20200401: CoronaCRISIS/ China Virus Daily Thread

For the time being, given our national emergency, we are switching to DAILY COVID-19/China Virus threads instead of weekly threads. Your comments and updates are most welcome. PLEASE continue to post your valuable information, hard source links, and local observations within these Daily Threads. Additionally, we will try to include links to government and official pressers, so those who no longer have cable can remain informed.

We’ll get through this crisis, together. As a group, there is probably no one better prepared than we are.

For our newcomers: The Q Tree community has been diligent in covering the threat of Coronavirus, COVID19, Wuhan FLU. We started accumulating information about this virus in mid-late January, in what became almost weekly threads. We’ve been weeks, if not months, ahead of MSM outlets to vet rumors and other medical papers, etc.

Primary Update Links:

In our past weekly threads, we assembled information on the following:

  • Primary update links. The dashboard from Johns Hopkins which counts “official” cases all over the world, the CDC, and WHO, and includes the links for our past threads.
  • Hard Data Medical Information- Explanation about testing, reliance on China for drugs, analysis of NE Journal of Medicine results and other published papers.
  • Vaccine and theraputics (new/old drugs to alleviate symptoms) news and updates 
  • Trump Administration response (the timeline and links to various agencies)
  • China Responses, timelines, research, attempt to cover actions, or secrecy in results discovered.
  • An aggregate of info/responses from other countries, listed by country.
  • Economic impact from around the world. A change in economic activity will indicate a “return to normal”.
  • Speculation/debunking on how the virus started
  • Media Bias, political response, and debunking section, like the article from AP News, overt bias from Politico, inflammatory headlines, etc.  
  • Other medical info to boost immune system, herbal remedies, ways to keep your house clean and NOT spread the virus to others. Excellent information to incorporate into daily lifestyle.
  • Hard links for OTHER valuable sources/blogs and a brief sentence or two about what they provide
  • Other news items

Our weekly updates. timelines, collection of valuable information, can be found here:

Please try to keep your sense of humor during this National Emergency, and remember, patience is a virtue.

Love to all!

673 thoughts on “20200401: CoronaCRISIS/ China Virus Daily Thread

  1. Hannity mentioned Novartis last night. Here’s the scoop.

    In response, Novartis has pledged a global donation of up to 130 million hydroxychloroquine tablets, pending regulatory approvals for COVID-19. Mylan is ramping up production at its West Virginia Facility with enough supplies to make 50 million tablets. Teva is donating 16 million tablets to hospitals around the U.S. On Friday afternoon, Amneal pledged to make 20 million tablets by mid-April.

    https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/new-commitments-mylan-and-teva-move-to-supply-tens-millions-hydroxychloroquine-tablets-to

    Liked by 11 people

        1. I think most people didn’t spot the significance of Didier Raoult’s first study with 6 patients, like we did. They’re too focused on absolute number values and not enough on ratios and what they mean. WE saw what Raoult saw – that 6/6 recovery and two days to crash the virus were signs of something REAL and USEFUL, no matter why or how – and that even if the numbers were FLUKES, worst case numbers (say, 4/6 or even 3/6 and a week to kill the virus for sure) were still real and useful. It was REAL GOLD IN THE PAN. Combine with both PUBLISHED RESEARCH on the class (chloroquine) and the anecdotal from Zelenko, moving the treatment even earlier, and it becomes pretty much a no-brainer.

          Liked by 9 people

          1. Have you ever seen a diamond right out of the ground? The 6 for 6 report reminds me of raw diamonds. Would she say yes if you proposed with this?

            Liked by 6 people

            1. Actually I have a rough diamond in my rock collection along with sapphires, rubies, garnets, amethysts, tourmalines… A friend who cut gems took one of the watermelon tourmalines I found and polished and set it for me.

              (Cavers have a tendency to be rock hounds too. At least the bunch I ran with did.)

              Liked by 2 people

  2. Liked by 8 people

  3. From my blog: 20 questions to Trump ( and ESPECIALLY the task force Fauchi and Brix) The answers to these questions will pull the curtain back..

    .follow ups included. http://politicalprognosticator.politics.blog/2020/04/01/we-need-answers-lets-play-20-questions-that-should-be-asked-but-never-are

    Here they are for those that do not want to click

    1. When did this virus FIRST come to America? Where? How do you KNOW? Are ALL the restrictions in place based upon PROJECTIONS or on facts on the ground?

    2.s it possible if not probable that we ALL were infected MUCH earlier than when we first thought? What does that mean in terms of the curve? The projections?

    3.Why are we quarantining the HEALTHY, and not just those at risk? Why did we START at the worst case, and not the LEAST case and adjust?

    4.What about herd immunity? Is the quarantine not BAD for that Will a second wave be WORSE because of it?

    5.Who wrote the guidelines? are they suggestions, or are they MANDATES? LAWS?

    6.What happens if no one adheres to the guidelines? will they be arrested? CAN they legally BE arrested?

    7.Are the guidelines Constitutional? Can you FORCE the healthy to give up their freedom?

    8.What ARE the numbers of recovered? Do we know if the numbers could be much higher if we were infected earlier and mis labled due to inaccurate testing or NO testing.

    9.What ARE the numbers of those hospitalized? Do we KNOW that ALL those hospitalizations are for Covid 19? How about the deaths? Are they all from Covid 19 SOLELY? Do we know if earlier cases of the flu, including hospitalizations, and deaths were in fact Covid 19 mis labeled? How? Don’t we ALL need to be tested for antibodies to be SURE? What would THAT do to the curve and the projections?

    10.Is it true that ALL versions of the coronavirus are at first unknown and have no vaccine?

    11. If #10 is in fact true, why the uproar over fear of the unknown and this particular virus? Is or SHOULD the media be held to account for over hyping a crisis? Will they be held accountable? How do we EVER trust them again?

    12.Are the guidelines legally enforceable? by WHOM? If they are not, what are the plans for the local and State officials who have abused their authority and violated not only the 4th but 5th, 1st, and 6th amendments and infringed upon citizen’s rights? Will there be accountability? Liability? To WHOM?

    13. What does recovery look like? When will people be “allowed” to return to their lives, and the restrictions ended?

    14.What numbers must be seen in terms of “success” to drop the restrictions? # of deaths decline? Number of infections decline? When? How much? WHO decides?

    15.At what point will people ultimately be on their OWN risk and accountability, and not the Nanny state? Should it not have been that way from the START?

    16.Since there are NO known cures for this or ANY Corona virus, and since they are constantly changing, wil lwe be forced to endure this EVERY year? Why? We NEVER did before? What is different NOW?

    17.Will it be allowed to progress this far and shut down the country again?

    18.We all know it came from China, WHAT will be their liability and accountability for the damage done? Will they be held monetarily liable, can people sue?

    19.What if the models are WRONG, and this is all way overblown in the numbers of deaths, infections, and overloads of the medical system NEVER happens, or is WAY OVER predicted? Who is going to be held accountable? What will be done to ensure THAT never happens again?

    20.What measures are to be put in place to assure that this kind of thing NEVER happens again? How do we ever have trust again in our officials? How do we get our peace of mind back? How do the people get their time, money, homes, and businesses back? WHO is going to be held responsible and LIABLE? Who PAYS for it all?

    Liked by 15 people

    1. 16.Since there are NO known cures for this or ANY Corona virus, and since they are constantly changing, wil lwe be forced to endure this EVERY year? Why? We NEVER did before? What is different NOW?

      CCP has over 2000 more of these things, and CCP IS ASSHOE.

      CCP IS PROBLEM FOR EVERYBODY, and CCP IS ASSHOE.

      Liked by 11 people

      1. Actually, the honest answer is this.

        We know now that this particular bug is mutating in what might be described as a circle or a sphere – it is staying in a region where the different strains give immunity to each other, and a single vaccine is likely to work.

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8164235/US-coronavirus-Map-shows-eight-strains-raced-world.html

        Thus, the problem really isn’t THIS virus coming back – we can iteratively protect against it. The question is whether we can get rid of this virus permanently or not and that is answered. It is impossible because of CCP, who cannot be trusted, and thus is not possible while the CCP exists.

        But that is only THIS virus. The CCP has 2000 more and can modify all of them to be more like HIV.

        CCP is now everybody’s problem. SOCIALISM is now everybody’s problem.

        The NAZIS were bad, but didn’t use NERVE GAS – they only used CYANIDE where nobody could see.

        The CHINAZIS are worse, and use BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS out in the open, but protected by excuses and media distortions, payoffs to scientists, infiltration of western science, and all their other techniques.

        CCP IS ASSHOE.

        CCP IS NOT CHINA.

        CCP HAS NO RIGHT TO RULE.

        CCP MURDERS CHINESE ELDERS.

        CCP SELLS YOUNG CHINESE ORGANS TO OLD WESTERNERS FOR MONEY.

        CCP IS EVIL ASSHOE.

        Liked by 12 people

    2. Wants this question:

      Has wearing a simple scarf/bandanna (item available to all offering 50% protection and CV blocking capabilities) vs. not wearing one for the general public been modeled? Same question assuming just hot spots and just at points of public commerce?

      Liked by 5 people

  4. Cuomo, of ALL people JUST set up the self fulfilling straw man argument that WILL be used to justify this farce.

    He said, and I shit you not, that the models will have to WAIT on the social distancing numbers to come in (less death, etc) and THEN the models will predict the outcome to see IF the social distancing was effective.

    Garbage IN Garbage Out. This is a FARCE, and Cuomo is the FIRST to HINT that the numbers are WRONG, they DON’T know what will happen, this is ALL based on PROJECTION, and THEN the REAL numbers come in and they ADJUST the MODEL, DOWN.

    I’m sorry, what the actual FUCK!. This is the GREATEST fraud of ALL TIME, PT Barnum would love this shit.

    They are LITERALLY, QUITE literally making it up as they go. They have NO fucking idea, they will JUST keep using models, until they run OUT of cases to model. We have been HAD folks, WAKE UP!.

    This is JUST like we have to READ the bill to find out WHAT’s IN IT. WHEN this comes up as a FRAUD, they will, as Cuomo just hinted, simply say it WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE, but for all the actions we took, a SELF Fulfilling prophecy, and a BIG old straw man.

    They WILL keep moving the goalposts till they run OUT of field. We need to STOP this madness and NOW.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. Just like he’s been daily telling everyone that we’re all gonna be like New York. THAT’S BS!!! Not everyone had parades, didn’t lock down, etc…. The smart people, even the experts, are saying THEY DON’T KNOW, so there’s no way idiot Cuomo can either!! I won’t watch him.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Yes it is. Another trick I’ve learned. When I click on the ‘Chinese’ Epoch Times article in the tweet. I select the option to let Google translate. Then I’m able to travel around the entire site ‘unmetered’ and read any and all the articles I want! 😉

        Liked by 3 people

            1. I don’t trust Google Translate on this. I need to see a professional English translation – and even that won’t get past disinformation.

              There is an EXTREME possibility of Chinese disinformation right now. If this were false information, it would strongly hamper research in the United States – exactly what we should expect from the ChiNazis right now.

              They appear to be spreading scientific disinformation about antimalarials through their proxies in the American science socialist infiltration (I have a great potential article there).

              I think Trump has been advised not to trust Chinese anything at this point.

              If I still have the virus in my lungs but am not shedding, that would explain some things, but it’s hard to say. I don’t think we fully understand this stuff.

              I may need to enter a survivor study of some kind, but there are none near me.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. Keep taking immunity boosters. Have you thought about offering your plasma? You’d get the antibody test that way.

                Liked by 2 people

  5. USNS Mercy and USNS Comfort were sent to Los Angeles to take some of the non-WuFlu load from area hospitals that are treating WuFlu patients. I wonder how successful they will be in keeping WuFlu positive patients from boarding and the WuFlu itself from spreading aboard ship.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I saw an interview with – is he a Commodore? – the guy in charge of the USNS Comfort, this morning.
      He was asked this exact question.
      Apparently, there is a “security bubble” one must past through to come on board the ship.
      Involves, questions as to where one has been, temp readings, tertiary exam, and even a COVID exam before being allowed on board.
      The DO NOT want to infect the ship.
      Let’s hope they don’t have a problem.

