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?
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?
0: https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/212/11/1690/2911897