Vaccine thread

[Cerridwen]

51 minutes ago, Whorvat said:

Will start off by stating that I hope your family and you make a full recovery, with no long lasting effects.

 

Following that, do you -actually- think a current covid booster shot would have prevented you from getting covid? 

 

4 1/2 years.... 54 months... 1620 days... and you still believe that the vaccines are effective? 

 

Let me begin by saying thank you for the well wishes. As horrible and wretched as we feel, our primary concern is for our elderly mother. You are most kind.

 

The COVID vaccines were NEVER about PREVENTING getting COVID  but about knocking down the devastating, land-you-in-hospital-on-a-ventilator-in-ICU-for-weeks TO manageable, able-to-stay-home-to-recover-with-less-long-term-effects proportions. I'm sorry that you have allowed yourself to remain so uneducated, for so long,  in this department despite the many attempts of others to enlighten you and share this knowledge with you.

 

My ire (anger and rage) at getting COVID all this time later is due to one old feckin' fart on a bus in the seat behind me refusing to wear a mask when obviously ill as he was hacking up a lung, sneezing his virus-laden spew everywhere. 

We were on a very crowded, full bus moving us around a train derailment in Alberta...so it's not like any of us could change seats. It's the selfishness of obviously ill people and their lack of consideration for others that pisses me off especially when I, my sister and our Mom have done everything possible for  the last  4 1/2 years to avoid being infected. 

 

I am SO grateful that all 3 of us are vaxxed and boostered or we could  well be on our way to hospital and ICU with  our names on a ventilator waiting. As horrible as we"re feeling right now, at least it's not the 1000x worse it COULD be had we not ensured that our Vax and boosters are all up to date.

 

My thanks, if you've hung in to read this far.

 

 

Edited June 5 by Cerridwen
Spelling

[UncleBen]

On 6/4/2024 at 3:53 PM, Satchmo said:

Next time we are faced with a new, unknown, fast-evolving pathogen that is quickly unfolding in real time while killing people in their millions world wide we can put you in charge.  That way we will know there won't be any missteps along the way. 

 

 

Dinner is ready..Come and get it ! I know you will !

Edited June 6 by UncleBen

[bolt]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Canada_sub/s/1LCFe3QR6H

[Satchmo]

10 hours ago, UncleBen said:

Dinner is ready..Come and get it ! I know you will !

This assumption of knowing exactly what I'm gong to do is just another example of statements made with no proof.

[DrJockitch]

20 hours ago, Whorvat said:

Will start off by stating that I hope your family and you make a full recovery, with no long lasting effects.

 

Following that, do you -actually- think a current covid booster shot would have prevented you from getting covid? 

 

4 1/2 years.... 54 months... 1620 days... and you still believe that the vaccines are effective? 

This synthesized online persona would be a really an interesting offshoot of the always popular Invincible ignorance fallacy if I didn't think it was being done specifically as part of a misinformation campaign.

Hard to say these days as the right wing agitators have latched on to all the misinformation as if it is fact and so many do the work of the Chinese and Russian misinformation farms for them, it truly is the cheapest way to destabilize societies and governments. 

 

41/2 years in, yes we can conclusively say that the vaccines are very effective.  More so we can conclusively say that the internet is a cesspool of directed misinformation and angry fools willing to spread it.

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

41 minutes ago, bolt said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Canada_sub/s/1LCFe3QR6H

Well, anyone want to guess what Bolts reddit username is, lol?

 

Also, why is the history of all of these experts trotted out by the anti-vaxxers so rife with controversy? 

Edited June 6 by JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

[DSVII]

5 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Well, anyone want to guess what Bolts reddit username is, lol?

 

Also, why is the history of all of these experts trotted out by the anti-vaxxers so rife with controversy? 

 

Browsing that astro-turfed anti Canadian sub is not good for your mental health and well being. (at one point it was shown that 95% of the topics came from 4 accounts, with 3 of the 4 accounts being the mod of the sub)

 

Reddit's completely enshittified. 

