Flu deaths have never been counted in the way Covid deaths are. They are estimated through excess deaths, not if there was positive test in the last 28 days (especially not using PCR), and not because there were flulike symptoms so it was counted anyway.
If we use the same technique to count Covid as the flu, then it was just a normal flu year, with strong spikes list April and perhaps this January, but no excess overall. A Johns Hopkins researcher came to a similar conclusion, and the work was retracted because it was determined to be dangerous and not politically correct by people who want you to be afraid.
You are wrong. There are recorded actually flu deaths attest to by a doctor at time of death on a death certifiacate. There are separate codes for confirmed flu and suspected flu. These are rolled up in to a number that is tallied by the cdc and is on their website. Its around 10 or 15 thousand every year.
Then there is estimated flu deaths which is a bullshit number they propagate to goad people in to taking the vaccine. It uses alot of abusive statistical methods and assumptions to inflate a number that we already have. We have the real #of flu deaths every year.
They promote some bullshit “flu burden estimate” which is 5 times higher than the real recorded number. Google “how the CDC estimates influenza burden “ or some shit like that. Read it, its bull shit. We know the actual number of flu deaths because doctors tell us. It is probably accurate to within 5 or 10 % of real life.
What is not comparable is number of flu cases to number of covid cases because
Actual flu cases are underestimated. The cdc doesnt record every time you get the flu
Actual covid cases are overestimated because pcr is testing positive for some people that have trace amounts of sars cov 2 but not an actual infection.
This compromises other metrics like case fatality rate which is the ratio of deaths/cases— those number should not be compared between flu and covid because of inconsistent measurement of data.
I read the johns hopkins article— Briand was the analyst and she used several misleading staistics which were further distorted by the atuhor of the newsletter. There were 3 or 4 statistically naughty things she did. But the one you are talking about is this:
She argued that because of normal variations in deaths from week to week over the last several years— i.e. a frequency graph of death counts will have a roughly bell shaped curve— that weeks during the epidemic that had high number of deaths should be interpreted as normal variations, a normal distribution, because weeks that have 30 or 40% increased deaths over the average weekly deaths are predicted to occur periodically in a normal distribution.
But this is disingenuous. We had deaths between 10% and 40% over the previous average weekly death number almost every week for 46 weeks straight! That is not normal variation. That is what we call a signal change. It cant be chalked off to the random “noise” of variation, which is what she was arguing, flimflam.
See the other comment Im about to respond to which is quoting her claim about 2% increases which is also bullshit.
(post is archived)