Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Global circulation of influenza viruses in 2020

who.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: Global circulation of influenza viruses in 2020

#41

Post by throwaway2245 »

jmnicolas wrote: post #4

I can say that for march to may in France everybody that died with COVID like symptoms was counted as a COVID fatality since we didn't have enough tests. So it could very well be that many people died of the flu but were counted as COVID, we'll never know.

While testing for flu in the global sample is indeed down 21% compared to last year, positive cases are (currently) down 97%.

From their fortnightly report of 28 October 2019:

"data to FluNet for the time period from 30 September 2019 to 13 October 2019. The WHO GISRS laboratories tested more than 102881 specimens during that time period. 5005 were positive for influenza viruses"

And of 26 October 2020:

"...from 28 September 2020 to 11 October 2020. The WHO GISRS laboratories tested more than 81257 specimens during that time period. A total of 172 specimens were positive for influenza viruses"

Re: Global circulation of influenza viruses in 2020

#42

Post by dustinmoris »

ithkuil wrote: post #40
dustinmoris wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2019 graph shows nicely that the 2019/2020 flu seasons saw a lot of Influenza B cases, which was not as much present in 2018/2019. AFAIK Influenza B has always been the more severe and deadly type of the flu and to skeptics like myself this underlines even more the suspicion that we have falsly attributed a lot of deaths in our last Winter to COVID when it might have been the flu in many cases. Previous studies h…

why do you say "silly rules"? I grant that there is, in principle, a possibility that health authorities are wrong and that these rules are not necessary because the problem has been inflated as you said. Also, there is the possibility that, in principle, the rules themselves are ineffective. However, if the rules are wrong, that's even more so a problem of COVID is a real problem. If COVID has been overinflated, the…

> Is COVID a real problem?

Not to the vast majority in every age category.

I personally had COVID and it was less severe than the last time I had the flu, so why should I treat COVID different than the flu or care at all?

> Are the current rules effective?

Not in liberal democracies, that's what the data shows. If you live in an authoritarian regime where people are willing to completely give up their lives then it is effective, but at that point you might argue are they still living or just existing like zombies? In all Western nations it didn't matter if one took more stringent or more lenient actions, everyone had a first wave, everyone has a second wave. Nobody invented a testing regime, a track and trace regime which allows us to live normally, so what's the point in taking those measures when they didn't prevent a second wave for anyone?

> Colouring the rules themselves as "silly" only reveals a bias in your argument

Fair point. Young generations have been taught for many decades now that we are not in this world together. Nobody pays off your debt. Nobody else will look after your health if you don't do it yourself. Nobody will come and provide you shelter when you become homeless. Look at the most woke state in the USA - California - every woke person walks past homeless people and couldn't are less. People who claim we are in this or in anything else together are selfish afraid human beings who want to control the population out of their own fear. The notion that we are in this together is wrong and that is the education that young people have been given for many years now. This is how it was in the last economic crisis, this is how it will be in this one too. So as far as I'm concerned COVID was nothing to me and my wife and it is not a threat to our family, so why should we care any longer about this? Other people's problems is not our problem. Just like every woke Californian walks past homeless people and doesn't care, I walk past the COVID death statistics and equally don't care. Why am I the villain now?

Re: Global circulation of influenza viruses in 2020

#43

Post by Uberphallus »

cm2187 wrote: post #35
Uberphallus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check this link and have a blast[0] This year, for example in the North America region, there have been 26,000 samples for weeks 35 and 36. Around 40 positives. Last year, 27,000 in the same period. Around 1,000 positives. As I said in multiple posts already, the WHO tries to keep consistent sampling to keep the data meaningful. It's literally their job. [0] https://apps.who.int/flumart/Default?ReportNo=12

But what the parent is saying is that lots of people who have fever may be self-isolating and not seeking medical assistance thinking it is Covid (as many of the symptoms are identical), whereas they may have seen a doctor a year before. In this case, the population that doctors see that have flu-like symptoms (as opposed to other symptoms) may be less. So it doesn't matter how many samples you take in that populatio…

Again, they're independent variables.