[Satchmo]

I'm in full agreement that Reddit is a cesspool of disinformation, misinformation, and speculation.

 

None of that negates the fact that Redfield said what he said.  The guy has been wrong before and I'm sure he'll be wrong again. (See his siding up to Evangelicals during the AIDS crisis.) He's retired and perhaps wants to pad his retirement income with speaking tours and book sales.  Where was his whistle in 2020?  I can't recall him blowing it then.

 

For one thing he's fully convinced Covid came from a lab.  Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.   But I think anyone who thinks they know its' origin beyond a shadow of a doubt is a fool.

 

I notice it's June 6th.  Perhaps we could all discuss the missteps taken on D Day.   There were many.  Seems to me we won the war though. 

[JIAHN]

On 6/5/2024 at 2:08 AM, Xanlet said:

You presuppose that just "doing something" protects people. Any given measure should already have data backing it, just because a novel virus causes a pandemic does not mean we have zero information about how transmission works and what measures actually prevent it.

 

In my opinion, we should be more like Sweden next time around. Here is a good overview which notes that "Sweden was among the few countries that did not enforce strict lockdown measures" and " the available data on excess all-cause mortality rates indicate that Sweden experienced fewer deaths per population unit during the pandemic (2020–2022) than most high-income countries"

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10399217/

 

(source is a Swiss multidisciplinary open-access journal, Frontiers in Public Health, and the article is hosted by the NIH, an agency of the US government)

 

Again, we should examine all data closely and be on the lookout for what works and what doesn't and continually reevaluate our positions. From my perspective, the data does not seem to support harsh lockdown policies.

 

To be extra clear, I would also like to see further research on what differences there might be in the countries that had relatively good outcomes through the pandemic to try and isolate the things that actually made a positive impact.

 

I have been reading your comments.

 

There  is no reason not to question, I am in total agreement with that, but most, if not all your argument is based on after the fact, arguments. Where health authorities had to act blind, and their best practices.

 

I do not think, they were 100%, but I find the argument you and many others use, is a pick and choose argument. Meaning, you take one fact and basically use it as conformation for the entire medical/safety plan.

 

From what I see, you and many others do not recognize the fact that, "IF" the pandemic was more aggressive, and safety measures not taken, could have easily wiped out large amounts many countries populations. Consider, Ebola, which does not mutate, when it was first found, safety measures were extreme, in outbreak area's. Today, when outbreaks happen, they quarantine the area, and everyone goes into lockdown. But before they knew how to manage it, the measures were very much extreme, compared to covid measures. The difference was and is, that, it kills it's host before being able to travel, so it was very much self isolating. Yet, there will always be a possibility, that it mutates into a less virulent and most transmittible disease.

 

You and many others, do not offer, a formula that controls the virus, you note Sweden, but you do not mention, that Sweden, also benefited from other countries lockdowns. The lockdown did not stop the spread of Covid, but it slowed it down, long enough to muster a response.

 

I have a friend in Peru, where that country suffered through having worlds the #1 mortality rate. Why was this? My info is that, commerce did not stop, and they were late vaccinating. My friend also said medical facilities are somewhat lacking outside the big cities. Their mortality rate was about 6400 deaths per million, approximately 4 1/2 times that of Canada. They were not ready! Their emergency plan was not ready, and their people have a much lower standard of living, all culminating in a higher death rate.

 

The World Heath Agency, gave us time, and whether a 6ft separation distance was an arbitrarual distance or not, it was at least something and better than nothing! Remember that the first measures were blind, meaning no data was available. Imagine a 6400 per million death rate, would you chance that? 

 

Was it perfect? NO!, but I would much rather have people with experience in the field making the decisions, than the foolish, uneducated*, people that argue against it. Yes, you can find experts that argue against the response, but they are in the minority. (*Uneducated in viruses). 

 

Again, not perfect, but much better than what you purpose.

 

PS.....My Uncles family is from Northern Italy, where they were slow to lockdown the public. His family lost 2 members. Go ask them how they feel about the response. Again, imagine Peru's 6400 per million. Imagine the chance of you loosing family members, or experiencing long haul Covid, which is almost nill, in people that had vaxcine. You never even address, that issue!