      Liked by 9 people

    2. They won’t be taking patients off the street. These are hospital patients (non WuFlu) who are screened for WuFlu then transported by ambulance to the Mercy in LA and Comfort in NY.

      Liked by 2 people

    3. Hopefully they have the Abbot Labs five to fifteen minute test.

      Positives can show as early as five minutes. Negative takes fifteen minutes.

      Like

  6. The photo is from an article about the first patients being accepted onto the medical ships.

    Would one of the medical professionals here confirm or explain the concept of a “fatpack” if that’s what that IV bag is. Thanks

    Liked by 5 people

      1. Remember when Q posted the information, when exposed, will be so horrifying and tear away trust we once had, it would be our choice to see it or not.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. “Remember when Q posted the information, when exposed, will be so horrifying and tear away trust we once had, it would be our choice to see it or not.”

          ________________

          No need to fear that ever happening.

          The promise of exposure is the best we ever get.

          ACTUAL exposure would blow the lid off everything, it would expose ALL of the bad guys and drag them out into the light for EVERYONE to see, and their power to do ANYTHING — to the administration OR the People of the WORLD — would instantly VANISH.

          They would be BEGGING to be saved by the government FROM the People.

          All it takes is EXPOSURE of WHO they are and WHAT they have been doing.

          But the administration won’t do it.

          They’ll only tease us about it.

          Like

    1. TPN is total parental nutrition. It is high density caloric, protein and glucose. The white color is from lipids. High doses of vitamins are usually also added. It is given as an IV infusion for nutritional support or replacement to patients who are not able to tolerate regular feeding or are unable to properly absorb nutrients. The formula can be adjusted to a patient’s specific needs based on lab values

      https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/total-parenteral-nutrition/about/pac-20385081

      Liked by 2 people

    1. Bakocarl, this is important and may I submit a suggestion you please put this in a separate post so it can be shared readily.
      Whaddaya think?
      It cannot hurt us, that’s for sure.
      It’s vitamins.

      Liked by 11 people

      1. I, for the last 2 months, have been taking a men’s 1 a day, 1,000 mg vit c, 250 mg magnesium, 50 mg zinc, and 125 mcg(5,000 IU) vit d3. I am healthy, with no underlying issues. Have thought about selenium, and getting more x2 Iodine from Infowars, but have not yet.

        Don’t know if it has helped or not, but figure it can’t hurt…

        Liked by 5 people

            1. Hmmm, a half teaspoon of baking soda in a glass of water cures all my stomach issues.
              We need a better expert on this subject though. Not me. I am in no way qualified to answer.
              My prescription would be “anecdotal” according to the dimwit Fauci.

              Liked by 3 people

              1. Can’t hurt, Daughn….I know of those that always put baking soda in when brewing a batch of iced tea. Thanks for the idea.

                Like

              2. Hehe, I had horrible burps when pregnant. Only gained 16lbs but Gunner was born 24 1/2″ inches long and pushing on my diaphragm. Doc suggested it.
                It works immediately.
                Haven’t bought a Rolaid in 2 decades.

                Liked by 2 people

            2. Teagan,

              First take with food.

              Second NEVER take vitamin C within 1/2 an hour of taking zinc.

              Third I use ginger and rice and yogurt for tummy upset.

              I used to have acid reflux twenty years ago and quit eating wheat. Although it went away I still had to take Tagamet (Cimetidine) rather regularly. Since I started taking CBD oil (Hemp oil) my tummy problems quit. I do not even have problems when I quit taking it for a couple of days.

              Hope that helps.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Thanks…I knew I could count on you, Gail. I do take the CBD oil in the am and the tea at night for sleep.
                I’ started taking my vitamins throughout the day instead all at once. Perhaps it was taking them together when I added zinc that was the problem.
                Will try again because I know it’s important.

                Liked by 1 person

      2. I would fall into category 3. Anyone have comments about iodine not being included in that one?
        Now I recall we took iodine drops while living in Guatemala, just as we took our anti-malaria pills.
        I did order the suggested brand of iodine today, if not for me my hubby can use it.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. I’m getting suspicious cat on Dr. Shiva. Unlike other doctors THAT ARE TREATING COVID-19 PATIENTS he is simply giving his idea of good supplementation. No patient data. What if Vit A is typically good but for some reason in COVID-19 it’s very bad?

            Also, He is happily drawing attention to himself and his superior knowledge, another “Trump should do this” mentality. This always is a big flag for me.

            Yes, he may be absolutely right and have great ideas, but something is off at least a little bit.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Yes, it’s hard to know who (I Freudianly had “how” there first, hmm) to trust for their human nature always must be factored in. The fact that he is also running for office is “interesting”…

              Liked by 1 person

    2. Very interesting! I’m happy to say that I’m already taking the vitamins he recommends for the healthy group every day. I still think, though, that I had this in December. And I was already taking those vitamins then. Maybe that kept me from getting to a critical stage.

      Liked by 5 people

    3. I forgot . . . here’s the cite –

      *https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/35241-how-to-fight-coronavirus-without-causing-a-global-depression

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for that link…it’s a great read! I added that info to my above mentioned post.

        Here is something from the comments at that article:

        “Here is an article that examines death statistics from normal seasonal influenza:

        https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/03/covid-19-engineered-health-crisis.html

        Governments around the world are using a faulty and incomplete data set to suspend the rights of their citizens to freedom of movement, engineering a “health crisis” to justify their control over all of us through the coercive use of fear.”

        The more you know…Blessings!

        Liked by 1 person

    4. I’m getting suspicious cat on Dr. Shiva. Unlike other doctors THAT ARE TREATING COVID-19 PATIENTS he is simply giving his idea of good supplementation. No patient data. What if Vit A is typically good but for some reason in COVID-19 it’s very bad?

      Also, He is happily drawing attention to himself and his superior knowledge, another “Trump should do this” mentality. This always is a big flag for me.

      Yes, he may be absolutely right and have great ideas, but something is off at least a little bit.

      I prefer to listen to doctors that have experience treating patients with similar diseases, like Dr. Klinghardt who has treated MERS and even MERSA.

      Click to access Dr-Klinghardt-Corona-2020-slides-9-march-2020.pdf

      Liked by 1 person

            1. Ah, I see the problem, you can’t get the link from the scribd embed…

              ***https://klinghardtinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Dr-Klinghardt-Corona-2020-slides-9-march-2020.pdf***

              Like

  7. COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate “May Be Considerably Less Than 1%” – Dr. Anthony Fauci

    April 1, 2020
    from Humans Are Free

    https://www.sgtreport.com/2020/04/covid-19-case-fatality-rate-may-be-considerably-less-than-1-dr-anthony-fauci/

    As soon as the World Health Organization put out a case fatality rate of 3.4% for the new coronavirus, multiple academics jumped in and criticized the projection. Most notably, three medical professors from Stanford University.

    Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, two professors of medicine at Stanford University recently published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Is the coronavirus as deadly as they say?”

    In it, they provide reasons for why the fatality rate might be significantly lower than the projection given by the World Health Organization (WHO).

    [Excerpt] Read more at the link above…

    Liked by 4 people

    1. The problem with talking about the death rate is we simply don’t know the denominator (deaths over cases), even now. It could be that a hundred million Chinese were infected–and no one knows it!

      We’re the first country making a concerted effort to test freely, rather than just those who are symptomatic (or worse, prime candidates due to travel, etc.). Every positive test of someone who feels fine and shook it off lowers the death rate.

      More readily available is the numbers of people who have been hospitalized over this…and then died of it. That’s a pretty ugly number from what I’ve seen (over 50%), though hopefully the HCZ, et., al. regimen will reverse this.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. You are starting to “get there” my friend. Projectios WITHOUT facts do not mean SQUAT. and THAT is what we are getting, and That IS WHAT THEY HAVE BASED ALL THIS HYSTERIA OVER. Simply test as MANY as possible, symptoms or no, use the antibody test, then we will be SOMEWHERE near a “projection” until THEN and ALL of my 20 questions or ANY of them are answered, they are simply GUESSING.

        Their guesses and summations are doing MORE HARM than the virus itself could hope to. THAT is the problem. Notice there IS NEVER a best case, ONLY the WORST case given. That is BAD science based on FLAWED data my man.

        It essentially is a self fulfilling straw man. Projections don’t match the ground reports? REVISE the numbers. That is a CLASSIC case of moving the goal posts. It is IRRESPONSIBLE< STUPID, and DANGEROUS. Get the FACTS. Just the FACTS mam.

        I hope ONE thing comes out of this. Projections, based on GUESSES with ever changing factors, MANY factors, should be OUTLAWED if not totally discounted FOREVER.

        Liked by 3 people

          1. Mine EITHER, not based SOLEY on death rate, but, they have NO idea of the variables, the ONLY thing they have is a death rate, a more than likely INACCURATE death rate. and an INACCURATE ever growing infection rate, which may HAVE been MUSH higher than it is even NOW. They have NOTHING else.

            They claim hospitals are overwhelmed, yet EVERY number, save ONE Hospital in NY, in Elmhurst is NOT matching the hype. They NEVER report the recovered number, WHY?

            The CDC lists the number for the US as ZERO. NO WAY that is accurate. IMHO, they are STILL basing their models on the FAULTY assumption that the FIRST cases here were in LATE Feb. (14 day spread) That is INACCURATE at best, and disingenuous at worst.

            Then, we have the requests for many times MORE ventilators than there are PEOPLE trained to run, maintain, and monitor them. Something is a miss. The ONE outlier comes back to the models.

            My FEAR, and why I continue to push back on this SO strenuously is that this is just the BEGINNING. They will do this REPEATEDLY, and we will not always have a person in there that has AMERICA, and AMERICAN’s best interests at heart.

            We went WHOLE hog, from the JUMP. We did MANY things that made NO sense, and then they will use the FAULTY models as cover. That my friend is inherently DANGEROUS.

            I MAINTAIN, that the economic diaster caused by the overreaction, and draconian measures, will KILL MANY MORE people than the virus they meant to mitigate.

            Depression, despair, and civil discourse IS coming. What THEN? Freedom is NOT free.
            Freedom is FLEETING. Free people will only give SO MUCH before they realize the game, and pushback, and pushback HARD.

            Fear and isolation coupled with no or inaccurate information, and exacerbated by stress over money are NOT a good mix. Tic toc. Trump’s ORIGINAL date (his GUT) was RIGHT. He will REGRET not listening to that, and listening to Fauchi, and it IS ALL Fauchi.

            That is an AWFUL lot of a big EGG to put in one basket.

            I PRAY Trump is letting this play out JUST long enough to see some REAL progress, and then HE will adjust his “projection” down, and release the country form this nightmare, by his GUT of Easter. That is STILL two weeks away.

            Would you agree, that it is suspicious that they KEEP moving the goalposts?

            Liked by 3 people

        1. Will the antibody test show antibodies caused by the presence of just any old coronavirus, of which there are many varieties, or is there somehow a specific covid-19 antibody detected?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. THAT is the RIGHT question Carl. Will they GO BACK and retest those that were diagnosed as the flu? THAT along with the antibody testing WILL tell the TRUE tale of this. Notice how they don’t want to even TALK about that? Speaks VOLUMES.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. I read, but did not save the cite, that the test for WuFlu doesn’t specifically detect covid-19 . . . it detects the presence of a coronavirus (or antibody). I read a couple of years ago that about 30% of colds were caused by a coronavirus and the other 70% by a rhinovirus. Also, that there are 20-30 coronaviruses floating around at any given time that may trigger the test to a positive.

