Not clear from the article how “seasonal flu” was defined and how far back that data went. The trick is to isolate the effect of the virus. To do this, it seems that there should be some sort of age adjustment if the data went back far enough — aren’t the aging baby boomers who are dying from the virus now 10 years older, and in worse shape, than they were when the SARS epidemic broke under Obama?
“...aren’t the aging baby boomers who are dying from the virus now 10 years older, and in worse shape, than they were when the SARS epidemic broke under Obama?”
Somewhat related to your question...is COVID’s mortality rate more/less/the same as SARS in vulnerable groups? There was early data showing an 8% mortality rate in the over-70 group, but even then I didn’t see a comparative rate for SARS...and it’s less clear now. It seems that that number is more critical than the overall mortality rate for vulnerable groups to determine their future actions.
no one is dismissing it and no one is dismissing how infectino it can be....
but the insane "social distancing" lockdown is nothing but window dressing....
sickly people should quarantined themselves, period....those of us out and about can take our chances....