Can you? What I can see is a rhetorical headline-- referring to a drastic dip as the disease 'vanishing'. Yet in a very literal sense, it absolutely did not vanish, and people continued to catch it.Can you not read? The flu literally vanished.
You'll notice I provided two data points: one for the first half of 2020, and one for 2021.I said the 2020-21 flu season. That data would be from the 2019-2020 flu season. Covid came in about March-ish so you had some normal flu activity in the beginning of 2020.
For one thing, Sweden didn't do nothing. It implemented measures later than most other countries, but it didn't just sit on its hands.But but but the covid lockdowns and restrictions, did those not work? Wouldn't mismanagement of doing that result in better results than Sweden not literally doing anything? What about that "rule of six"? Did that not work? Nor did it make any sense...
Secondly, a mismanaged approach can indeed be worse than a minimalist approach. The UK's mismanagement was severe.
Thirdly, how many excess deaths it had will be the result of myriad factors. One will be the public health policy, but one will also be the relative severity of the pandemic. The UK had more to deal with.
A 10% reduction on 100,000 is a better mitigation than a 5% reduction on 20,000, even though 90,000 is a higher number than 19,000.
In my... source about the UK's influenza uptick after covid? Why would it be there? Are you capable of looking up anything yourself, or just incessantly demanding stats that you then refuse to accept?I control-Fed "sweden" and nothing was in there.
K. If you want to argue against your own source, leave me out of it.Just because they said that doesn't make it true
Compared to the UK's baseline. So it was another source of higher excess deaths during that year. This is all clear if you actually read the posts.That's the point, I was using the numbers as an example. Does the UK normally have 25% more cold deaths than Sweden? Or did the UK have 25% more than their normal compared to Sweden?