      So, the test data is corrupt, too, if my info is correct, and that will also mess with your mortality calcs.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. True – they really do not have accurate data at this point in time – the number of strains alone makes it nearly impossible – perhaps, we can get some clarification as time goes on – much of what we are getting now is pure speculation – not codified fact – imho – right now we are too busy with needs and current cases to be troubled by ‘numbers’ – and – they are still collecting data – so I think it will be a while before we know specifically with what we are dealing – my head is spinning – so I trust God to sort it all out – and let us know where to find the truth.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Timeline:

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Hmmmmm, not increasing exponentially.
      That is good news.
      better way to say it, the doubling has slowed significantly, up to more than 5-6 days.
      Yet still inaccurate because all countries do not test all citizens in same way, and we KNOW the China stats are all wrong, and we know Japan quit testing, South Korea had tons of false positives, Iran figures are worthless, Italy does not have staff to test, and UK is only testing 5-7K per week.
      Still no real numbers.
      That China would not report real numbers, in effect, means that the first time the disease hit the USA we have no idea what to expect.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. BINGO, but it will NOT be as bad as said, WATCH. They DON’T know WHEN or how many were infected here that is the KEY. IF as I suspect, we were hit MUCH earlier and MUCH worse, then the numbers will do as expected, and DROP. The REASON for the spike is that everyone with the symptoms is NOW scared shitless and being tested. Before, everyone was UNAFRAID, and self medicated or got better.

        It is NOW more PSYCHOLOGICAL than PATHOLOGICAL. I bet people were JUST as sick before the panic, some even went to hospital, sadly some DIED. We just did not KNOW.

        Liked by 4 people

  9. On a positive note. I’ve mentioned that my daughter works for Colgate, and my hubby is connected to the Navy. So she asked her daddy if he could connect her to a contact for the USS Comfort, so Colgate could donate to them.

    It’s under review by the Navy folks right now. 🙂

    Liked by 8 people

  10. I’m having so much fun arguing with BlueCheckmarks on Twitter.
    Have my sword out today.
    Slash and burn
    Don’t EVER argue stats with MOMMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Liked by 9 people

  11. kalbokalbs Says: “…IMO, we will whip ChiCom-19 sooner than current model reflects. It’s ONLY a model….”

    That is correct.

    If you listened closely last night NOTHING was said about the model AND hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

    WHY?

    Because they are complete game changers!

    President Trump let the CDC and Fauci and the WHO have their way with their ‘Scientific Modeling’ And when the results of the hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin tests come in he will DROP KICK those models into the Wastebin of history!

    Liked by 9 people

    1. The modeling DOES say it is based on the precautions we are taking (social distancing, staying home, washing hands), so there is that.

      I see HCZ’s main effect, at least at first, being cutting down on hospitalizations and deaths (which is the most important aspect)…cases will probably continue to climb until we can saturate the general population with the stuff.

      Liked by 3 people

          1. I read that the drug is officially listed as limited availability because all the drug wholesalers, retail drug suppliers, hospitals, etc., all want a supply for now and for the future. So I don’t know how the average patient (think Sylvia) gets the prescription filled when all the suppliers contacted say “We don’t have it, but our requests are in.”

            Liked by 1 person

      1. That is FALLACY Steve and you know that. There is simply NO way they can predict the effects, good or bad, and THAT is the SCAM. They have NO IDEA the numbers they are dealing with, they have NO IDEA of the timeframe. ANY model is do do, based upon whatever BIAS they modeler had absent FACTS.

        You KNOW that. As REAL, TRUE, FACTS come in, notice how they have to REVISE their model, and revise it DOWN. First it was 1-2 MILLION, then it was 240000, now it is 100-200000. SOON it will be UNDER 100000, and so on and so forth.

        They started ALL this from a BIAS of WORST CASE. Not just worse case, THE WORST CASE possible.
        Now, Neil Fergusson was DISCREDITED for talking out his ASS, with HIS model that started this FARCE, Now it is Chris Murray from Washington University. SOON, his numbers too will be way out of whack, then they will move to the NEXT model, continuing to MOVE the goalposts until there is NO field left.

        I WISH they could simply ADMIT that the models are ALL NOT adding up, and some were just FLAT WRONG. But, THAT would kill the narrative, START the pushback, and END the farce.

        Look, I KNOW people are getting sick, suffering and some are dying. I get that. But people die EVERY day, MANY people, MANY MORE people than will die from this. Opioids for example. Do we shut the REST of the country down for that?

        NO, we shut it down for what MIGHT happen, not what HAS or IS happening. They are GUESSING what MIGHT happen, and when their guess is WRONG, they simply adjust the GUESS. In the END, they will have had NO IDEA, but they WILL take credit for “mitigating” the crisis because of their actions. In REALITY, we may NEVER know if that is true or NOT.

        This is a VIRUS, it is unpredictable, we do NOT have enough FACTS on it yet. ALL the distancing in the WORLD may not STOP the spread. We DO NOT know, we are, as my friend would say frontin’. That is talking out our ASSES on this.

        A guy like ME can do that, when CDC officials, and politicians do that, there is an AGENDA., and a NARRATIVE. Read my blog posts today. Look at the questions that NEED to be asked. Try and answer them yourself, you CAN’T, THEY can’t.

        It makes NO sense to do as we did, from the JUMP. WHY quarantine the HEALTHY? and NOT just those at MOST risk? It was WAY overboard. It suggests a MOTIVE. Then you see it has all based, and CONTINUES to be based on MODELS, and PROJECTIONS. Please, these same people can NOT predict the weather, they CANNOT cure the COMMON CORONAVIRUS, ( the common cold)

        Why are we killing ourselves over a GUESS? Does THAT make sense? Last I looked this is America, land of the FREE, which means we have the RIGHT to assume our OWN risk.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Also Steve there is testing for the Chinese Corona Crud virus AND now for antibodies.

        From what Dr Brix said, with the antibody test they are going to go back and look at retain blood samples to see if they can pinpoint WHEN the infection hit the USA. That will make a BIG difference.

        If a lot of the deaths labeled pneumonia were actually from the Chinese Corona Crud, it would explain the third peak and possibly part of the second.

        Notice how the IDed flu has tailed off.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. This may be way off base, but your first graph above shows an interesting pattern…

          In Trump’s Time, on the scene or in office, the patterns are pretty different than preceding years. By the way, why didn’t they plot data for 2010-2011 or 2012-2013 or 2013-2014 or 2016-2017 seasons…What Are They Hiding Here???

          2011-2012 is also a leading into an election season & it shows the two humps perspective, could the CCP have been testing out a less virulent form here to then use to leverage BHO?

          2015-2016 is leading into the Trump election & it also overlaps the Coup Machinations like Crossfire Hurricane, Steele/Clinton dossier, Manafort situations, Michael Flynn takedown ops likely planned…it’s worse than the 2011-2012 scenario but a similar pattern…

          2017-2018 is leading into Mid-term elections & the peak is higher than other years besides the Usurper’s Swine Flu 2009-2010 season which peaked much earlier than the other shown “Flu” seasons. It didn’t have the double hump that the other Trumpian seasons displayed…

          2018-2019 is another non-election year but displays the double hump form that May be representative of more Chi-Com viral tampering.

          Oh, these are “visits for flu-like illnesses” so what if all the Trump Deranged are more immunocompromised purely from their overwhelming fears about the direction of the nation under Trump’s leadership so they get sicker easier or go to the Dr more because of general neurosis?

          2007-2008 & 2008-2009 seasons on display could also be instructive too to see if similar patterns were presenting in the lead up to BHO’s usurpation, especially because Hillary was an electoral factor up until Barry was “anointed” to be the dem’s candidate…

          Like

          1. I found it!!! 2008-2009 Flu Season data hidden…

            “2007-2008 & 2008-2009 seasons on display could also be instructive too to see if similar patterns were presenting in the lead up to BHO’s usurpation, especially because Hillary was an electoral factor up until Barry was “anointed” to be the dem’s candidate…” from my prior comment

            I had to get into the Internet Archive to find data on 2008-2009 at this site:

            https://web.archive.org/web/20111015082635/http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5814a4.htm

            Here this page is in its entirety, in case there is something important there:

            Update: Influenza Activity — United States, September 28, 2008–April 4, 2009, and Composition of the 2009–10 Influenza Vaccine
            This report summarizes U.S. influenza activity* from September 28, 2008, the start of the 2008–09 influenza season, through April 4, 2009, and reports on the 2009–10 influenza vaccine strain selection. Low levels of influenza activity were reported from October through early January. Activity increased from mid-January and peaked in mid-February. Influenza A (H1N1) viruses have predominated overall this season, but influenza B viruses have been isolated more frequently than influenza A viruses since mid-March. Widespread oseltamivir resistance was detected among circulating influenza A (H1N1) viruses and a high level of adamantane resistance was identified among influenza A (H3N2) viruses.

            Viral Surveillance

            From September 28, 2008, to April 4, 2009, World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) collaborating laboratories in the United States tested 173,397 respiratory specimens for influenza viruses, 24,793 (14.3%) of which were positive (Figure 1). Of these, 16,686 (67.3%) were positive for influenza A viruses, and 8,107 (32.7%) were positive for influenza B viruses. Of the 16,686 specimens positive for influenza A viruses, 6,735 (40.4%) were subtyped by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or by virus culture; 6,049 (89.8%) of these were influenza A (H1N1) viruses, and 686 (10.2%) were influenza A (H3N2) viruses. The percentage of specimens testing positive for influenza first exceeded the seasonal threshold of 10% during the week ending January 17, 2009, and peaked at 25.0% during the week ending February 14, 2009. For the week ending April 4, 2009, 12.3% of specimens tested for influenza were positive. The relative proportion of influenza B viruses increased during February and March, and since the week ending March 14, 2009, >50% of the positive influenza specimens have been influenza B.

            Antigenic Characterization

            WHO collaborating laboratories in the United States are requested to submit a subset of their influenza virus isolates to CDC for further antigenic characterization. CDC has antigenically characterized 945 influenza viruses collected by U.S. laboratories during the 2008–09 season, including 594 influenza A (H1N1), 88 influenza A (H3N2), and 263 influenza B viruses. All 594 influenza A (H1N1) viruses are related to the influenza A (H1N1) component of the 2008–09 influenza vaccine (A/Brisbane/59/2007). All 88 influenza A (H3N2) viruses are related to the influenza A (H3N2) vaccine component (A/Brisbane/10/2007). Influenza B viruses currently circulating can be divided into two distinct lineages represented by the B/Yamagata/16/88 and B/Victoria/02/87 viruses. Among the 263 influenza B viruses tested, 50 (19.0%) belong to the B/Yamagata lineage and are related to the vaccine strain (B/Florida/04/2006); the remaining 213 (81.0%) belong to the B/Victoria lineage and are not related to the vaccine strain.

            Composition of the 2009–10 Influenza Vaccine

            WHO recommended that the 2009–10 Northern Hemisphere trivalent influenza vaccine contain A/Brisbane/59/2007-like (H1N1), A/Brisbane/10/2007-like (H3N2), and B/Brisbane/60/2008-like (B/Victoria lineage) viruses. The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee recommended these same vaccine strains be included in the 2009–10 influenza vaccine for the United States (1). Only the influenza B component represents a change from the 2008–09 vaccine formulation. These recommendations were based on antigenic and genetic analyses of recently isolated influenza viruses, epidemiologic data, post-vaccination serologic studies in humans, and the availability of candidate vaccine strains and reagents.

            Antiviral Resistance of Influenza Virus Isolates

            CDC conducts surveillance for resistance of circulating influenza viruses to licensed influenza antiviral medications: adamantanes (amantadine and rimantadine) and neuraminidase inhibitors (zanamivir and oseltamivir). Since October 1, 2008, of the 699 influenza A (H1N1) viruses from 44 states tested for neuraminidase inhibitor resistance, 694 (99.3%) were resistant to oseltamivir; all were sensitive to zanamivir (Table). All 103 influenza A (H3N2) and all 274 influenza B viruses tested were sensitive to oseltamivir and zanamivir. Three influenza A (H1N1) viruses (0.4%) and all 100 (100%) influenza A (H3N2) viruses tested were resistant to adamantanes (amantadine and rimantadine). The adamantanes are not effective against influenza B viruses. None of the influenza A (H1N1) viruses tested were resistant to both oseltamivir and adamantanes.