WHO sites keep consistent testing for patients with respiratory symptoms. The same way that some flu cases may be "hidden" because people stay at home, likewise some flus that wouldn't be tested otherwise will because the patient thinks it's covid.

In any case if some hide because there's a pandemic or WW3, it doesn't matter because other patients will be part of the sample. If there's flu it will be seen, pandemic ongoing or not.

You may be interested in reading the Global Influenza Surveillance Manual[0]. Relevant info is in chapter 6, regarding sampling, in particular 6.2, in which it recommends against testing all and only those that seek medical assistance.

> Ad hoc or convenience sampling

> Sampling schemes that do not adhere to a pre-determined system are the easiest and least costly to implement but are also the most subject to bias. Differences in the health- seeking behavior of different groups and preconceived ideas about the risk of health- care providers can introduce unpredictable biases, consequently yielding patterns in the data that do not represent reality. While this approach may still yield data sufficient to identify transmission seasonality, and provide specimens for virological surveillance, it will not provide a reliable picture of the epidemiological characteristics of influenza or burden and should not be used if these are the objectives of the system.

In 6.4 it describes the systematic sampling strategies recommended, which remove the bias of the point you (and the other commenter) raised.

As described in 6.3, random sampling would be best, but also too expensive for tracking, and is only to be done by WHO sites performing some research where it would be needed.

https://www.who.int/influenza/resources/documents/INFSURVMAN...

Re: Global circulation of influenza viruses in 2020

#44

Post by chrisco255 »

kolinko wrote: post #38
dustinmoris wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2019 graph shows nicely that the 2019/2020 flu seasons saw a lot of Influenza B cases, which was not as much present in 2018/2019. AFAIK Influenza B has always been the more severe and deadly type of the flu and to skeptics like myself this underlines even more the suspicion that we have falsly attributed a lot of deaths in our last Winter to COVID when it might have been the flu in many cases. Previous studies h…

There were virtually no deaths attributed to COVID last winter - everything started in March, past the influenza peak. This winter the number of deaths from COVID will be an order of magnitude higher than the deaths from flu on an average tear. So even if we attributed every sobgle death from flu to covid, it wouldn’t change the overall picture on Covid really.

Testing didn't really start until March, so you can't possibly know the answer to that.

We're already back to average death levels (maybe even below average if the recent provisional numbers hold up):

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Click "percent of expected deaths" column to see.

We thought Covid was an order of magnitude deadlier than the flu, but it's looking more and more like that's not the case. Covid may have hit a large population of vulnerable people with weak immune systems at once, and is currently becoming less deadly as it spreads among younger, healthier populations.

Covid had the element of surprise in the spring, for both immune systems and healthcare systems. Going forward, unless it mutates into some hellish form, it's not likely to continue.

Re: Global circulation of influenza viruses in 2020

#45

Post by drivebycomment »

NoOneNew wrote: post #22

81k is kind of a shitty sample size to make a sweeping worldwide judgement for 7+billion. Next part, since the focus of 2020 was Covid testing, I'm pretty sure flu testing resources were lessened in the process, if not borderline ignored. At what point was it okay to judge a population on 0.0000001157142% sample size? While I'm not a fan of the WHO anymore, to be fair to them, where the hell do they say the flu disap…

This is a common misunderstanding of the statistics. The sample size is more a function of the target variance and the confidence level, not as much on the overall population. 81k, if picked properly, would be sufficient for their purpose.

