Let's talk about how a scientist should make and then test a hypothesis. https://twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/1357804286432870400
When one makes a hypothesis, one should look for other, simpler hypotheses which could also explain the data.

In this case, perhaps one might think that the interventions done to control COVID-19 might also control influenza. Since flu has a lower R0, this might be enough.
Another thing a scientist should do is to look for other data that might refute or support the hypothesis.

In this case, perhaps one might look at countries that didn't have a large COVID-19 epidemic. For example Australia and New Zealand.
What's great about the Aus/NZ connection is

1) they've already gone over a winter during the pandemic, so we can see their flu seasons.

2) they didn't have much COVID-19, but they did have large interventions.
Since Aus/NZ had big interventions (like US/Europe) but they did not have much COVID, the two hypotheses make opposite predictions.

@MLevitt_NP2013's hypothesis implies that Aus/NZ would have normal flu seasons.

The hypothesis I suggest implies the opposite.
So, let's test the hypotheses.

Aus and NZ both had almost no flu season once the COVID response began (Aus had what looked like a large flu season gearing up).

In fact NZ's overall death rate dropped 10% below normal during their usual flu season.
Please reach your own conclusions.
But it's known that there is some short-term cross-type immunity in influenza.
You can follow @joel_c_miller.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.