            Novel Influenza A Viruses

            A case of human infection with a novel influenza A virus was reported by the Iowa Department of Public Health during the week ending February 28, 2009. A male aged 3 years was infected with a swine influenza A (H1N1) virus. An investigation revealed that the child had close contact with ill pigs. The child has fully recovered from the illness, and no additional cases were identified among the child’s contacts or other persons exposed to the ill pigs. This is the third human infection with swine influenza virus identified in the United States this influenza season. None of the cases were related to occupation. The other two human infections with swine influenza identified during the 2008–09 influenza season occurred in a person aged 14 years from Texas and a person aged 19 years from South Dakota (2,3).

            State-Specific Activity Levels

            During the week ending April 4, 2009, widespread influenza activity† was reported by four states (Alabama, New York, Virginia, and Washington). Regional influenza activity was reported by 18 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee). Local influenza activity was reported by 20 states, sporadic activity was reported by the District of Columbia and seven states, and one state did not report Regional influenza activity was reported for the first time this season during the week ending December 20, 2008 (by Massachusetts and New Jersey), and widespread activity was reported for the first time during the week ending January 10, 2009 (by Virginia). To date this season, regional or widespread influenza activity has been reported during at least 1 week by 49 states.

            Outpatient Illness Surveillance

            Since September 28, 2008, the weekly percentage of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI)§ reported by approximately 1,500 U.S. health-care providers in 50 states, New York City, Chicago, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands that comprise the U.S. Outpatient ILI Surveillance Network (ILINet), has ranged from 0.9% during the week ending October 4, 2008, to 3.7% for the week ending February 14, 2009. For the week ending April 4, 2009, the weekly percentage of outpatient visits for ILI was 1.6% (Figure 2). This is below the national baseline of 2.4%.¶ One of the nine surveillance regions (Mountain) reported an ILI percentage above its region-specific baseline.

            Pneumonia- and Influenza-Related Mortality

            For the week ending April 4, 2009, pneumonia and influenza was reported as an underlying or contributing cause of death for 7.4% of all deaths reported through the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System. This is below the epidemic threshold of 7.8% for that week. Since September 28, 2008, the weekly percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza ranged from 6.1% to 7.6%, and remained below the epidemic threshold.**

            Influenza-Associated Hospitalizations

            Hospitalizations associated with laboratory-confirmed influenza infections are monitored by two population-based surveillance networks, the New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN) and the Emerging Infections Program (EIP).†† From October 12, 2008, to March 21, 2009, the preliminary laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalization rate for children aged 0–4 years in the NVSN was 1.46 per 10,000.

            From October 1, 2008, to March 28, 2009, preliminary rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalization reported by the EIP for children aged 0–4 years and 5–17 years were 2.8 and 0.5 per 10,000, respectively (Figure 3). For adults aged 18–49 years, 50–64 years, and ≥65 years, the rates were 0.3, 0.4, and 1.0 per 10,000, respectively. Differences in the rate estimates between the NVSN and the EIP systems likely result from the different case-finding methods and the different populations monitored.

            Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality

            Since September 28, 2008, CDC has received 45 reports of influenza-associated pediatric deaths that occurred during the current season. Of the 27 decedents who had specimens collected for bacterial culture from normally sterile sites, 12 (44.4%) were positive; Staphylococcus aureus was identified in eight of the 12 children. Three of the S. aureus isolates were sensitive to methicillin, and five were methicillin resistant. Among the 12 children with bacterial coinfections, all were aged ≥5 years, and 10 (83.3%) were aged ≥12 years. An increase in the number of influenza-associated pediatric deaths with S. aureus coinfections was first recognized during the 2006–07 influenza season (4).

            Of the 36 decedents aged >6 months for whom patient vaccination status was known, five (13.9%) had been vaccinated against influenza according to 2008 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations (5). These data are provisional and subject to change as more information becomes available.

            Reported by: WHO Collaborating Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Control of Influenza. P Peebles, L Brammer, MPH, S Epperson, MPH, L Blanton, MPH, R Dhara, MPH, T Wallis, MS, L Finelli, DrPH, L Gubareva, PhD, J Bresee, MD, A Klimov, PhD, N Cox, PhD, Influenza Div, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC.

            Editorial Note:
            From September 28, 2008, through early January 2009, the United States experienced low levels of influenza activity. Activity increased in mid-January, peaked in mid-February, and remained high until mid-March. Since mid-March, influenza levels have been decreasing nationally.

            Preliminary data from the U.S. virologic surveillance networks (WHO and NREVSS collaborating laboratories), the percentage of deaths attributable to pneumonia and influenza, and the percentage of outpatient visits for ILI suggest that this season has been less severe than the 2007–08 season and is more similar to the 2005–06 and 2006–07 seasons. The percentage of specimens tested for influenza that were positive peaked at 25.0% during the week ending February 14, 2009, compared with 31.6% in 2007–08, 27.7% in 2006–07, and 22.6% in 2005–06. To date during this season, the percentage of deaths attributable to pneumonia and influenza peaked at 7.6% and has not exceeded the epidemic threshold. By comparison, pneumonia and influenza mortality peaked at 9.1%, 7.9%, and 7.8% during the 2007–08, 2006–07, and 2005–06 seasons, respectively. The epidemic threshold for pneumonia and influenza deaths was exceeded for 9 consecutive weeks during the 2007–08 season and for only 1 week during both the 2005–06 and 2006–07 seasons. The percentage of outpatient visits for ILI peaked at 3.7% this season, compared with 6.0% in 2007–08, 3.6% in 2006–07, and 3.1% in 2005–06.

            During this influenza season, a high level of resistance to the antiviral drug oseltamivir was detected among circulating influenza A (H1N1) viruses. Since October 1, 2008, 99.3% of influenza A (H1N1) viruses tested were resistant to oseltamivir. To date, influenza A has accounted for 67.3% of all influenza viruses identified, and influenza A (H1N1) has accounted for 89.8% of the influenza A viruses that were subtyped. No oseltamivir resistance has been detected among influenza A (H3N2) or B viruses currently circulating in the United States; however, all the influenza A (H3N2) viruses tested were resistant to adamantanes. The adamantanes are not effective against influenza B viruses. None of the influenza A (H1N1) viruses tested were resistant to both oseltamivir and the adamantanes, and all influenza viruses tested this season have been susceptible to zanamivir. CDC issued interim guidelines for the use of influenza antiviral medications on December 19, 2008. Health-care providers should review their local surveillance data if available to determine which types (A or B) and subtypes of influenza A (H1N1 or H3N2) are most prominent in their community and consider using diagnostic tests to distinguish influenza A from influenza B. When an influenza A (H1N1) virus infection or exposure is suspected, zanamivir is the preferred medication; combination therapy of oseltamivir and rimantidine is an acceptable alternative (6).

            Since early February, the relative proportion of influenza B viruses has been increasing each week, and more than half of influenza viruses identified since the week ending March 14, 2009, were influenza B. Approximately 80% of influenza B viruses tested have not been related to the influenza B vaccine strain. However, all influenza B viruses this season have been susceptible to oseltamivir and zanamivir. Health-care providers should be aware of these recent increases in influenza B viruses and of the differences in antiviral resistance patterns compared with influenza A (H1N1) viruses. When an influenza B infection or exposure is detected, treatment with oseltamivir or zanamivir is recommended. However, when the type or subtype is unknown, zanamivir is the preferred medication; combination therapy of oseltamivir and rimantidine also is acceptable (6).

            To date this season, the cumulative laboratory-confirmed, influenza-associated hospitalization rate reported by EIP among persons aged ≥50 years has been lower than rates reported for the previous three seasons, but most similar to the 2006–07 season. Historically, excess mortality has been lower in seasons during which influenza A (H1N1) or influenza B predominated than during seasons in which influenza A (H3N2) has predominated (7). During the current and 2006–07 seasons, influenza A (H1N1) has been the prominent virus subtype circulating, which could partly explain the lower influenza-associated hospitalization rates among persons aged ≥50 years observed during these two seasons.

            Vaccination remains the best method for preventing influenza virus infection and its complications. Influenza vaccination can prevent influenza infections from strains that are sensitive or resistant to antiviral medications. Thus far this season, all the influenza A viruses that have been characterized, including oseltamivir-resistant (H1N1) viruses, are antigenically related to the components in the vaccine. However, approximately 80% of influenza B viruses tested are from a distinct lineage that is not related to the vaccine strain. Limited or no protection is expected when the vaccine and circulating virus strains are from different lineages (8,9). The composition of the 2009–10 influenza vaccine includes the same influenza A (H1N1 and H3N2) components, and a change in the influenza B component from the Yamagata to the Victoria lineage.

            Influenza surveillance reports for the United States are posted weekly online at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/flu
            activity.htm during the influenza season from October to mid-May. Additional information regarding influenza viruses, influenza surveillance, the influenza vaccine, and avian influenza is available at http://www.cdc.gov/flu.

            Acknowledgments
            This report is based, in part, on data contributed by participating state and territorial health departments and state public health laboratories, World Health Organization collaborating laboratories, National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System collaborating laboratories, the U.S. Outpatient ILI Surveillance Network, the Emerging Infections Program, the New Vaccine Surveillance Network, the Influenza Associated Pediatric Mortality Surveillance System, and the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System.

            References
            Food and Drug Administration. Influenza virus vaccine 2009–2010 season. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cber/flu/flu2009.htm.
            CDC. Influenza activity—United States and worldwide, September 28–November 29, 2008. MMWR 2008;57:1329–32.
            CDC. Influenza activity—United States, September 28, 2008–January 31, 2009. MMWR 2009;58:115–9.
            Finelli L, Fiore A, Dhara R, et al. Influenza-associated pediatric mortality in the United States: increase of Staphylococcus aureus coinfection. Pediatrics 2008;122:805–11.
            CDC. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2008. MMWR 2008;57(No. RR-7).
            CDC. CDC issues interim recommendations for the use of influenza antiviral medications in the setting of oseltamivir resistance among circulating influenza A (H1N1) viruses, 2008–09 influenza season. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and human services, CDC; 2008. Available at http://www2a.cdc.gov/han/archivesys/viewmsgv.asp?alertnum=00279.
            Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 2003;289:179–86.
            Belongia E, Kieke B, Donahue J, et al. Effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccines varied substantially with antigenic match from the 2004–2005 season to the 2006–2007 season. J Infect Dis 2009;199:159–67.
            Skowronski D, De Serres G, Dickinson J, et al. Component-specific effectiveness of trivalent influenza vaccine as monitored through a sentinel surveillance network in Canada, 2006–2007. J Infect Dis 2009;199:168–79.
            * The CDC influenza surveillance system collects five categories of information from nine data sources: 1) viral surveillance (World Health Organization collaborating U.S. laboratories, the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System, and novel influenza A virus case reporting), 2) outpatient illness surveillance (U.S. Outpatient ILI Surveillance Network), 3) mortality (122 Cities Mortality Reporting System and influenza-associated pediatric mortality reports), 4) hospitalizations (Emerging Infections Program and New Vaccine Surveillance Network), and 5) summary of geographic spread of influenza (state and territorial epidemiologist reports).

            † Levels of activity are 1) no activity; 2) sporadic: isolated laboratory-confirmed influenza cases or a laboratory-confirmed outbreak in one institution, with no increase in influenza-like illness (ILI) activity; 3) local: increased ILI, or at least two institutional outbreaks (ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza) in one region with recent laboratory evidence of influenza in that region; virus activity no greater than sporadic in other regions; 4) regional: increased ILI activity or institutional outbreaks (ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza) in at least two but less than half of the regions in the state with recent laboratory evidence of influenza in those regions; and 5) widespread: increased ILI activity or institutional outbreaks (ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza) in at least half the regions in the state with recent laboratory evidence of influenza in the state.

            § Defined as a temperature of ≥100.0°F (≥37.8°C), oral or equivalent, and cough and/or sore throat, in the absence of a known cause other than influenza.