 

I don't know, man.....I am not listening to anyone that Trump agrees with

 

And, I surely do not think you are smarter than any WHO expert. Sorry, hind sight is 20/20

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6 by JIAHN

[Xanlet]

32 minutes ago, JIAHN said:

 

I have been reading your comments.

 

There  is no reason not to question, I am in total agreement with that, but most, if not all your argument is based on after the fact, arguments. Where health authorities had to act blind, and their best practices.

 

I do not think, they were 100%, but I find the argument you and many others use, is a pick and choose argument. Meaning, you take one fact and basically use it as conformation for the entire medical/safety plan.

 

From what I see, you and many others do not recognize the fact that, "IF" the pandemic was more aggressive, and safety measures not taken, could have easily wiped out large amounts many countries populations. Consider, Ebola, which does not mutate, when it was first found, safety measures were extreme, in outbreak area's. Today, when outbreaks happen, they quarantine the area, and everyone goes into lockdown. But before they knew how to manage it, the measures were very much extreme, compared to covid measures. The difference was and is, that, it kills it's host before being able to travel, so it was very much self isolating. Yet, there will always be a possibility, that it mutates into a less virulent and most transmittible disease.

 

You and many others, do not offer, a formula that controls the virus, you note Sweden, but you do not mention, that Sweden, also benefited from other countries lockdowns. The lockdown did not stop the spread of Covid, but it slowed it down, long enough to muster a response.

 

I have a friend in Peru, where that country suffered through having worlds the #1 mortality rate. Why was this? My info is that, commerce did not stop, and they were late vaccinating. My friend also said medical facilities are somewhat lacking outside the big cities. Their mortality rate was about 6400 deaths per million, approximately 4 1/2 times that of Canada. They were not ready! Their emergency plan was not ready, and their people have a much lower standard of living, all culminating in a higher death rate.

 

The World Heath Agency, gave us time, and whether a 6ft separation distance was an arbitrarual distance or not, it was at least something and better than nothing! Remember that the first measures were blind, meaning no data was available. Imagine a 6400 per million death rate, would you chance that? 

 

Was it perfect? NO!, but I would much rather have people with experience in the field making the decisions, than the foolish, uneducated*, people that argue against it. Yes, you can find experts that argue against the response, but they are in the minority. (*Uneducated in viruses). 

 

Again, not perfect, but much better than what you purpose.

 

PS.....My Uncles family is from Northern Italy, where they were slow to lockdown the public. His family lost 2 members. Go ask them how they feel about the response. Again, imagine Peru's 6400 per million. Imagine the chance of you loosing family members, or experiencing long haul Covid, which is almost nikl, in people that had vaxcine. You never even address, that issue!

 

I don't know, man.....I am not listening to anyone that Trump agrees with

 

And, I surely do not think you are smarter than any WHO expert. Sorry, hind sight is 20/20

This is a very common point of view, however I must disagree.

 

Corona viruses have been around for a very long time, and although this was a novel corona virus, we knew many things about it right at the beginning. We knew it was an airborne virus which transmitted rapidly and easily. We knew very early that it posed a significantly higher risk to older persons and persons with comorbidities. (The average age of death from covid in 2020 in Canada was 83.8 years old). We knew that 99+% of the world's population would catch it within 5 years and that it would become endemic like the flu based on seroprevalence modeling. These facts made it very different from Ebola, since Ebola is spread through direct contact with contaminated bodily fluids or surfaces contaminated with bodily fluids. It's much easier to contain and suppress that type of disease versus an airborne disease.

 

Also, I noticed one point in your post in regard to the 6ft which says "it was at least something and better than nothing". I've noticed other posters say something similar which really confuses me and perhaps you can clear it up. If something does not work, and it was enforced on people, I view that as a total failure. I am not interested in governments simply doing things for the sake of doing things, I am interested in governments doing the right things which actually help save lives. You at one point appeal to their expertise in viruses, but at another point claim they were "blind" to this virus. These two statements clash, do they not?

