparently I can read at least...

Scott, you have proven to be a maths person. I'm actually trying to understand this, and will likely do a lengthy thread today. But if I'm going to present your side of this, I really need to know your side with regard to the data. So if you could please confirm or deny the data presented, and state your position based on the data.

The data shows that there is a large decrease in the number of flu cases. It's not as large as the OP suggests but still a major decrease.

This data is pretty consistent across different countries that applied similar measures.

There is a logical mechanism to explain how these case numbers would be reduced by these measures.

Other viruses have also had lower case numbers over the same period.

There may well be factors involved in the decrease as well.

None of that offers any evidence that flu has been relabelled as covid.

That is a summary of my position.

I don't understand how you can make that assertion without verifiable data? You say that data is wrong, but then make a proclamation based on something, I can only assume is that same data. Or do you have better numbers?

I said the data used in the OP is wrong as its comparing two different things.

We know that the actual lab results declined massively so I am not disputing that there where less flu cases*

* unless someone can show a plausible reason why less positive results. In which case it still doesn't support the claim of this thread.

I'm not so interested in the claim of the thread, as I am to get verifiable numbers, What you don't seem to grasp is that if all this is true, we have the tools to remove the flu from our worries. And we can save millions of lives around the globe. set aside your ego for a second and think of the bigger picture.

Well I think the topic of the thread is probably relevant while on this thread.

We could end road traffic deaths by setting the speed limit at 1mph and making people wear bubbles wrap when leaving the house.

All things have an opportunity cost.

Now we are getting somewhere, you see masking as equal to being forced to drive 1 mph. A nuisance we just cannot live with.

I refer you to my answer to Zombie.

Do I think masks are appropriate as a short term measure to deal with a new virus. Absolutely.

Do I think they should be a continual norm for seasonal viruses. No.

And was your flag count a bit low this month that you have spun off this conversation into a new thread?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again you seem confused by difference between your opinion and fact.

I am not offering my opinion as anything other than my opinion. You on the other hand gave repeatedly offered your option as 'everyone knows' or similar.

If you think majority opinion on an anonymous conspiracy site is an indication of anything then you are even more delusional.

You can keep repeating the same nonsense about what I apparently believe. The only thing it's is highlighting is your lack of understanding.

You seem to believe in matters when discussing science and this is a no-go area.

You do believe, as it seems, that by wearing cheap masks and by keeping two metres apart from each other or by taking the flu shots will have a massive impact in the amount of flu infections to the point where they are reduced by 98.7%. But that's a belief based on nothing else other than personal opinion. The CDC itself cannot explain it either.

I think even Mr Zombies understand this matter much better than you.

This is indeed an anonymous site which on occasions entertain 'conspiracy' theories. For example the theory that SARS-CoV-2 came from the lab. I think a lot now arguing the same and is no longer on the 'conspiracy' theories realm but rather than a real possibility also entertain by several scientists and the US Senate Committee.

If you think this site isn't for you or is only for conspiracy theorists then nobody keeps you here.
By the way, it seems you are engaging in one of them at the moment! As you arguing that by wearing cheap masks and other ineffective measures magically flu dissapeared...

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: ScepticScot

The cost of washing your hands more often is negligible, and the cost of wearing a mask is that you look a little silly.

I don't know what the cost to you of being sick in bed for a couple of days is, but it's probably more than both of the above.

Standing 2 meters away from people also has minimal cost. Certainly less than missing a couple of shifts for the average Joe.

Beyond that you need to start asking who the cost is to, and whether you're measuring young people sick in bed, or old people dead as an alternative. Or the cost to businesses.

Where I live the lockdown measures were meant to protect institutions as much as people. We only have so many critical care facilities and we needed to prevent them from being overwhelmed. So my government had to factor the cost of businesses collapsing against the cost of the critical care system collapsing, and the system won out in the end.

This was widely considered the best of two bad situations by the public here.

What was the cost to you personally?

By the way, lockdowns are the not the topic of the conversation, but they have been debunked long time ago. Only crazies believe in them and those who like the Chinese regime...

It's like arguing that you wear a cheap mask and this will have a massive impact in the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the flu.

Same as if you wear green shoes...

Again you seem confused with the difference between your opinion and facts.

I wouldn't think so.
I am quite good.

I am not the one who claims that there would be a massive reduction in flu cases when we wear cheap masks and take flu shots or stand 2 metres apart from each other as if were to maintain the same distance for 24hours a day without coming to closer proximity...

I am sure you did support the lockdowns and other restrictions but so do many other from a...left wing background. You see left wing activism isn't compatible with science.

I am saying the evidence supports that. Certainly more than flu being covid.

Yes I keep forgetting how its overwhelmingly left wing posters on this site who disagree with scientific consensus.

This doesn't change the fact that left wing activism is incompatible with science.

I don't know why you present your opinions on scientific matters as scientific consensus. When you do this then everyone else disagrees with you. It's more than obvious.

And when you argue that by wearing cheap masks and take flu shots or stand 2 metres apart could prevent significantly transmission and infection to the point is reduced by over 98.7% then you are not going to find any allies on this matter.

Well most of us are not wearing masks, getting vaccinations nor standing far apart and the children's hospitals are full. EDIT: not full, overflowing.

Covid was lest aggressive towards children. RSV on the other hand is more aggressive toward children. Are kids in the hospitals now due to covid or RSV?

a reply to: network dude

I'll take RSV for 500 Alex...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again you seem confused by difference between your opinion and fact.

I am not offering my opinion as anything other than my opinion. You on the other hand gave repeatedly offered your option as 'everyone knows' or similar.

If you think majority opinion on an anonymous conspiracy site is an indication of anything then you are even more delusional.

You can keep repeating the same nonsense about what I apparently believe. The only thing it's is highlighting is your lack of understanding.

You seem to believe in matters when discussing science and this is a no-go area.

You do believe, as it seems, that by wearing cheap masks and by keeping two metres apart from each other or by taking the flu shots will have a massive impact in the amount of flu infections to the point where they are reduced by 98.7%. But that's a belief based on nothing else other than personal opinion. The CDC itself cannot explain it either.

I think even Mr Zombies understand this matter much better than you.

This is indeed an anonymous site which on occasions entertain 'conspiracy' theories. For example the theory that SARS-CoV-2 came from the lab. I think a lot now arguing the same and is no longer on the 'conspiracy' theories realm but rather than a real possibility also entertain by several scientists and the US Senate Committee.

If you think this site isn't for you or is only for conspiracy theorists then nobody keeps you here.
By the way, it seems you are engaging in one of them at the moment! As you arguing that by wearing cheap masks and other ineffective measures magically flu dissapeared...

I think thej evidence of what happened in 2020/21 supports the opinion that masks etc reduce the number of cases.

You are the one claiming these measures are ineffective without evidence.