            ¶ The national and regional baselines are the mean percentage of visits for ILI during noninfluenza weeks for the previous three seasons plus two standard deviations. A noninfluenza week is a week during which <10% of specimens tested positive for influenza. National and regional percentages of patient visits for ILI are weighted on the basis of state population. Use of the national baseline for regional data is not appropriate.

            ** The seasonal baseline proportion of pneumonia and influenza deaths is projected using a robust regression procedure in which a periodic regression model is applied to the observed percentage of deaths from pneumonia and influenza that were reported by the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System during the preceding 5 years. The epidemic threshold is 1.645 standard deviations above the seasonal baseline.

            †† NVSN conducts surveillance in Monroe County, New York; Hamilton County, Ohio; and Davidson County, Tennessee. NVSN provides population-based estimates of laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization rates in children aged <5 years admitted to NVSN hospitals with fever or respiratory symptoms. Children are prospectively enrolled, and respiratory samples are collected and tested by viral culture and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). EIP currently conducts surveillance for laboratory-confirmed, influenza-related hospitalizations in 61 counties and Baltimore, Maryland. The EIP catchment area includes 13 metropolitan areas: San Francisco, California; Denver, Colorado; New Haven, Connecticut; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Las Cruces, New Mexico; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Albany, New York; Rochester, New York; Portland, Oregon; and Nashville, Tennessee. Hospital laboratory, admission, and discharge databases, and infection-control logs are reviewed to identify persons with a positive influenza test (i.e., viral culture, direct fluorescent antibody assays, RT-PCR, serology, or a commercial rapid antigen test) from testing conducted as part of their routine care.

            FIGURE 1. Number (N = 24,793) and percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza reported by World Health Organization and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System collaborating laboratories, by type, and surveillance week – United States, September 28, 2008-April 4, 2009

            Number (N = 24,793) and percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza reported by World Health Organization and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System collaborating laboratories, by type, and surveillance week – United States, September 28, 2008-April 4, 2009
            Return to top.

            TABLE. Number and percentage of influenza viruses tested for resistance to influenza antiviral medications, by virus type — United States, October 1, 2008–April 4, 2009

            Virus

            No. of isolates tested

            Resistant to oseltamivir*

            No. of isolates tested

            Resistant to adamantanes

            No.

            (%)

            No.

            (%)

            Influenza A (H1N1)

            699

            694

            (99.3)

            683

            3

            (0.4)

            Influenza A (H3N2)

            103

            0

            (0)

            100

            100

            (100)

            Influenza B

            274

            0

            (0)

            -†

            * None of the tested isolates were resistant to zanamivir.

            † The adamantanes (amantadine and rimantadine) are not effective against influenza B viruses.

            Return to top.

            FIGURE 2. Percentage of visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported by U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet), by surveillance week – United States, September 28, 2008-April 4, 2009 and 2006-07 and 2007-08 influenza seasons

            Percentage of visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported by U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet), by surveillance week – United States, September 28, 2008-April 4, 2009 and 2006-07 and 2007-08 influenza seasons
            * The 2006-07 and 2007-08 seasons did not have a week 53; therefore the week 53 data point for those seasons is an average of weeks 52 and 1.

            † The national and regional baselines are the mean percentage of visits for ILI during noninfluenza weeks for the previous three seasons plus two standard deviations. A noninfluenza week is a week during which <10% of specimens tested positive for influenza. National and regional percentages of patient visits for ILI are weighted on the basis of state population. Use of the national baseline for regional data is not appropriate.

            Return to top.

            FIGURE 3. Cumulative laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization rates,* by age group† and surveillance week – Emerging Infections Program, United States, October 1, 2008-March 28, 2009, and preceding three influenza seasons

            Cumulative laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization rates,* by age group† and surveillance week – Emerging Infections Program, United States, October 1, 2008-March 28, 2009, and preceding three influenza seasons

            * Per 10,000 population.

            † Scales differ among age groups.

            Return to top.

            Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

            References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MMWR were current as of the date of publication.
            All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from typeset documents. This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr) and/or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800. Contact GPO for current prices.

            **Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mmwrq@cdc.gov.
            Date last reviewed: 4/15/2009

            I wonder if part of why this particular season was hidden was because of the final chart showing multiple seasons in comparison…

            The 2008-2009 flu season data was still available here, but there were no Q & As, unlike every other year accessible from this page:
            https://web.archive.org/web/20160414192006/http://www.cdc.gov:80/flu/pastseasons/

            This link discusses 2009-2010 flu season & refers to the previous season
            https://web.archive.org/web/20150207121642/http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pastseasons/0910season.htm

            This one has data about the 2009 H1N1 PANDEMIC…

            https://web.archive.org/web/20150206004704/http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/

            This represents the last capture of that page before its 8-1810 update:
            https://web.archive.org/web/20100715010537/http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/

            Here are images of the H1N1 virus that bears remarkable similarity, in certain respects to the coronavirus

            https://web.archive.org/web/20100715140242/http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/images.htm

            Numerous reports here:

            https://web.archive.org/web/20100803093548/http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/pubs/

            lots of pandemic info for H1N1 here

            https://web.archive.org/web/20100803093701/http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/related_links.htm

            The 2009 H1N1 Pandemic: Summary Highlights, April 2009-April 2010
            https://web.archive.org/web/20100715132743/http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/cdcresponse.htm

            well, I'm running out of gas so will let this stand "as is" forgive my feet of clay please…Blessings!

            Like

        2. 2010-2011 info

          OK, so I attempted to go to the source cdc.gov to see if there was other data available for the “hidden” seasons on the line graph you shared. This site deals with historic flu data

          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/past-flu-seasons.htm

          It starts with 2006-2007 & goes to 2018-2019 but is conspicuously missing 2008-2009 hmm…

          If I can find decent summary data for the “missing” seasons on your line graph I will attempt to share

          This link goes to data about 2010-2011:
          https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6021a5.htm

          & we find these charts there:

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the number and percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza by type, surveillance week, and year in the United States from October 3, 2010-May 21, 2011, according to the World Health Organization and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System collaborating laboratories. During October 3, 2010 – May 21, 2011, World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) collaborating laborato¬ries in the United States tested 246,128 specimens for influenza viruses; 54,226 (22%) were positive.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the percentage of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported, by surveillance week and year in the United States from September 30, 2007-May 21, 2011, according to the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet). The weekly percentage of outpatient visits for ILI to the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet) exceeded national baseline levels (2.5%) during the weeks ending December 25, 2010, through March 19, 2011 (weeks 51-11), and peaked at 4.6% during the week ending February 19, 2011 (week 7).

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the cumulative rate of laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations, by age group, surveillance week, and year in the United States from October 1, 2010-April 30, 2011, according to FluSurv-NET. The cumulative incidence for all age groups since October 1, 2010, was 20.5 per 100,000.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the percentage of all deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) by surveillance week and year in the United States from 2006-2011, according to the Mortality Reporting Systems of 122 cities. During the 2010-11 influenza season, the percentage of deaths attributed to P&I exceeded the epidemic threshold for 13 consecutive weeks, from the weeks ending January 29 to April 23, 2011 (weeks 4-16).

          So at this point I’ll share data about missing years in separate comments…Regards!

          Like

        3. 2012-2013 info

          OK, so I attempted to go to the source cdc.gov to see if there was other data available for the “hidden” seasons on the line graph you shared. This site deals with historic flu data

          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/past-flu-seasons.htm

          It starts with 2006-2007 & goes to 2018-2019 but is conspicuously missing 2008-2009 hmm…

          If I can find decent summary data for the “missing” seasons on your line graph I will attempt to share

          for 2012-2013
          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pastseasons/1213season.htm

          https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6223a5.htm?s_cid=mm6223a5_e

          Here are the charts:

          FIGURE 1. Number and percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza reported to CDC, by type and surveillance week and year — World Health Organization and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System collaborating laboratories, United States, September 30, 2012–May 18, 2013

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the number and percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza in the United States reported to CDC, by type, surveillance week, and year from World Health Organization and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System collaborating laboratories, during September 30, 2012-May 18, 2013. During this period, these laboratories tested 311,333 specimens for influenza viruses; 73,130 (23%) were positive.

          FIGURE 2. Percentage of visits for influenza-like illness (ILI)* reported to CDC, by surveillance week and year — U.S. Outpatient Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance Network, United States, September 30, 2012–May 18, 2013, and selected previous seasons

          * Defined as a temperature of ≥100.0°F (≥37.8°C), oral or equivalent, and cough or sore throat, in the absence of a known cause other than influenza.

          † The national baseline is the mean percentage of visits for ILI during noninfluenza weeks for the previous three seasons plus two standard deviations. A noninfluenza week is defined as periods of two or more consecutive weeks in which each week accounted for <2% of the season's total number of specimens that tested positive for influenza. Use of the national baseline for regional data is not appropriate.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the percentage of visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported to CDC, by surveillance week and year in the United States during September 30, 2012-May 18, 2013, and selected previous seasons. Nationally, the weekly percentage of outpatient visits for ILI to health-care providers participating in the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance Network exceeded the national baseline level of 2.2% for 15 weeks during the 2012-13 influenza season.

          FIGURE 3. Cumulative hospitalization rates for laboratory-confirmed influenza, by age group and surveillance week and year — FluSurv-NET* surveillance system, United States, October 1, 2012–April 30, 2013

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows cumulate hospitalization rates for laboratory-confirmed influenza, by age group, surveillance week, and year, in the United States during October 1, 2012-April 30, 2013. The cumulative incidence for all age groups since October 1, 2012, was 44.3 per 100,000.

          FIGURE 4. Percentage of all deaths attributable to pneumonia and influenza (P&I), by surveillance week and year — 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System, United States, 2008–May 18, 2013

          * The epidemic threshold is 1.645 standard deviations above the seasonal baseline.

          † The seasonal baseline is projected using a robust regression procedure that applies a periodic regression model to the observed percentage of deaths from P&I during the preceding 5 years.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows percentage of all deaths attributable to pneumonia and influenza (P&I), by surveillance week and year in 122 U.S. cities during 2008-May 18, 2013. The percentage of deaths attributed to P&I peaked at 9.9% during the week ending January 19, 2013 (week 3). From the 2008-09 season through the 2011-12 season, the peak percentage of P&I deaths ranged from 7.9% to 9.1%, and the total number of consecutive weeks at or above the epidemic threshold ranged from 1 to 13.

          This time I also copied the data that wasn't included in the images, will go back & correct the previous reply shortly…

          Like

        4. 2013-2014 info

          OK, so I attempted to go to the source cdc.gov to see if there was other data available for the “hidden” seasons on the line graph you shared. This site deals with historic flu data

          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/past-flu-seasons.htm

          It starts with 2006-2007 & goes to 2018-2019 but is conspicuously missing 2008-2009 hmm…

          If I can find decent summary data for the “missing” seasons on your line graph I will attempt to share

          This link goes to data about 2013-2014:

          FIGURE 1. Number* and percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza, by type, subtype, surveillance week, and year — World Health Organization and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System collaborating laboratories, United States, 2013–14 influenza season†

          * N = 53,470.

          † Data reported as of May 30, 2014.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the number and percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza reported by type, subtype, surveillance week, and year in the United States during the 2013-14 influenza season. During September 29, 2013-May 17, 2014, World Health Organization and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System collaborating laboratories in the United States tested 308,741 specimens for influenza viruses; 53,470 (17.3%) were positive.

          FIGURE 2. Percentage of visits for influenza-like illness (ILI)* reported to CDC, by surveillance week — Outpatient Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance Network, United States, 2013–14 influenza season and selected previous seasons†

          * Defined as a fever of ≥100.0°F (≥37.8°C), oral or equivalent, and cough or sore throat, in the absence of a known cause other than influenza.

          † Data as of May 30, 2014.