 

Many of my criticisms were valid at the time of the emergency. Public health experts such as Dr. Vinay Prasad were commenting on these issues as they were happening and pointing out the errors of the official response. Or consider The Great Barrington Declaration, which showed a strong dissenting viewpoint among experts but which was dismissed and marginalized instead of being taken seriously. We knew from the data from China right at the start that the virus posed almost non-existent risk to young people, yet school closures were enacted for absurdly long times.

 

In regard to lockdowns, what was the exact goal? To lower the peaks of cases so that hospitals were not overwhelmed. Three things are important here, first is that when cases are rising, people voluntarily stay home anyway, making forced lockdowns only marginally more effective. Second, they are only useful at the peaks of cases, and maintaining them for long stretches of time may actually be counterproductive. Third, they are only useful in places of high concentration of population where spread can take place very quickly among a large number of people. In places with lower population density, there is clearly a different calculation to be made. None of these factors were taken into effect and broad, one-size-fits-all mandates were imposed everywhere. Does it make sense to have the same policy in New York City as in Northern B.C.? There was a profound failure of leadership to have this debate.

 

I think there were broad failures throughout the pandemic and it only looks like Monday morning quarterbacking today because there was such a strain of authoritarianism from leadership that they squashed all debate and dissent at the time.

[Satchmo]

31 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

This is a very common point of view, however I must disagree.

 

Corona viruses have been around for a very long time, and although this was a novel corona virus, we knew many things about it right at the beginning. We knew it was an airborne virus which transmitted rapidly and easily. We knew very early that it posed a significantly higher risk to older persons and persons with comorbidities. (The average age of death from covid in 2020 in Canada was 83.8 years old). We knew that 99+% of the world's population would catch it within 5 years and that it would become endemic like the flu based on seroprevalence modeling. These facts made it very different from Ebola, since Ebola is spread through direct contact with contaminated bodily fluids or surfaces contaminated with bodily fluids. It's much easier to contain and suppress that type of disease versus an airborne disease.

 

Also, I noticed one point in your post in regard to the 6ft which says "it was at least something and better than nothing". I've noticed other posters say something similar which really confuses me and perhaps you can clear it up. If something does not work, and it was enforced on people, I view that as a total failure. I am not interested in governments simply doing things for the sake of doing things, I am interested in governments doing the right things which actually help save lives. You at one point appeal to their expertise in viruses, but at another point claim they were "blind" to this virus. These two statements clash, do they not?

 

Many of my criticisms were valid at the time of the emergency. Public health experts such as Dr. Vinay Prasad were commenting on these issues as they were happening and pointing out the errors of the official response. Or consider The Great Barrington Declaration, which showed a strong dissenting viewpoint among experts but which was dismissed and marginalized instead of being taken seriously. We knew from the data from China right at the start that the virus posed almost non-existent risk to young people, yet school closures were enacted for absurdly long times.

 

In regard to lockdowns, what was the exact goal? To lower the peaks of cases so that hospitals were not overwhelmed. Three things are important here, first is that when cases are rising, people voluntarily stay home anyway, making forced lockdowns only marginally more effective. Second, they are only useful at the peaks of cases, and maintaining them for long stretches of time may actually be counterproductive. Third, they are only useful in places of high concentration of population where spread can take place very quickly among a large number of people. In places with lower population density, there is clearly a different calculation to be made. None of these factors were taken into effect and broad, one-size-fits-all mandates were imposed everywhere. Does it make sense to have the same policy in New York City as in Northern B.C.? There was a profound failure of leadership to have this debate.

 

I think there were broad failures throughout the pandemic and it only looks like Monday morning quarterbacking today because there was such a strain of authoritarianism from leadership that they squashed all debate and dissent at the time.

I am growing very tired of this debate and I will admit to putting the least amount of energy in to my reply.   Many half truths and out and out fallacies in your post.

 

This line is funny: it only looks like Monday morning quarterbacking today.  Does that not describe what you are doing?

