[SkyBelow]

Combination between efforts to avoid COVID and viral interference of those who were exposed would drastically reduce the ability to spread. Could it perhaps have reduced it enough to have stopped a flu season from developing?

[ineedasername]

That's pretty much my belief: efforts to avoid COVID also avoid the flu. Viral interference, theoretically, is part of that picture, but does not fully explain the observed data and has not, to my knowledge been tested itself: references to the phenomena as an explanation for flu decreases are based on research for other viruses. Given the HN community frequently criticizes research or reporting on research for overstating it's claims, I am surprised that so many people here have latched on to an extrapolation from research not directly related to COVID.

It seems far simpler, in the Occam's Razor sense, to begin with the idea that staying away from people makes it harder to get sick from other people.

Unfortunately, COVID restrictions and social distancing have become so politicized that many resist the idea that staying away from people reduces the chance of getting the flu from them, because the implication is that those measures might also have been effective in reducing COVID cases. This contradicts a political point of view and therefore some would like to dismiss it out if hand.

For example I've notice that many of those who believe precautions violated their personal liberty want to diminish the effectiveness of those precautions, which isn't necessary from a logical point of view. It is not logically inconsistent to believe these precautions violated civil liberties even if they were highly effective. It just requires a person to believe that many deaths were a reasonable price to pay.