> The steps we are taking to reduce COVID spread also reduce the spread of the cold.
...and cases are going up, so it's probably safe to assume that there are lots of colds being transmitted, as well. And as I said, there are many cold viruses in circulation, at all times.
Even if you believe that "the steps we are taking" are working, you have to assume that they're disproportionately effective for the common cold in order to make the statement the OP was making. Say what you will about SARS-CoV2, but it's more-or-less like any other respiratory virus in terms of transmission characteristics. There's no particular reason to believe that anything we're doing would stop rhinovirus or RSV, but not SARS-CoV2.
This doesn't follow at all because you are comparing the current state of laxing COVID precautions to the previous state of near zero cold precautions. For example, tens of millions of people are currently working from home and the workplace is one of the primary places colds spread. If we treated COVID like the cold we would already be on the other side of the pandemic because it would have already ripped through the population and millions would be dead.
> This doesn't follow at all because you are comparing the current state of laxing COVID precautions to the previous state of near zero cold precautions.
I am not. There are, right now, 5-6 cold viruses in common circulation. There is one SARS-CoV2 virus.
Nothing we are doing would be expected to suppress other respiratory viruses, but not this one.
>I am not. There are, right now, 5-6 cold viruses in common circulation. There is one SARS-CoV2 virus.
Yes you were. In your first comment you said "Nearly all of us catch at least one cold a year, mostly during the winter months. There are, quite literally, hundreds of millions of colds a year." Those are numbers in a normal cold year. This isn't a normal cold year.
>Nothing we are doing would be expected to suppress other respiratory viruses, but not this one.
I'm not sure where this line of argument came from as no one was arguing against it. The assumption is that these COVID precautions are equally effective against the cold, flu, COVID, and other similar respiratory diseases. This will lead to a huge drop in those non-COVID diseases as the precautions we are taking are so drastic compared to a normal year.
> Yes you were. In your first comment you said "Nearly all of us catch at least one cold a year, mostly during the winter months. There are, quite literally, hundreds of millions of colds a year." Those are numbers in a normal cold year. This isn't a normal cold year.
You can divide the number by any factor you want, but there are still ~6x the number of viruses out there causing colds. Even now.
>there are still ~6x the number of viruses out there causing colds
The variety of viruses is totally irrelevant to the original question of what are one's odds of having COVID based on having cold symptoms. The only piece of information that matters for that are the aggregate numbers and aggregate numbers from previous years are misleading.
> The variety of viruses is totally irrelevant to the original question of what are one's odds of having COVID based on having cold symptoms.
It is an essential factor, unless you make the (implausible) assumption that we have essentially eliminated all other respiratory viruses except for SARS-CoV2.
I like how you cutoff the my quote at the exact point that shows you how you are wrong. As I said "The only piece of information that matters for that are the aggregate numbers".
Whether there is 1 version, 6 different versions, or 1 million different versions of colds is irrelevant to your odds of having COVID when you show symptoms. What matters is whether there is 1 person, 6 people, or 1 million people with colds. The variety is meaningless. What matters is the aggregate number of cases.
> The variety of viruses is totally irrelevant to the original question of what are one's odds of having COVID based on having cold symptoms. The only piece of information that matters for that are the aggregate numbers and aggregate numbers from previous years are misleading.
It is an essential factor, unless you make the (implausible) assumption that we have essentially eliminated all other respiratory viruses except for SARS-CoV2.
...and cases are going up, so it's probably safe to assume that there are lots of colds being transmitted, as well. And as I said, there are many cold viruses in circulation, at all times.
Even if you believe that "the steps we are taking" are working, you have to assume that they're disproportionately effective for the common cold in order to make the statement the OP was making. Say what you will about SARS-CoV2, but it's more-or-less like any other respiratory virus in terms of transmission characteristics. There's no particular reason to believe that anything we're doing would stop rhinovirus or RSV, but not SARS-CoV2.