99% drop in flu rates, 7000% increase in Covid 19 infections, what gives?

Not necessarily.

Analogy: masks and distancing -> building a 4ft fence to keep dogs out. Flu is a terrier, Covid is a greyhound.

The 4ft fence might keep out 99% of terriers but only 50% of greyhounds.

Faster, not necessarily further. The reproduction rate and timing of symptom onset w.r.t infectiousness is more important.

Also, that was written in March 2020 so does not account for the increased transmissibility of alpha and then delta.

The body recognises flu' even if some people need an immune boost to fight it better; COVID was novel.

The claim that masks and social distancing have temporarily eliminated influenza is not believable.

Social distancing was only barely known before last year. It was modelled on influenza pandemics in a handful of obscure studies. None of these studies reported that social distancing eliminated flu (which can't be eliminated, temporarily or permanently). That has never sat right with me, its the most obviously phony thing I've heard in the last two years and that's saying something.

So there must be another explanation.

One possible explanation is that flu cases are being counted as covid cases. (Vehemently denied but possible.)

Another explanation I've seen, is that they aren't being counted as covid cases deliberately but rather that since there is a lot of cross immunity between respiratory positive stranded RNA viruses, and they all interbreed, exchange genetic material indiscriminately, there is no way to make a definite distinction between them - i.e. influenza cases are being counted as covid cases and vice versa because they lack very sharp distinguishing characteristics.

No idea if this is true, I don't have the background to vouch for it. It sounds more true to me than 'We have totally eliminated influenza comrade with the masking and distancing of our citizens' explanation.

@Arbitrary 'Thinking logically, the safety measures taken thus far should show the same results as we are seeing in flu cases. Something stinks and my spidey senses are tingling.'

Most people seem to have sworn an oath to defend these 'measures' despite knowing little about them. Note: understanding and finding intuitively satisfying the simple cause-and-effect logic of social distancing isn't what I mean by knowing about something.

As I've said social distancing was an obscure, hypothetical, unvalidated epidemic model - modelled on influenza pandemics. Rolling it out throughout the whole world simultaneously was, and must have been, to a large extent arbitrary.

To then claim, without strong evidence or proof, that it has led to the total (temporary) elimination of influenza is not believable, though of course you can believe it if you want to.

Finally, the ordinary people who are sworn to defend these measures will makes appeals to authority (credentialism and 'official' scientific position) and obscurantism and then get angry if you're still not on board.

@[Deleted User] 'It’s been sad to see once rational posters on this topic descend to full on baseless conspiracy.'

Well not quite. I've presented two possible alternative explanations, one of which would be deliberate lying ('conspiracy').

I don't even consider that likely, I just never rule out lying because of how human nature is.

I still don't find the 'reduced opportunity for spreading' explanation likely or convincing.

@Arbitrary 'Then why have flu rates plummeted across the Western Hemisphere which has coincided with people wearing masks?'

I've already provided my reasoning, which doesn't depend on the correlation of mask-wearing being a factor. Nor does the rest of your post contradict what I've written.

Lol

This standard-issue explanation has been doing the rounds for six months.

The second alternative explanation I offered was also hypothesised by a professional scientist.

I can't believe you started a thread asking for explanations and then immediately turned around and did an appeal to authority I-trust-the-experts-thanks.

So you're not willing even in theory to consider answers to your OP?

You're a scam. Thanks for wasting everyone's time. Close this non-thread.

I don't demand the thread be closed, I just see that you are a wind-up merchant so I say 'Close this muck'.

You ask for discussion but then won't accept it.

But whatever leave it open it makes no difference.

I'm gone. Bye.

How can a hypothesis be 'misinformation'? It isn't information, it's a hypothesis.

You can examine it, think about it. Maybe it's wrong or maybe one of the assumptions behind it is wrong.

Don't spew robot words at me like 'misinformation'.

As for my dissatisfaction with the standard explanation, that's my opinion. It feels intuitively wrong. I thought that's what the OP was saying as well.

If *no one* is prepared to consider any other possibility, even in theory, then I might as well be writing in my diary or talking to myself.

But this isn't much of a discussion. Basically it a restatement of a standardised taking point re the 'disappearance' of influenza.

I find it hard to believe the OP hadn't heard the 'official' explanation already. He produced it instantly the moment he got a different answer.

So we'll done chaps. Keep repeating to each other the same single talking point you're already familiar with. Thread of the year.