Experts agree: There is no such thing as “Super Flu”.

Currently, the headlines all across the United Kingdom, and a handful of other nations, are full of references to “Super Flu”.

There is no such thing as “Super Flu”.

It is a term with no scientific meaning or even a solid definition. To confirm this we need look no further than this report from Channel 4 News:

NHS England is calling it a ‘super flu’, which is in fact its own phrase rather than anything scientific.

Or, even more tellingly, there is Devi Shridhar — the High Priestess of Covid hysteria herself — whose Guardian column is headlined “Don’t Call it the Super Flu”, and begins:

I should start by saying “super flu” is not a scientific term or one used by any academics or clinicians I work with. It’s a colloquial phrase that’s been used by various NHS England bosses and taken up by Wes Streeting, the health secretary, and Keir Starmer.

That’s that then. The experts have spoken: “Super Flu” is a colloquial phrase with no actual meaning.

So why does everyone keep describing the incipient flu season in those terms?

To quote Shridar again:

Amid all the noise, it’s difficult to know how bad this flu really is – and how much is political spin.

Isn’t it just?

Maybe it’s time we found out how bad this flu really is, and what about it (if anything) is “super”.

First, we should ask: Doe this flu have different symptoms? Or are the symptoms more severe?

It doesn’t, and they are not, as Dr Giuseppe Aragona tells the Independent [emphasis added]:

The symptoms and severity of H3N2 illness have been similar to seasonal flu, including fever, cough, runny nose, and possibly other symptoms, such as body aches, vomiting, or diarrhoea.

Ok, so its symptoms are common and not unusually severe. Then maybe it’s more transmissible? Or deadly?

Nope. At least, not according to the WHO experts quoted in Politico [emphasis added]:

While hospital admissions have been rising sharply due to the early arrival of flu season, there is currently no evidence that this season’s variant is more deadly or transmissible, experts at the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) told POLITICO.

OK, let’s sum up what we know so far:

• This flu has no unusual symptoms.
• Its symptoms are not unusually severe.
• It is not any more transmissible than normal.
• It is no more deadly than normal.

It seems there is nothing even odd about this flu, let alone “super”.

A lot of the news coverage is focusing on the potential danger to the NHS, with headlines warning this is “beyond catastrophic” and “pushing the NHS to the brink”.

But anyone with a half-decent memory, or the ability to Google, will tell you that headlines warning of overcrowded hospitals or a “winter crisis” are a yearly tradition in the UK:

The BBC explainer Flu in five charts – how this year’s winter outbreak is different even quotes experts who point this out, and notes that the NHS isn’t close to breaking point [emphasis added]:

Health experts at the King’s Fund think tank have said talk of an “unrelenting flu wave” has become worryingly familiar over recent years. But Chris Streather, the medical director for the NHS in London, said the situation was “well within the boundaries” of what the NHS could cope with.

So, it’s not an unusual flu, the NHS is not unusually strained, and there’s no overcrowding at all (so far).

The only aspect that seems even vaguely out of the ordinary is the timing. The BBC’s first graph displays this:

Looking at this graph (supposing it’s based on actual data) you can see the flu season spike starts roughly a week earlier than recent years. Some outlets are calling this unprecedented, but they are only comparing it to the last three or four years, so we have no idea if that’s true. The rate of increase is inline with the past, and it appears to be peaking already.

The government figures show the number of people visiting their GPs with “influenza-like illness” is basically normal, if again spiking slightly earlier than average:

A little search engine research will get you similar figures going back to 1999/2000, all spiking in-and-around week 49.

Likewise, the number of people being admitted to the hospital for flu is normal for the time of year:

Let us summarize one last time. The super flu:

1. Has common symptoms.
2. Of regular severity.
3. It isn’t unusually infectious.
4. Or especially deadly.
5. The NHS isn’t more crowded than normal
6. And is well within thresholds.
7. A normal number of people are going to the GP.
8. Resulting in a predictable rate of hospitalization.

Hardly “super”, is it?

None of this is “conspiracy theorist” stuff either, it is all mainstream data. These are the “experts” we’re supposed to listen to and the “science” we’re encouraged to follow.

And yet we’re faced with this bizarre situation, where the news in general is telling everyone to be scared, while the specifics go out of their way to highlight the fact there is, as yet, nothing at all to be scared of.

It all feels oddly familiar, doesn’t it?