          § The national baseline is the mean percentage of visits for ILI during weeks with little or no influenza virus circulation (noninfluenza periods) for the previous three seasons plus two standard deviations. A noninfluenza period is defined as ≥2 consecutive weeks in which each week accounted for <2% of the season's total number of specimens that tested positive for influenza. Use of the national baseline for regional data is not appropriate.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the percentage of visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported to CDC, by surveillance week and year in the United States during the 2013-14 influenza season and selected previous seasons. Nationally, the weekly percentage of outpatient visits for ILI to health-care providers participating in the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance Network was at or above the national baseline level of 2.0% for 15 consecutive weeks during the 2013-14 influenza season.

          FIGURE 3. Cumulative rates of hospitalization for laboratory-confirmed influenza, by age group and surveillance week and year — FluSurv-NET* surveillance system, United States, 2013–14 influenza season†

          * FluSurv-NET conducts population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations in children aged <18 years (since the 2003–04 influenza season) and adults aged ≥18 years (since the 2005–06 influenza season). FluSurv-NET covers approximately 70 counties in the 10 Emerging Infections Program states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Tennessee) and additional Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Project states (Michigan, Ohio, and Utah).

          † Data as of May 30, 2014.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows cumulative rates of hospitalization for laboratory-confirmed influenza, by age group and surveillance week and year in the United States during the 2013-14 influenza season. Cumulative hospitalization rates (per 100,000 population) were calculated by age group based on 9,635 reported influenza hospitalizations resulting from influenza during October 1, 2013-April 30, 2014. Among 9,586 cases with influenza type specified, 8,497 (88.2%) were associated with influenza A, 1,046 (10.9%) with influenza B virus infection, and 43 (0.4%) were associated with mixed influenza A and influenza B virus infections. Persons aged 18-64 years accounted for 57.4% of reported hospitalizations. The cumulative incidence for all age groups since October 1, 2013, was 35.6 per 100,000.

          FIGURE 4. Percentage of all deaths attributable to pneumonia and influenza (P&I), by surveillance week and year — 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System, United States, 2009–2014*

          * Data as of May 30, 2014.

          † The seasonal baseline proportion of P&I deaths is projected using a robust regression procedure, in which a periodic regression model is applied to the observed percentage of deaths from P&I reported by the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System during the preceding 5 years.

          § The epidemic threshold is set at 1.645 standard deviations above the seasonal baseline.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the percentage of all deaths attributable to pneumonia and influenza (P&I), by surveillance week and year in 122 U.S cities during 2008-2014. During the 2013-14 influenza season, the percentage of deaths attributed to P&I exceeded the epidemic threshold for 8 consecutive weeks from January 11, 2014 to March 1, 2014 (weeks 2-9). The percentage of deaths attributed to P&I peaked at 8.7% during the week ending January 25, 2014 (week 4).

          Like

        5. 2016-2017 info

          OK, so I attempted to go to the source cdc.gov to see if there was other data available for the “hidden” seasons on the line graph you shared. This site deals with historic flu data

          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/past-flu-seasons.htm

          It starts with 2006-2007 & goes to 2018-2019 but is conspicuously missing 2008-2009 hmm…

          If I can find decent summary data for the “missing” seasons on your line graph I will attempt to share

          This link goes to data about 2016-2017:

          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2016-2017.htm

          https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6625a3.htm?s_cid=mm6625a3_w

          FIGURE 1. Number* and percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza reported by clinical laboratories, by influenza virus type and surveillance week — United States, October 2, 2016–May 20, 2017†

          * Specimens from 121,223 (14.0%) of 865,168 persons tested positive during October 2, 2016–May 20, 2017.

          † As of June 9, 2017.

          FIGURE 2. Number* of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza reported by public health laboratories, by influenza virus type, subtype/lineage, and surveillance week — United States, October 2, 2016–May 20, 2017†

          * N = 40,728.

          † As of June 9, 2017.

          FIGURE 3. Percentage of visits for influenza-like illness (ILI)* reported to CDC, by surveillance week — Outpatient Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance Network, United States, 2016–17 influenza season and selected previous influenza seasons†

          * Defined as fever (temperature ≥100.0°F [≥37.8°C], oral or equivalent) and cough and/or sore throat, without a known cause other than influenza.

          † As of June 9, 2017.

          Interesting that this year they don’t have a “Figure 4” & they also list someone with a conflict of interest:
          “Conflict of Interest
          Jacquline Katz reports U.S. Patent 6,196,175 (issued 01/02/2001) and U.S. Patent 8,163,545 (issued 4/26/2012). No other conflicts of interest were reported.

          Top

          Corresponding author: Lenee Blanton, lblanton@cdc.gov, 404–639–3747.”

          now I’ll attempt to “correct” the info I shared on 2010-2011…

          Like

        6. Enhanced 2010-2011 info, showing aspects of charts that weren’t part of the images…

          OK, so I attempted to go to the source cdc.gov to see if there was other data available for the “hidden” seasons on the line graph you shared. This site deals with historic flu data

          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/past-flu-seasons.htm

          It starts with 2006-2007 & goes to 2018-2019 but is conspicuously missing 2008-2009 hmm…

          If I can find decent summary data for the “missing” seasons on your line graph I will attempt to share

          This link goes to data about 2010-2011:
          https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6021a5.htm

          & we find these charts there:

          FIGURE 1. Number* and percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza, by type, surveillance week, and year — World Health Organization and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System collaborating laboratories, United States, October 3, 2010–May 21, 2011†

          * N = 54,226.

          † As of May 25, 2011.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the number and percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza by type, surveillance week, and year in the United States from October 3, 2010-May 21, 2011, according to the World Health Organization and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System collaborating laboratories. During October 3, 2010 – May 21, 2011, World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) collaborating laborato¬ries in the United States tested 246,128 specimens for influenza viruses; 54,226 (22%) were positive.

          FIGURE 2. Percentage of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported, by surveillance week and year — U.S. Outpatient Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet), United States, September 30, 2007–May 21, 2011*

          * As of May 25, 2010.

          † The national and regional baselines are the mean percentage of visits for ILI during noninfluenza weeks for the previous three seasons, plus two standard deviations. A noninfluenza week is a week during which <10% of specimens tested positive for influenza. National and regional percentages of patient visits for ILI are weighted on the basis of state population. Use of the national baseline for regional data is not appropriate.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the percentage of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported, by surveillance week and year in the United States from September 30, 2007-May 21, 2011, according to the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet). The weekly percentage of outpatient visits for ILI to the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet) exceeded national baseline levels (2.5%) during the weeks ending December 25, 2010, through March 19, 2011 (weeks 51-11), and peaked at 4.6% during the week ending February 19, 2011 (week 7).

          FIGURE 3. Cumulative rate of laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations, by age group, surveillance week, and year — FluSurv-NET,* United States, October 1, 2010–April 30, 2011

          * FluSurv-NET results include surveillance at Emerging Infections Program sites and at sites in six additional states (Idaho, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah). Rates are based on 5,968 total cases for the period, of which 898 occurred among persons aged 0–4 years, 423 among persons aged 5–17 years, 1,453 among persons aged 18–49 years, 1,146 among persons aged 50–64 years, and 2,048 among persons aged ≥65 years.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the cumulative rate of laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations, by age group, surveillance week, and year in the United States from October 1, 2010-April 30, 2011, according to FluSurv-NET. The cumulative incidence for all age groups since October 1, 2010, was 20.5 per 100,000.

          FIGURE 4. Percentage of all deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I), by surveillance week and year —122 Cities Mortality Reporting System, United States, 2006–2011

          * The epidemic threshold is1.645 standard deviations above the seasonal baseline.

          † The seasonal baseline is projected using a robust regression procedure that applies a periodic regression model to the observed percentage of deaths from P&I during the preceding 5 years.

          Alternate Text: The figure above shows the percentage of all deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) by surveillance week and year in the United States from 2006-2011, according to the Mortality Reporting Systems of 122 cities. During the 2010-11 influenza season, the percentage of deaths attributed to P&I exceeded the epidemic threshold for 13 consecutive weeks, from the weeks ending January 29 to April 23, 2011 (weeks 4-16).

          This is updated info because when I originally shared 2010-2011 info the explanations on the charts weren't part of the images…

          Now I will share data from the years preceding the main comparative line drawing…

          Like

        7. 2006-2007 info, data available not shown on the comparative chart…

          OK, so I attempted to go to the source cdc.gov to see if there was other data available for the “hidden” seasons on the line graph you shared. This site deals with historic flu data

          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/past-flu-seasons.htm

          It starts with 2006-2007 & goes to 2018-2019 but is conspicuously missing 2008-2009 hmm…

          If I can find decent summary data for the “missing” seasons on your line graph I will attempt to share

          This link goes to data about 2006-2007:
          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pastseasons/0607season.htm

          Unfortunately there are NO Charts available for this year so I will copy the page linked above fyi…

          Summary of the 2006-2007 Influenza Season
          Español
          On This Page
          Flu Season Summary (October 1, 2006 – May 19, 2007)
          Flu Deaths in Children
          New Practices for Tracking Novel (New) Influenza A Viruses

          Flu Season Summary (October 1, 2006 – May 19, 2007)*
          When and where did the 2006-07 flu season start?
          The first report of regional flu activity came from the southeastern United States during the first week of November. Regional flu activity is defined as increased flu-like activity or flu outbreaks in at least two (but fewer than half) of the regions in a state with recent laboratory evidence of flu in those regions.

          How severe was the 2006-2007 flu season?
          The 2006-07 flu season was generally mild compared to recent flu seasons. For example, the proportion of all deaths associated with influenza illness was lower this season than the previous three flu seasons. Hospitalization rates among children were also lower than the previous three flu seasons. However, more pediatric deaths related to influenza were reported during the 2006-07 season than the previous two seasons. Nationally, low levels of flu activity were reported during October through mid-December. Flu activity increased during late December, peaked in mid-February, and decreased through the end of the flu season on May 19.

          What determines the severity of a flu season?
          The overall health impact (e.g., infections, hospitalizations and deaths) of a flu season varies from year to year. The severity of a flu season can be judged according to a variety of criteria, such as the following:

          The geographic extent of influenza in the U.S. and within each state;
          The proportion of influenza laboratory tests that are positive;
          The proportion of visits to physicians for influenza-like illness;
          The proportion of all deaths that are caused by pneumonia and flu;
          The number of influenza-associated deaths among children; and
          The influenza-associated hospitalization rate among children.
          A flu season’s severity is determined by comparing these measures with previous seasons.

          Top of Page

          Where did the most flu activity occur in the United States this season?
          Influenza viruses were identified in all states. From October 1, 2006 to May 19, 2007, widespread** flu activity was reported in a total of 41 states across all regions of the country.

          When did the 2006-2007 flu season peak?
          During the 2006-2007 season, flu activity in the United States peaked in mid-February. During the past 31 years, flu activity in the United States has peaked in February 45 percent of the time. Although the timing of peak activity varies from year to year, peak activity usually occurs sometime during December through March.

          How many people died from flu during the 2006-07 season?
          Exact numbers of how many people died from flu this season cannot be determined. Flu-associated deaths are only a nationally notifiable condition among children, and states are not required to report flu cases or to report adult deaths from influenza to CDC. In addition, many people who die of complications from flu infection are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples. However, CDC tracks pneumonia and flu deaths through the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System. This system collects information each week on the total number of death certificates filed in each of the 122 participating cities and the number of death certificates with pneumonia or influenza listed as a cause of death. This system helps gauge the severity of the flu season compared with other years, but does not specifically estimate the number of flu-associated deaths. Estimates of flu-associated deaths are made by modeling death certificate data from the National Center for Health Statistics and from CDC influenza virus surveillance data. For more information on influenza mortality modeling, see Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United Statesexternal icon.

          What influenza viruses circulated this season?
          Influenza A viruses accounted for 79 percent of the specimens testing positive for flu and submitted to CDC. Influenza B viruses accounted for 21 percent. A particular subtype*** of influenza A called influenza A (H1) predominated during most of the season. However, beginning in early March and continuing through May, influenza A (H3) viruses were reported more frequently than influenza A (H1) viruses.

