eugyppius

I think I’d like someone to articulate and steelman the argument fully & carefully for me just so I can sort out in my head what it’s even meant to prove. Then maybe I can decide what to think about it. Till then it’s just disorienting

The notion is that lockdowns definitely do reduce transmission of viruses, and the proof is that flu diagnoses have been practically non-existent, the core argument being that, consequentially, lockdowns averted a1-2M death scenario. Low flu incidence is the statistical signal.

It's stupid b/c I'll bet you flu testing is below avg., & ppl who self-report flu incidences w/o a test via themselves or their physician are either calling it Covid or simply aren't reporting, and the "self/physician reports" are obv the main contributors to flu diagnosis counts

Its probably real. Cold and flu medicine sales were way down.

That's probably b/c ppl resolved themselves to the notion that those wouldn't work b/c they have Covid, and people were not going to leave their house if they were sick, which is usually when cold/flu meds are purchased--there didn't used to be stigma against this.

Is that probable or wildly speculative? People had bad cold/flu symptoms and didn't want nyquil because they assumed congestion treatment was targeted at a particular virus? Sales in late 2020 were down 46% from 2019.

Ppl weren't going out to buy congestion treatment when they had congestion for fear of transmitting to others--the reason why is hardly speculative--and ppl don't typically go buy cold/flu meds til they already have cold/flu, OR they already have it and won't leave to get more.

You think they did in fact, have the flu at the same rates as always, just bought half as much medicine while the CDC, using a completely unrelated method estimates a similar drop in flu? Seems unlikely to me, but I can't prove you're wrong.