Re: Global circulation of influenza viruses in 2020

#46

Post by plutonorm »

dustinmoris wrote: post #42
ithkuil wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why do you say "silly rules"? I grant that there is, in principle, a possibility that health authorities are wrong and that these rules are not necessary because the problem has been inflated as you said. Also, there is the possibility that, in principle, the rules themselves are ineffective. However, if the rules are wrong, that's even more so a problem of COVID is a real problem. If COVID has been overinflated, the…

> Is COVID a real problem? Not to the vast majority in every age category. I personally had COVID and it was less severe than the last time I had the flu, so why should I treat COVID different than the flu or care at all? > Are the current rules effective? Not in liberal democracies, that's what the data shows. If you live in an authoritarian regime where people are willing to completely give up their lives then it i…

Everyone with the 'I've got mine' mentality is the villain. I expect that reasoning from my 3 year old son, but my 5 yo daughter has already moved passed it. That an entire nation basis it's philosophy on that of a toddler is... Disturbing.

Re: Global circulation of influenza viruses in 2020

#47

Post by vls-xy »

dustinmoris wrote: post #42
ithkuil wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why do you say "silly rules"? I grant that there is, in principle, a possibility that health authorities are wrong and that these rules are not necessary because the problem has been inflated as you said. Also, there is the possibility that, in principle, the rules themselves are ineffective. However, if the rules are wrong, that's even more so a problem of COVID is a real problem. If COVID has been overinflated, the…

> Is COVID a real problem? Not to the vast majority in every age category. I personally had COVID and it was less severe than the last time I had the flu, so why should I treat COVID different than the flu or care at all? > Are the current rules effective? Not in liberal democracies, that's what the data shows. If you live in an authoritarian regime where people are willing to completely give up their lives then it i…

I appreciate that you elaborated on your opinion and I believe many of your points are valid. COVID is not a big threat to you and your family (based on my assumptions about you which could very well be wrong). Neither is it a big threat to me, 30 year old, healthy, single male living in Germany.

However, some of your assertions are not true. The COVID waves were vastly different in different countries across Europe, and despite Germany having elevated cases again and a second "Lockdown" the situation is nowhere near what it was in May. No constant Sirens from Ambulances (where I live), no overcrowded ICUs (some exceptions). Similarly, the lockdown proposed now is more lenient than a couple of months ago.

There is a definite talking point to be made about which rules are more effective than others and I personally would be more lenient than what my government proposes, but all in all we fared fairly well in comparison with our neighboring countries.

One point you made about a generation only caring about itself I can falsify immediately: The only reason why I am missing a basketball game with friends tonight is because I had an encounter with a positive covid case (my cousin). While I'm >99% sure I'm COVID free, I opted to argue on the internet tonight as some of my basketball peers are in a risk group (>60).

You're not the villain. I don't know you.

Re: Global circulation of influenza viruses in 2020

#48

Post by ithkuil »

dustinmoris wrote: post #42
ithkuil wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why do you say "silly rules"? I grant that there is, in principle, a possibility that health authorities are wrong and that these rules are not necessary because the problem has been inflated as you said. Also, there is the possibility that, in principle, the rules themselves are ineffective. However, if the rules are wrong, that's even more so a problem of COVID is a real problem. If COVID has been overinflated, the…

> Is COVID a real problem? Not to the vast majority in every age category. I personally had COVID and it was less severe than the last time I had the flu, so why should I treat COVID different than the flu or care at all? > Are the current rules effective? Not in liberal democracies, that's what the data shows. If you live in an authoritarian regime where people are willing to completely give up their lives then it i…

> Young generations have been taught for many decades now that we are not in this world together. Nobody pays off your debt. Nobody else will look after your health if you don't do it yourself. Nobody will come and provide you shelter when you become homeless

You picked some extreme examples. We are in this world together. It's called a society. It's unfair, it's cruel, it's skewed, but to imply everybody is completely on their own is disillusioned. Humans cooperate. Not always willingly, but effectively. This is how we prospered for millennia and occupied every corner of the globe. You're sharing your thoughts now thanks to cooperative work by countless people who built the information age.

Thinking you can lift yourself up from your bootstraps and only think for yourself is ignoring how interconnected the society where you live is.

Pointing out extreme cases where people put a limit to their compassion doesn't change the fact that you do owe your successes in your life also to the effort of others you have never met.

Post reply on HN