COVID-19 is becoming more like the flu and, as such, no longer requires its own virus-specific health rules, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday alongside the release of a unified “respiratory virus guide.”

In a lengthy background document, the agency laid out its rationale for consolidating COVID-19 guidance into general guidance for respiratory viruses—including influenza, RSV, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, enteroviruses, and others, though specifically not measles. The agency also noted the guidance does not apply to health care settings and outbreak scenarios.

“COVID-19 remains an important public health threat, but it is no longer the emergency that it once was, and its health impacts increasingly resemble those of other respiratory viral illnesses, including influenza and RSV,” the agency wrote.

The most notable change in the new guidance is the previously reported decision to no longer recommend a minimum five-day isolation period for those infected with the pandemic coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. Instead, the new isolation guidance is based on symptoms, which matches long-standing isolation guidance for other respiratory viruses, including influenza.

    • Tabooki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Except the original COVID was literally killing 1% of the people that caught it. I lost many friends. Nobody I know died of the flu. Especially in the same year.

      • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Just think about what you just wrote. Really think about all aspects of it. Look a few things up too. It was never 1 percent mortality. Barely point one.

        • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah man, just make shit up…

          In the USA we had:

          • 111,558,488 cases
          • 1,216,367 deaths

          That’s a 1.09% mortality rate.

            • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yes, the actual rate of infection is probably higher than the official numbers because of underreporting, but if the goal is to compare COVID to the flu, this hardly matters, because the flu rate is even more underreported. Factor that in, and it just further reinforces the fact that COVID-19 was and is a far more serious illness than influenza, even in an especially bad flu season (peak annual death toll of 60k).

              COVID has had an average annual death toll of ~300k since the pandemic began.

              • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                9 months ago

                Yeah I’ve had it 4 or 5 times. Like I said, if everyone gets the fucking flu, well…I’m not even a statistic neither are most had it.

      • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Nah 3 years of watching numbers and basic math skills. They didn’t care about accuracy when fear was the game

          • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Wasn’t really hard when certain government organizations would say shit like there’s been 1.5 million cases, 55,000 deaths and .2 percent mortality in the same fucking press release. Either it was 20 million cases or the .2 was a lie. From what I’ve seen .1, .2 was accurate.

            • boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              again, what your p-value? and based on how many samples? What’s your population?what’s your margin of error?

                • boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  of course their number is the data. How do you analyze the number? what’s you methodology. I need to make sense of your research.

                  • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    You seem to think this is some great debunking, when all you are advocating is believing numbers that don’t add up.