Where did our flu season go....

originally posted by: HalWesten
The federal government, not the health care system (notice ours isn't federalized?) is giving hospitals more money for Covid "deaths", the hospitals aren't doing that. But yes, the fraud is real and rampant.

There is a whole process of the granting of money from the Federal Government. Usually, such money is allocated by Congress however the declaration of a national emergency frees up funds, as was seen by Trump's Southern Border National Emergency which was used for the appropriation of money for the wall.

What I want to know is exactly how much money, from whom, and when it was passed, because I haven't heard of anything specific that would allocate funds per patient numbers.

a reply to: chr0naut

Does google not work in NZ?

First link...

Uneven Spread Of COVID-19 Aid

States such as Minnesota, Nebraska and Montana, which the pandemic has touched relatively lightly, are getting more than $300,000 per reported COVID-19 case in the $30 billion, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis.

On the other hand, New York, the worst-hit state, would receive only $12,000 per case. Florida is getting $132,000 per case. KHN relied on a state breakdown provided to the House Ways and Means Committee by HHS along with COVID-19 cases tabulated by The New York Times.

That was just the first wave of relief to states.

More is coming.

At the end of the day, Progressive states can make a ton of Federal money to throw down the black holes that are their state budgets by getting as many Covid cases on the books as possible.

See... New York as a good example.

a reply to: Gargoyle91

I had the flu in January alongnv with one if my kids..plenty of coworkers also had it in November..

Nice post, man.....

Like that, I read every bit



a reply to: 1947boomer

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: chr0naut

Does google not work in NZ?

First link...

Uneven Spread Of COVID-19 Aid

States such as Minnesota, Nebraska and Montana, which the pandemic has touched relatively lightly, are getting more than $300,000 per reported COVID-19 case in the $30 billion, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis.

On the other hand, New York, the worst-hit state, would receive only $12,000 per case. Florida is getting $132,000 per case. KHN relied on a state breakdown provided to the House Ways and Means Committee by HHS along with COVID-19 cases tabulated by The New York Times.

That was just the first wave of relief to states.

More is coming.

At the end of the day, Progressive states can make a ton of Federal money to throw down the black holes that are their state budgets by getting as many Covid cases on the books as possible.

See... New York as a good example.

From the article: "HHS confirmed Friday it would give hospitals and doctors money according to their historical share of revenue from the Medicare program for seniors — not according to their coronavirus burden."

So, they aren't allocating funds per COVID-19 patient numbers at this stage. So the hospitals wouldn't get any more money by misrepresenting the number of COVID-19 cases they have. So, the often quoted, and re-quoted statement that they do get more money for COVID-19 cases appears to be untrue (at least as of nearly a month ago).

a reply to: Gargoyle91

Bill Gates would know the answer to that question.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Gargoyle91

It didn't disappear.

2019-2020 U.S. Flu Season: Preliminary Burden Estimates - CDC

As it isn't over, they haven't finalized the numbers.

So is that 60,000 deaths on top of COVID-19 deaths?

originally posted by: 1947boomer

Yes, social distancing would take a bite out of flu right away precisely because it's endemic. That fact that it's endemic means that a large fraction of the population already has some immunity/resistance to it. The technical definition of "endemic" is when the basic reproduction number, R, = 1. When R = 1, each person who is infected transfers the infection to one other person, on the average. That means the infection in the population neither grows bigger nor disappears entirely. Under business as usual--in other words no social distancing--R becomes slightly greater than 1 when the flu season starts. That's because a slightly different strain comes along seasonally and also, I think, because people become more susceptible to infection in cold weather. Under those condition, R rises slightly above 1, because there is now a slightly larger fraction of the population that is susceptible to infection. Because R is only slightly greater than 1 for the flu in most years, it will grow exponentially, but it doesn't take much to push it back down to 1 after 20% or so of the population has had it and the weather warms up.

When COVID19 hit, its initial R value was around 2.5, because it was novel--nobody had ever had it before--and we were still in the business-as-usual mode. Each infected person infected 2.5 other people, on the average. That means that about 60% of the population would have to have been infected in order for R to go down to 1. If, through social distancing, you reduced the average number of person-to-person contacts in the population from, let's say, 20 per day down to 10 per day, you would theoretically cut the R value of COVID19 down to 1.25--about what it is for the flu in average year. But the same social distancing means you would expect to cut the R value for seasonal flu down to 0.65--a number less than 1. That means that the seasonal flu would very quickly die out.

So social distancing and masks between Oct and Mar as the new norm...we save lives with COVID-19 and the flu...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Gargoyle91

It didn't disappear.