 

Edited June 6 by Satchmo

[Xanlet]

12 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

I am growing very tired of this debate and I will admit to putting the least amount of energy in to my reply.   Many half truths and out and out fallacies in your post.

 

This line is funny: it only looks like Monday morning quarterbacking today.  Does that not describe what you are doing?

 

No. I, and many others, had these reasonable views during the pandemic. It's not a case of "hind sight is 20-20", some of us could see what policies were blunders as they were being introduced or being prolonged inappropriately. When public health officials claim "two weeks to flatten the curve" and 6 months later you are still locked down, it's well past time to be a little critical of the official response, don't you agree? When there is virtually no risk to young people, it seems strange to close schools for years on end, don't you agree?

 

This is the point I was addressing there, if reasonable good faith conversations and debates are facilitated, we can arrive at reasonable policies. Instead, every dissenting opinion was labeled as "misinformation" or "the other political side" and demonized. This was not helpful in my opinion. We do not need a Ministry of Truth deciding what is Approved Truth and what is "Misinformation".

Edited June 6 by Xanlet

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

We do not need a Ministry of Truth deciding what is Approved Truth and what is "Misinformation".

We do not have that.   We have people counting how many people say one thing and how many people say another.   We also have people looking into the credentials of who speaks, and how credible what they say is (regardless of how many others are saying it).

 

I'm temped to ask though - just who should decide what is 'Misinformation'?

[4petesake]

33 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

 

Also, I noticed one point in your post in regard to the 6ft which says "it was at least something and better than nothing". I've noticed other posters say something similar which really confuses me and perhaps you can clear it up. If something does not work, and it was enforced on people, I view that as a total failure. I am not interested in governments simply doing things for the sake of doing things, I am interested in governments doing the right things which actually help save lives. 

 

Many of my criticisms were valid at the time of the emergency. Public health experts such as Dr. Vinay Prasad were commenting on these issues as they were happening and pointing out the errors of the official response. Or consider The Great Barrington Declaration, which showed a strong dissenting viewpoint among experts but which was dismissed and marginalized instead of being taken seriously. 

 

A response to one of your points-

 

In late 2021 my wife went to visit my very elderly, frail, bedridden Godmother on her birthday, as she had done on special occasions for years. She was met at the door by my GMs 65 year old anti-vaxxer son & caregiver who upon seeing that she was wearing a mask said “oh, so you’re one of those, you know masks are completely useless.” My wife was taken aback (and much too nice) and didn’t know what to say. I told her that I would have lowered my mask, sneezed in his face and said “I bet you wish I was wearing one now and that you were standing a little further away.” Neither masks nor social distancing are useless and both at worst show that you are considerate of others.

Nether of us want to bring even a cold or flu to a person of frail health, much less covid.

 

[Xanlet]

Just now, Satchmo said:

We do not have that.   We have people counting how many people say one thing and how many people say another.   We also have people looking into the credentials of who speaks, and how credible what they say is (regardless of how many others are saying it).

 

I'm temped to ask though - just who should decide what is 'Misinformation'?

Especially during the early part of the pandemic, there was a direct line of communication between government departments and social media companies to censor certain opinions.

[Satchmo]

Just now, Xanlet said:

Especially during the early part of the pandemic, there was a direct line of communication between government departments and social media companies to censor certain opinions.

What question did you just attempt to answer?  I don't think it was mine.

[Xanlet]

2 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

A response to one of your points-

 

In late 2021 my wife went to visit my very elderly, frail, bedridden Godmother on her birthday, as she had done on special occasions for years. She was met at the door by my GMs 65 year old anti-vaxxer son & caregiver who upon seeing that she was wearing a mask said “oh, so you’re one of those, you know masks are completely useless.” My wife was taken aback (and much too nice) and didn’t know what to say. I told her that I would have lowered my mask, sneezed in his face and said “I bet you wish I was wearing one now and that you were standing a little further away.” Neither masks nor social distancing are useless and both at worst show that you are considerate of others.

Nether of us want to bring even a cold or flu to a person of frail health, much less covid.