          Was there a good match between the influenza strains selected for the vaccine and the strains that circulated during the 2006-07 season?
          The influenza A (H1) component of the 2006-07 flu vaccine was well matched to circulating influenza A (H1) viruses, which accounted for the majority of influenza viruses tested by CDC. There are two groups of influenza B viruses currently circulating, which are known as the B/Yamagata lineage viruses and the B/Victoria lineage viruses. The 2006-07 vaccine contained a B virus from the B/Victoria lineage and 77% of the viruses tested by CDC were from the B/Victoria lineage. Fifty percent of the influenza B viruses characterized as belonging to the B/Victoria lineage were well matched to the influenza B component of the 2006-07 flu vaccine. In the early months of the season, the majority of influenza A (H3) viruses circulating in the country matched the influenza A (H3N2) component of the 2006–07 vaccine. However, the proportion of H3N2 viruses similar to the H3N2 vaccine component declined as the season progressed. Overall for the 2006-07 season, 24 percent of H3N2 viruses were well matched to the vaccine strain.

          Top of Page

          Flu Deaths in Children
          Flu-associated deaths in children (defined as persons 18 years of age and younger) first became a nationally notifiable condition during the 2004-05 flu season and are reported through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). However, CDC first asked for flu deaths in children to be reported to CDC during the 2003-04 season. The number of flu-associated deaths among children reported during the 2006-07 flu season can be found in the final report of the 2006-07 season.

          How many children have died from flu-associated complications during previous flu seasons?
          During the 2003-04 Season, 153 flu-associated deaths in children were reported to CDC.
          During the 2004-05 Season, 47 deaths in children were reported to CDC.
          During the 2005-06 Season, 46 deaths in children were reported to CDC.
          As of August 6, 2007, 68 deaths in children occurring during the 2006-07 season have been reported to CDC.
          What can be done to protect children from flu-associated illness and death?
          Vaccination remains the best method for preventing flu and its potentially severe complications in children. October or November is the best time to get vaccinated, but getting vaccinated in December or even later can still be beneficial, since most flu activity occurs in January or later in most years. Though it varies, the flu season can last as late as May and sporadic cases of flu occur year round.

          All children 6 months of age to their 5th birthday are recommended for influenza vaccination. In addition, all children with chronic medical conditions such as asthma should get the flu vaccine. Household contacts and caregivers of these children are also recommended for annual vaccination.

          Children younger than 6 months of age are at high risk of influenza complications, but are too young to get a flu vaccine. The best way to protect these children is to vaccinate their household members and out-of-home caregivers.

          Children receiving flu vaccine for the first time need to receive two doses their first year, with the first dose ideally given in September. For inactivated vaccine (the flu shot), the second dose is given four or more weeks after the first dose. For live attenuated flu vaccine (nasal spray vaccine), the second dose can be administered six weeks after the first dose. The flu shot is approved for children 6 months of age and older. The nasal spray vaccine is approved for healthy children 5 years of age and older. Children with asthma or other conditions should get the flu shot instead of the nasal spray.

          For more information, see Children and the Flu Vaccine.

          New Practices for Tracking Novel (New) Influenza A Viruses
          What is a novel influenza virus?
          Novel influenza A viruses are viruses that are found in humans but are not ordinary human subtypes (many novel flu viruses originate from animals, such as birds or pigs), or those that cannot be subtyped by standard methods. In January 2007, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists voted to add human infections with novel influenza A viruses to the list of nationally notifiable diseases and conditions reportable to the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System.

          Why is tracking novel viruses useful?
          Because very few people have antibodies against novel influenza viruses, if a novel influenza virus infects a person and is then able to spread easily from one person to another person, a global epidemic, also know as a pandemic could begin. Early detection and timely reporting of human infections with novel influenza A viruses will allow for rapid assessment of the situation and early implementation of the appropriate public health responses.

          * The most up-to-date influenza surveillance summaries can be found on the US Map of Flu Outbreaks and Activity .

          ** Widespread flu activity is defined as increased flu-like activity or flu outbreaks in at least half of the regions in a state with recent laboratory evidence of flu in the state.

          *** Subtyping is the process of identifying the two main surface proteins of influenza A viruses (e.g., identifying H1N1 versus H3N2 influenza A viruses).

          Top of Page

          Page last reviewed: July 8, 2009
          Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD)
          Seasonal Influenza (Flu)
          About Flu
          plus icon
          Who is at High Risk for Flu Complications
          plus icon
          Flu Season
          plus icon
          What You Need to Know for 2019-20
          Health Care Providers
          Past Flu Seasons
          plus icon
          2018-2019
          2017-2018
          2016-2017
          2015-2016
          2014-2015
          2013-2014
          2012-2013
          2011-2012
          2010-2011
          2009-2010
          2007-2008
          2006-2007
          Prevent Flu
          plus icon
          Flu Vaccines Work
          plus icon
          Symptoms & Diagnosis
          plus icon
          Treatment
          plus icon
          Schools, Businesses & Travelers
          plus icon
          Flu Activity & Surveillance
          plus icon
          Health Professionals
          plus icon
          Flu News & Spotlights
          plus icon
          What’s New
          What CDC Does
          FluVaxView
          Communications Resource Center
          International Work
          Outbreak Investigations
          email_03Get Email Updates
          To receive weekly email updates about Seasonal Flu, enter your email address:

          Email Address
          Email Address
          What’s this?
          H1N1 Flu Pandemic 2009-2019: A Decade Later
          Influenza Types
          Seasonal
          Pandemic
          Avian
          Swine
          Influenza in Animals

          Like

        8. 2006-2007 info, data available not shown on the comparative chart…

          OK, so I attempted to go to the source cdc.gov to see if there was other data available for the “hidden” seasons on the line graph you shared. This site deals with historic flu data

          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/past-flu-seasons.htm

          It starts with 2006-2007 & goes to 2018-2019 but is conspicuously missing 2008-2009 hmm…

          If I can find decent summary data for the “missing” seasons on your line graph I will attempt to share

          This link goes to data about 2006-2007:
          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pastseasons/0708season.htm

          Unfortunately there are NO Charts available for this year so I will copy the page linked above fyi…

          Summary of the 2007-2008 Influenza Season
          Español
          Flu Season Summary (September 30, 2007 — May 17, 2008)**
          When did the 2007-2008 flu season start, peak and end?
          From October through early December, low levels of flu activity were reported in the United States. The first report of regional flu activity came from the West South Central region of the United States (Texas) during the first week of December. (Regional flu activity is defined as increased flu-like activity or flu outbreaks in at least two — but fewer than half — of the regions in a state with recent laboratory evidence of flu in those regions.) Activity increased slowly from mid-December through the end of the year with more rapid increases during January and through the week ending February 16. Flu activity peaked in mid-February and then decreased through the end of the flu season on May 17.

          How severe was the 2007-2008 flu season?
          A greater proportion of deaths associated with influenza illness and slightly higher rates of influenza-related hospitalizations in children 0-4 years occurred during the 2007-2008 U.S. flu season than was measured during each of the previous three seasons. When compared with the previous three seasons, the 2007-2008 season was similar in severity to the 2004-2005 flu season in terms of the percentage of deaths due to pneumonia and flu, pediatric hospitalization rates, and the percentage of visits to outpatient clinics for flu-like illness.

          What determines the severity of a flu season?
          The overall health impact (e.g., infections, hospitalizations and deaths) of a flu season varies from year to year. Based on available data from U.S. influenza surveillance systems monitored and reported by CDC, the severity of a flu season can be judged according to a variety of criteria, including:

          The level of reported activity within each state;
          The proportion of influenza laboratory tests that are positive;
          The proportion of visits to physicians for influenza-like illness;
          The proportion of all deaths that are caused by pneumonia and flu;
          The number of influenza-associated deaths among children; and
          The influenza-associated hospitalization rate among children
          A season’s severity is determined by comparing these measures with previous seasons.

          Top of Page

          Was the peak of the 2007-2008 flu season typical in terms of timing?
          Flu activity for the 2007-2008 U.S. flu season peaked in mid-February. Flu activity in the United States typically peaks between December and March, and the timing of peak activity changes from year to year. In 16 of the past 26 years, the U.S. flu season has peaked in February or later, making this year pretty typical in terms of the timing of the peak.

          Where did most flu activity occur in the United States this season?
          Flu viruses were identified in all states. In February, when the flu season peaked, widespread* flu activity was reported in all 50 states across all regions of the country.

          *Widespread flu activity is defined as increased flu-like activity or flu outbreaks in at least half of the regions in a state with recent laboratory evidence of flu in the state.

          How many people died from flu during the 2007-2008 season?
          Exact numbers of how many people died from flu this season cannot be determined. Flu-associated deaths (which have laboratory confirmed influenza), are only a nationally notifiable condition among children; however not all pediatric influenza deaths may be detected and reported and there is no requirement to report adult deaths from influenza. In addition, many people who die from flu complications are not tested, or they seek medical care later in their illness when flu can no longer be detected from respiratory samples. However, CDC tracks pneumonia and influenza (P&I) deaths through the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System. This system collects information each week on the total number of death certificates filed in each of the 122 participating cities and the number of death certificates with pneumonia or influenza listed as a cause of death. The 122 Cities Mortality Reporting system helps gauge the severity of a flu season compared with other years. However, only a proportion of all P&I deaths are influenza-related and, as noted, most flu deaths are not lab confirmed. Thus, this system does not allow for an estimation of the number of deaths, only the relative severity among different influenza seasons. For the 2007-2008 season, the proportion of deaths due to pneumonia and influenza was higher than the previous two years, but was similar to the 2004-2005 season.

          What flu viruses circulated this season?
          In the United States, influenza A (H1N1), A (H3N2) and B viruses co-circulated throughout the season. Influenza A viruses accounted for 71% of the specimens testing positive for flu by public health laboratories while influenza B viruses accounted for 29%.

          Early in the season, influenza A (H1N1) viruses predominated, however, as the season progressed, an increasing proportion of sub-typed* influenza A viruses were influenza A (H3N2) viruses. Late in the season, when overall influenza activity was declining, influenza B viruses were more commonly reported than influenza A viruses. Overall, for the 2007-2008 U.S. flu season, influenza A (H3N2) viruses were most commonly reported.

          * Subtyping is the process of identifying an influenza A virus by its genetic and antigenic (biological) properties to determine if it is an influenza A (H3N2) or influenza A (H1N1) virus. Flu A viruses are subtyped in public health laboratories, such as state department of health laboratories and CDC Influenza Division laboratories.

          Top of Page

          How well did circulating viruses match the vaccine strains during the 2007-2008 season?
          The majority (66%) of influenza A (H1N1) viruses were found to be similar to the vaccine strain. However, 77% of influenza A (H3N2) and 98% of B viruses sent to CDC for further testing were not optimally matched to the 2007-2008 influenza vaccine strains.

          Why were two of the three strains in this season’s flu vaccine less than optimally matched to circulating viruses?
          Flu viruses are always changing. They can change from the time the vaccine is recommended and the beginning of the flu season, or they can even change during a flu season. Each year, experts study thousands of flu virus samples from around the world to figure out which viruses are making people sick and how these viruses are changing. With this information, they forecast which three viruses are most likely to make the most people sick during the next flu season. Each year, the seasonal influenza vaccine contains three influenza virus strains – one influenza A (H3N2) virus, one influenza A (H1N1) virus, and one influenza B virus. The selection of which viruses to include in the vaccine must be made in February of the prior year in order for vaccine to be produced in time for distribution the following season. For this reason, there is always the possibility of a less than optimal match between viruses in the vaccine and circulating viruses. For more information about the vaccine strain selection process, visit Selecting the Viruses in the Influenza (Flu) Vaccine.