2019-2020 U.S. Flu Season: Preliminary Burden Estimates - CDC

As it isn't over, they haven't finalized the numbers.

So is that 60,000 deaths on top of COVID-19 deaths?

24,000 to 62,000 deaths but the final figures aren't in.

So, yes, but my guess is that it would tend toward the lower end because of the lockdown working against flu just as well as against the coronavirus.

However, you can see the stats as they are collected: FluView Interactive - CDC

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Gargoyle91
Wouldn't social distancing inhibit the spread of ordinary flu even more effectively than it inhibits the spread of Covid?

Flu is endemic in humans. Yeah, it is communicable, but it also is so prevalent that almost all humans carry it in absence of symptoms. That's how they decide what vaccine to use each year, basing it off of whatever strain they see most carried in summer seasons when the virus tends to be far less symptomatic. I dont see social distancing taking a major bite out of flu numbers over the course of just 2 months.

That said, flu numbers could be predicted to be lower next year if social distancing lingers through summer and early fall.

Yes, social distancing would take a bite out of flu right away precisely because it's endemic. That fact that it's endemic means that a large fraction of the population already has some immunity/resistance to it. The technical definition of "endemic" is when the basic reproduction number, R, = 1. When R = 1, each person who is infected transfers the infection to one other person, on the average. That means the infection in the population neither grows bigger nor disappears entirely. Under business as usual--in other words no social distancing--R becomes slightly greater than 1 when the flu season starts. That's because a slightly different strain comes along seasonally and also, I think, because people become more susceptible to infection in cold weather. Under those condition, R rises slightly above 1, because there is now a slightly larger fraction of the population that is susceptible to infection. Because R is only slightly greater than 1 for the flu in most years, it will grow exponentially, but it doesn't take much to push it back down to 1 after 20% or so of the population has had it and the weather warms up.

When COVID19 hit, its initial R value was around 2.5, because it was novel--nobody had ever had it before--and we were still in the business-as-usual mode. Each infected person infected 2.5 other people, on the average. That means that about 60% of the population would have to have been infected in order for R to go down to 1. If, through social distancing, you reduced the average number of person-to-person contacts in the population from, let's say, 20 per day down to 10 per day, you would theoretically cut the R value of COVID19 down to 1.25--about what it is for the flu in average year. But the same social distancing means you would expect to cut the R value for seasonal flu down to 0.65--a number less than 1. That means that the seasonal flu would very quickly die out.

Sorry my friend, none of your seemingly educated math holds any merit because every model up to and including this point has not been even remotely correct. It's not that it has been slightly off base, it's that it has been a complete punchline with experts clamoring to try and hold on to some validity.

The fact is, this novel corona virus has some things the seasonal flu does not. It spreads easier because the symptoms are dormant for a period of time or as science has proven, most are asymptomatic.

Here are some other facts when you consider these things. Health officials all over the Untied States and in fact the world have stated openly that Covid-19 deaths are accounted not based on scientific fact but on what local county and state officials decide to put on a hospital administration slip or a death certificate. Seem harmless right? Why would anyone lie in the middle of a pandemic as dangerous as the Spanish Flu??? Am I right......?

Then, take in that every hospital, every county, every state gets federal money for every covid-19 case. I hear about audits to states unemployment and welfare services happen all the time, maybe we need a third party audit on actual facts that have caused the greatest depervation of Constitutional rights any of us have ever seen in our lifetime.

originally posted by: Helious

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Gargoyle91
Wouldn't social distancing inhibit the spread of ordinary flu even more effectively than it inhibits the spread of Covid?

Flu is endemic in humans. Yeah, it is communicable, but it also is so prevalent that almost all humans carry it in absence of symptoms. That's how they decide what vaccine to use each year, basing it off of whatever strain they see most carried in summer seasons when the virus tends to be far less symptomatic. I dont see social distancing taking a major bite out of flu numbers over the course of just 2 months.

That said, flu numbers could be predicted to be lower next year if social distancing lingers through summer and early fall.

Yes, social distancing would take a bite out of flu right away precisely because it's endemic. That fact that it's endemic means that a large fraction of the population already has some immunity/resistance to it. The technical definition of "endemic" is when the basic reproduction number, R, = 1. When R = 1, each person who is infected transfers the infection to one other person, on the average. That means the infection in the population neither grows bigger nor disappears entirely. Under business as usual--in other words no social distancing--R becomes slightly greater than 1 when the flu season starts. That's because a slightly different strain comes along seasonally and also, I think, because people become more susceptible to infection in cold weather. Under those condition, R rises slightly above 1, because there is now a slightly larger fraction of the population that is susceptible to infection. Because R is only slightly greater than 1 for the flu in most years, it will grow exponentially, but it doesn't take much to push it back down to 1 after 20% or so of the population has had it and the weather warms up.