 

According to one of the most respected medical research institutes, The Cochrane Library, based on a number of Randomized Controlled Trials, cloth masking has little to no measurable impact on community spread.

 

"Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence.

 

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence)."

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

 

I agree it signals a kind of consideration of others, but it also demonstrates that certain public health measures were adopted not just in the absence of evidence, but even when the evidence shows the policies probably do not help at all.

[Xanlet]

20 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

What question did you just attempt to answer?  I don't think it was mine.

You said "we do not have that". The fact that the government was exercising influence on social media companies to censor certain opinions means we absolutely did have that.

Edited June 6 by Xanlet

[Whorvat]

Who remembers

 

'This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated'?

 

or

 

'For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families, and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm'

 

So I guess all those unvaccinated have died off by now? So many good quotes to choose from over the past 4 years

Edited June 6 by Whorvat

[Satchmo]

7 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

You said "we do not have that". The fact that the government was exercising influence on social media companies to censure certain opinions means we absolutely did have that.

To describe that as 'The Ministry Of Truth' proves nothing but you've read Orwell.  Or perhaps you haven't but just heard it on Redditt and used it.  I will not speculate.

 

Some opinions are false and dangerous and should be censored.   I'll repeat my question - who should decide that?  If you reply that all speech should be free I'll just repeat that some opinions are false and dangerous and should be censored.

 

 

[Xanlet]

Just now, Whorvat said:

Who remembers

 

'This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated'?

 

or

 

'For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families, and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm'

 

So I guess all those unvaccinated have died off by now? So many good quotes to choose from over the past 4 years

It is slightly strange that when vaccinated individuals became the majority of hospitalizations we did not hear "this has become a pandemic of the vaccinated", but instead, they stopped tracking patient vaccination status

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, Whorvat said:

Who remembers

 

'This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated'?

 

or

 

'For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families, and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm'

 

So I guess all those unvaccinated have died off by now? So many good quotes to choose from over the past 4 years

As I remember an awful lot of the unvaccinated did get very sick and many did die.  Of course some vaccinated people suffered the same fate but in far fewer numbers.

 

I can agree that there are a great many catch phrases that don't stand the test of time.  Mentioning them is a bit of a minor quibble though.  I'll avoid mentioning 'it's just a flu'.

[Xanlet]

1 minute ago, Satchmo said:

To describe that as 'The Ministry Of Truth' proves nothing but you've read Orwell.  Or perhaps you haven't but just heard it on Redditt and used it.  I will not speculate.

 

Some opinions are false and dangerous and should be censored.   I'll repeat my question - who should decide that?  If you reply that all speech should be free I'll just repeat that some opinions are false and dangerous and should be censored.

 

 

And what if I decide that your opinion that some opinions are false and dangerous, is false and dangerous? "Who decides" is vastly more profound of a question than you seem to give it credit for. The type of person who would take up the role of censoring other's opinions because they are so sure they are right and the other person is wrong is the exact last person I would choose for that role.

 

Again, there were times when the public health officials would have said that holding the opinion that cloth masks don't work was "false and dangerous", even though we have good evidence now from the Cochrain Review that they probably do nothing (which I posted earlier).

 

I am actually glad that you have said you are pro-censorship though, it certainly gets to the root of our disagreement.

[Satchmo]

6 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

It is slightly strange that when vaccinated individuals became the majority of hospitalizations we did not hear "this has become a pandemic of the vaccinated", but instead, they stopped tracking patient vaccination status

Got stats?  (or will i be told they were suppressed?)

 

Edited June 6 by Satchmo

[Whorvat]

Just now, Satchmo said:

As I remember an awful lot of the unvaccinated did get very sick and many did die.  Of course some vaccinated people suffered the same fate but in far fewer numbers.

 

I can agree that there are a great many catch phrases that don't stand the test of time.  Mentioning them is a bit of a minor quibble though.  I'll avoid mentioning 'it's just a flu'.

What happened to the flu during covid? Just a miracle that there were no flu cases during covid, we would've been in some serious trouble then!