          In terms of the influenza A (H3N2) virus strain selection for the 2007-2008 vaccine, in February of 2007, there were few influenza A (H3N2) virus samples available to guide the selection of the H3N2 vaccine component. While the H3N2 A/Brisbane-like virus that became the predominant virus in the U.S. this season first emerged in Australia in 2007, there was no clear indication that this virus would become the predominant virus causing illness. In addition, there were very few influenza A (H3N2) samples and nothing suitable as a strain for vaccine production. For this reason, the World Health Organization and the Vaccines and Related Biologicals Advisory Committee in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended that the influenza A (H3N2) component of the 2007-2008 influenza vaccine would remain the same as the previous season because influenza A (H3N2) viruses similar to the vaccine strain were still circulating and no other candidate reference strains were available. CDC continued to monitor this situation closely and frequently updated information on circulating strains and public health and public education guidance based on this information throughout the season.

          In terms of the selection of the B/Yamagata lineage for inclusion in the 2007-2008 vaccine, in February 2007, both B/Yamagata and B/Victoria viruses were co-circulating, however the B/Victoria lineage was predominant at the time. B/Victoria and B/Yamagata viruses are antigenically and genetically far apart. With two co-circulating B lineages, it’s more difficult to forecast which B lineage will predominate for the next season. At the time the vaccine virus selection decision was made, is was not yet clear that B/Yamagata viruses would become the predominant B viruses circulating in the United States this season.

          Can the vaccine provide protection even if the vaccine is not a “good” match?
          Yes, antibodies made in response to vaccination with one strain of influenza viruses can provide protection against different, but related strains. A less than ideal match may result in reduced vaccine effectiveness against the variant viruses, but it can still provide enough protection to prevent or lessen illness severity and prevent flu-related complications. In addition, it’s important to remember that the influenza vaccine contains three virus strains so that even when there is a less than ideal match or lower effectiveness against one strain, the vaccine may protect against the other two viruses. For these reasons, even during seasons when there is a less than ideal match, CDC continues to recommend influenza vaccination. This is particularly important for people at high risk for serious flu complications and their close contacts.

          How often are the vaccine and circulating virus strains well matched?
          In recent years the match between the vaccine viruses and those identified during the flu season has usually been good. In 16 of the last 20 U.S. influenza seasons, including the 2007-2008 season, the viruses in the influenza vaccine have been well matched to the predominant circulating viruses. Since 1988, there has only been one season (1997-1998) when there was very low cross-reaction between the viruses in the vaccine and the predominate circulating virus and three seasons (1992-1993, 2003-2004, and 2007-2008) when there was low cross-reaction.

          Top of Page

          What did we see during the 2007-2008 season in terms of antiviral resistance monitoring or surveillance in the United States?
          During the 2007-2008 flu season, a small increase in the number of flu viruses resistant to the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir was observed. Among specimens collected since October 1, 2007, 111 (10.9%) of the 1,020 influenza A (H1N1) viruses tested were found to be resistant to oseltamivir, an increase from four (0.7%) of 588 influenza A (H1N1) viruses tested during the 2006-2007 season. No resistance to oseltamivir was identified among the 444 influenza A (H3N2) or the 305 influenza B viruses tested.

          CDC laboratory surveillance has indicated continued high resistance among influenza virus isolates to the adamantanes (amantadine and rimantadine) in the United States. Among specimens collected since October 1, 2007, 99.8% of influenza A (H3N2) viruses tested were resistant to the adamantanes. Adamantane resistance among influenza A (H1N1) viruses has been detected at a lower level with 10.8% of influenza A (H1N1) viruses resistant to adamantanes.

          Did CDC recommend any changes to the guidance on the use of antivirals for the 2007-2008 influenza season?
          No, CDC did not recommending any changes to the guidance on the use of influenza antivirals. CDC and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that oseltamivir (brand name Tamiflu®) or zanamivir (brand name Relenza®) be used for the treatment and prevention of flu in the United States during the 2007-2008 season. Although amantadine and rimantadine (two other influenza antiviral drugs) also are FDA-approved for treatment or prevention of influenza, these two drugs were NOT recommended for use in the United States during the 2007-2008 flu season because many recent flu viruses are resistant to these drugs. This guidance can be found in Prevention & Control of Influenza – Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 2007 Jul 13;56(RR06):1-54.

          What was this season like in terms of bacterial co-infections, including Staphylococcus aureus, with flu?
          Bacterial infections can occur as co-infections with influenza or occur following influenza infection. In 2006-2007, CDC noted an increase in flu and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) co-infections among children who had died or were hospitalized with influenza infection. Some of those infections were with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). CDC is working with state and local public health authorities to monitor and investigate flu-S. aureus co-infections, including pneumonias and other types of S. aureus infections. On January 30, 2008 CDC issued a Health Advisory on Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality and Staphylococcus aureus co-infection. For more information about flu and staph infections visit Seasonal Flu and Staph Infection.

          Flu Deaths in Children
          Flu-associated deaths in children (defined as persons aged 18 years and younger) first became a nationally notifiable condition during the 2004-2005 flu season and are reported through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). The number of flu-associated deaths among children reported during the 2007-2008 flu season can be found at Flu Activity & Surveillance.

          How many children have died from flu-associated complications during previous flu seasons?
          During the 2003-2004 season, 153 flu-associated deaths in children were reported to CDC. (This data was collected by CDC.)
          During the 2004-2005 season, 47 deaths in children were reported to CDC. (This is the first year that influenza mortality in children became a nationally reportable condition.)
          During the 2005-2006 season, 46 deaths in children were reported to CDC.
          During the 2006-2007 season, 76 deaths in children were reported to CDC.
          As of June 14, 2008, 83 deaths in children occurring during the 2007-2008 season have been reported to CDC.
          (Note: The counts above are of flu-associated deaths among children according to the flu season the deaths occur, not when they are reported to CDC.)

          What can be done to protect children from flu-associated illness and death?
          Vaccination remains the best method for preventing flu and its potentially severe complications in children. There are two types of vaccines that protect against the flu. The “flu shot” is an inactivated vaccine (containing killed virus) approved for use among people 6 months of age or older, including healthy people and those with chronic medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, or heart disease). The nasal-spray flu vaccine (sometimes referred to as LAIV for Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine or FluMist®) contains attenuated (weakened) live viruses, and is administered by nasal sprayer. It is approved for use only among healthy* people 2-49 years of age who are not pregnant. Children under 6 months old can become very sick from the flu, but they are too young to get a flu vaccine. The best way to protect young children is to make sure that their household members and their caregivers are vaccinated.

          Children 6 months to 9 years of age getting a flu shot for the first time will need two doses of vaccine the first year they are vaccinated, with the first dose ideally being given in September. The second dose should be given 28 or more days after the first dose. The first dose “primes” the immune system; the second dose provides immune protection. Keep this in mind if your child needs the two doses—begin the process early. It usually takes about two weeks after the second dose for protection to begin.

          Vaccination should begin in September or as soon as vaccine is available. Though it varies, the flu season can last as late as May and sporadic cases of flu occur year round. For more information, see Children, the Flu, and the Flu Vaccine.

          * “Healthy” indicates persons who do not have an underlying medical condition that predisposes them to influenza complications.

          **The most up-to-date influenza surveillance summaries can be found at Flu Activity & Surveillance.

          Top of Page

          Page last reviewed: June 26, 2008
          Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD)

          Like

  12. OMGGGGGGGGGGGG
    My state, my rural red state which NEVER makes the news reel, just issued a shelter in place order.
    MISSISSIPPI?
    What the heck?
    This has to be because of all the problems in New Orleans. I can understand.
    Guess I’ll have to practice shooting in the back yard for now.

    Oh well.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. READ THE FINE PRINT of the S-I-P order.

      Know your full rights under the order.

      Various counties in North Texas have been under S-I-P and it varies a bit county by county . . . but the short version was that if you are already keeping to yourself there’s plenty you can still do.

      Including going to parks, riding bikes, walking outside, etc etc etc.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. P.S. Also note what level of enforcement they intend to follow. North Texas counties generally have NOT enforced.

      Also note that some businesses are exempt from those local orders by federal statute. For example, defense industry. Do you think your BNB qualifies for that? 😉

      Liked by 3 people

  13. Thank U Frontline – song by Chris Mann

    It’s amazing what Americans are doing – singing and soldiering on – making the best of this chapter in our history.

    Liked by 1 person

        1. And as the physical wall goes up, drug flow patterns change…from land to afloat or air.

          The wall works:-)

          Bonus, may help Maduro depart sooner.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. Taking advantage of the situation says General.
      War with COVID 19
      War with terrorists
      War with drug cartels
      Holy crap – he is serious dude!!!!!!

      Liked by 6 people

        1. He’s one tough DUDE! Did ya see the circles under his eyes? I bet He’s earned them the hard way.

          Liked by 3 people

    1. Makes sense to take on drug cartels now much commerce has stopped and the tentacles from these targets are easier to see. If you can see it, you can kill it.

      Liked by 4 people

  14. OUR PRESIDENT HAS DECLARED TRUE MILITARY WAR – AND – UNLEASHED HELL ON THE DRUG CARTELS!!!!

    There goes the primary Democrat funding source.

    Liked by 9 people

  15. COMBAT DISINFO AND FAKE NEWS ABOUT THIS CRISIS

    COMBAT OIL VOLATILITY

    PROTECT AMERICAN SERVICEMEN/WOMEN AROUND WORLD

    CLEAR EYED FOCUS ON AMERICAN NATSEC INTEREST

    Liked by 6 people

  16. So, this tweet went out a few hours ago.
    Several of the brass talking about, “make no mistake, it would be a bad decision to attack the USA now, while we are dealing with coronvirus”

    Something big is going on.

    Liked by 8 people

  17. Food for thought – Wife asked me last night at dinner if anyone has speculated why NY is being so hard hit. I told her the only issues I have seen raised were the early dismissals from mayor, Gov, and others about going about their daily lives , hug-a-chinese, etc.
    She replied has anyone mentioned the biggest outdoor, packed like sardines, drunken festival called the New Year’s Eve Ball drop.

    By gosh, I thinks she’s got it! All that kissing, hugging, puking, touching, coughing, sneezing, filthy environment.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. It’s not one specific event, it’s everyday life there.

      New York City in general is the most crowded place in the United States. Disease tends to find it easier to propagate under those circumstances, all things being equal.

      NYC does have sanitation better than the third world, but then so does the rest of the USA, so other things tend to be equal, and the crowded place gets it worse than the uncrowded ones.

      Liked by 5 people

    2. WAY earlier then we were TOLD this started, as I predicted. It FITS! There were upwards of 1 MILLION people in and around times square then, from ALL corners of the country. But people want to know why the spike NOW. Well, I have a theory, and it explains why NY is hit HARD, and CA is NOT. NY was RESEEDED, or seeded LATER than the rest. I lie the rest, assume that the virus hit the west coast first, and worked it’s way across the country from there, and it took TIME to get from there to NY.

      That is what I believe the CDC and Fauchi are selling, but that too does not make sense, since NY has MAJOR ports and airports that go DIRECTLY to China and vice versa, JUST LIKE CA and WA. The postulated gestation is between 3 and 14 days. That would make NY WAY too late from the first cases of WA. SOMETHING is a miss.

      I think this virus was seeded EARLY in the west, and staged to the east using the major cities as the epicenters of the states. It WOULD explain why states with NO or FEW big cities are less hit. Without knowing parient ZERO, and just HOW MANY have ALREADY had this and recovered, there is NO WAY they can accurately predict ANYTHING. Models aside. TOO many variables and GIGO.

      Liked by 3 people

  18. O’brien
    We’re not in position to confirm any of the numbers coming out of China
    We don’t know.
    had a great call the other night, would like to get along with China.

    Liked by 7 people

  19. Trump – china’s numbers appear to be a little bit on the light side (have not received latest report from china which was supposed to include the asymptomatic cases)

    Liked by 5 people

  20. Border Wall, all ties together.
    Trump was right about China
    Trump was right about the Border Wall

    Biden and the Dems look like crap right now.

    Liked by 9 people

  21. God for Esper – kicking ass
    You seem to be under the illusion we should just shut down the entire military
    nope
    we have a job to do
    defend the United States of America.

    Liked by 8 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s