When COVID19 hit, its initial R value was around 2.5, because it was novel--nobody had ever had it before--and we were still in the business-as-usual mode. Each infected person infected 2.5 other people, on the average. That means that about 60% of the population would have to have been infected in order for R to go down to 1. If, through social distancing, you reduced the average number of person-to-person contacts in the population from, let's say, 20 per day down to 10 per day, you would theoretically cut the R value of COVID19 down to 1.25--about what it is for the flu in average year. But the same social distancing means you would expect to cut the R value for seasonal flu down to 0.65--a number less than 1. That means that the seasonal flu would very quickly die out.

Sorry my friend, none of your seemingly educated math holds any merit because every model up to and including this point has not been even remotely correct. It's not that it has been slightly off base, it's that it has been a complete punchline with experts clamoring to try and hold on to some validity.

The fact is, this novel corona virus has some things the seasonal flu does not. It spreads easier because the symptoms are dormant for a period of time or as science has proven, most are asymptomatic.

Here are some other facts when you consider these things. Health officials all over the Untied States and in fact the world have stated openly that Covid-19 deaths are accounted not based on scientific fact but on what local county and state officials decide to put on a hospital administration slip or a death certificate. Seem harmless right? Why would anyone lie in the middle of a pandemic as dangerous as the Spanish Flu??? Am I right......?

Then, take in that every hospital, every county, every state gets federal money for every covid-19 case. I hear about audits to states unemployment and welfare services happen all the time, maybe we need a third party audit on actual facts that have caused the greatest depervation of Constitutional rights any of us have ever seen in our lifetime.

I am from another country and don't think the right to be shot by a random member of the general public would be particularly personally advantageous to me.

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm sorry, are we talking about getting shot now? Are we talking about the second amendment? Let me guess....... You think the answer to the pandemic is to ban guns right?

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm sorry, are we talking about getting shot now? Are we talking about the second amendment? Let me guess....... You think the answer to the pandemic is to ban guns right?

No, I was being sarcastic about your 'rights'.

Because sometimes you are forced to do things by circumstances that you would not want in an ideal world. Tough luck.

The privations of a few weeks of lockdown and the quarantine of those who would rather be out 'partying among the people' are temporary. They don't really remove the rights granted by your Constitution, anyway.

Yes, there will be economic hardships and all sorts of social flak. But in truth, this was always on the cards before the virus hit.

There will also always be natural disasters - they happen all the time.

That there wasn't an adequate contingency for this one speaks to irresponsibility on behalf of those who are supposed to prepare for eventualities like this and to act to protect their citizens.

If someone drives around drunk and then crashes the car, you probably shouldn't sue the car manufacturers for it. And it also doesn't make the wearing of seatbelts an affront to your Constitutional rights.

originally posted by: chr0naut


However, you can see the stats as they are collected:

At the end of the day distancing and face masks is 1000% more than we ever did before.

a reply to: NoConspiracy

DING DING DING… WE HAVE A WINNER!

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: Iscool

You might notice there aren't any cases of pneumonia either...

There are reports that heart attacks and strokes have vanished too.

Reports from people that have no idea what they are talking about. The numbers are all on the CDC site, deaths other than COVID are proceeding as ordinary. Flu deaths tend to end by the middle of April in most years.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Reports from people that have no idea what they are talking about. The numbers are all on the CDC site, deaths other than COVID are proceeding as ordinary. Flu deaths tend to end by the middle of April in most years.

You mean people like this...

Harlan Krumholz, M.D., is professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation.

Where Have All the Heart Attacks Gone?

Patients with heart attacks, strokes and even appendicitis vanish from hospitals

More sources

You may be right, it is the MSM.

Hard to tell what's true these days.

a reply to: Gargoyle91

Every flu case turned into another coronavirus case. It keeps the fear alive and well. Democrats won't stop until people have to mail their votes in.

originally posted by: putnam6
Like all of the above, it went to CoVid stats why you may ask?

Flu and pneumonia cases 0 federal dollars for states and hospitals

CoVid 19 cases mucho federal dinero for states and hospitals

We will likely never know the real totals ...

I don't mean to go off-topic here, but that's exactly what happened to our education system after Bush passed NCLB into law. Public schools started realizing that they were going to lose their government funding if the kids weren't passing like the original law intended, so they started passing the kids. As the smoke started getting detected, they dumbed everything down to make it easier to pass. Now look what we have..

As far as the coronavirus, I agree... We'll never know the true numbers. I can't think of one flu case since this all started. Not a single cold. Just all coronavirus patients.