> Assume you have two pathogens A and B that are transmissible. A with a reproductive number of 3 and B with an R of 1.5. Now the pool of susceptibles behaves in such a way that only, say, half of transmissions occur. Then pathogen A will die out while B grows exponentially.
Indeed this is a good scenario for consideration.
Next, to advance the theory in places where horizontal measures were taken, we'd need evidence that R of SARS-CoV-2 is sufficiently higher than other respiratory pathogens. Even if this is true for influenza (and sure, it might be), it seems unlikely to be true for the other four endemic coronaviruses.
> From speaking to an ENT doctor there were indeed very little respiratory infections (apart from Covid of course).
Right. And you don't need the anecdote; we know this from ILInet.
> Not sure what you mean by interdiction - lockdowns are only a proxy for human behaviour. If you have data that indeed influenza was suppressed with no behaviour change and/or seasonality that would be appreciated.
How do you explain the similar suppression in Sweden, Florida, Haiti, etc.? Places that had:
1) No serious interdiction to speak of, and
2) Fairly rapid achievement of endemic equilibrium in SARS-CoV-2
...also experienced suppression not only of influenza but of the other four endemic coronaviruses and both rhinoviruses.
The unambiguous Occam's Razor - and the explanation most established by historical study on these matters - is that we're seeing a case of viral interference.
> How do you explain the similar suppression in Sweden, Florida, Haiti, etc.?
I already stated the explanation: lockdowns/measures are only a proxy for human behaviour. Measures don't stop the spread per se, humans do.
E.g. in the case of Sweden (can't speak for the other examples) human behaviour drastically changed (e.g. see mobility data). Yes, Sweden did not implement curfews and generally did not close schools but still had quarantine rules, social distancing, masks, travel restrictions and strong guidance of personal responsibility, not to come to work when sick, hygiene etc.
I would be very surprised if this did not result in a suppression of other pathogens, too.
> 2) Fairly rapid achievement of endemic equilibrium in SARS-CoV-2
Unfortunately the situation in Sweden is what it is: Hit hard by a second and now third wave, and significantly more cases/deaths than neighbouring countries (not saying there are no benefits, it's just a different trade-off).
By the way if you look at case counts from other European countries during the first wave you will see the same pattern: Case counts start to decline before lockdowns become effective.
> we're seeing a case of viral interference.
If there is evidence or even just anecdata I'm intrigued - I don't see it yet.
> I would be very surprised if this did not result in a suppression of other pathogens, too.
>> we're seeing a case of viral interference.
> If there is evidence or even just anecdata I'm intrigued - I don't see it yet.
Norovirus had a really bad year in 2020. From the standpoint of the virus. Norovirus spreads by fomites not respiratory droplets. Basically completely orthogonal virus to covid.
I don't understand the way you are representing Sweden or how to weigh the point you're making with it. You're saying that, on one hand, SARS-CoV-2 (but mysteriously, not the other four endemic coronaviruses, which have identical communicability characteristics) managed to spread much more widely in part because "a different trade-off" was achieved, but on the other hand, that human behavior is an explainer for the suppression of all other aerosol-mediated respiratory pathogens.
Now, I admit, I haven't been to Sweden to observe the human behaviors you're discussing, but I am in Florida, and I can tell you without any doubt that, while there have been substantial vertical stratification measures (young people staying away from old people), there have been virtually zero horizontal measures. People gather in numbers every evening without masks. Schools have been open the entire time. There is no meaningful social distancing within risk tiers.
So I'm interested to hear an explanation of how this selective suppression can possibly be explained by human behavior in this case.
I think we need to pause to note: viral interference is a well-documented phenomenon, and everything about this situation is consistent with what we know of it. Selective suppression of a class of aerosol-mediated respiratory pathogens, on the other hand, is unknown to medical history.
So which is more likely?
> If there is evidence or even just anecdata I'm intrigued - I don't see it yet.
I don't understand this part - the evidence is identical. The question is, which phenomenon does the evidence indicate?
And the answer is clear: there's nothing at all that suggests this is based on human behavior (even if that were a documented phenomenon, which it isn't), while it fits with great precision the characteristics of viral interference (a widely studied and well-documented phenomenon).
Not only does it generally fit the pattern of viral interference, but it even specifically fits the pattern of viral interference in influenza[0].
So, let me ask you the same question: what evidence do you have to refute the conclusion that this is part of a documented phenomenon, and instead support the conclusion that it's part of an unprecedented and seemingly self-contradictory phenomenon?
Indeed this is a good scenario for consideration.
Next, to advance the theory in places where horizontal measures were taken, we'd need evidence that R of SARS-CoV-2 is sufficiently higher than other respiratory pathogens. Even if this is true for influenza (and sure, it might be), it seems unlikely to be true for the other four endemic coronaviruses.
> From speaking to an ENT doctor there were indeed very little respiratory infections (apart from Covid of course).
Right. And you don't need the anecdote; we know this from ILInet.
> Not sure what you mean by interdiction - lockdowns are only a proxy for human behaviour. If you have data that indeed influenza was suppressed with no behaviour change and/or seasonality that would be appreciated.
How do you explain the similar suppression in Sweden, Florida, Haiti, etc.? Places that had:
1) No serious interdiction to speak of, and 2) Fairly rapid achievement of endemic equilibrium in SARS-CoV-2
...also experienced suppression not only of influenza but of the other four endemic coronaviruses and both rhinoviruses.
The unambiguous Occam's Razor - and the explanation most established by historical study on these matters - is that we're seeing a case of viral interference.