That Nature story is a great example of the speculation I was talking about in my first post: a sample of "experts", chosen by reporters, repeating opinions.

There's a pretty decent coverage of the level of uncertainty involved, but the reporter still can't resist the urge of "crafting a narrative" that bypasses the uncertainty. For example:

> In May...when some of the strictest lockdowns were in place, health workers noted an abrupt and early halt to the 2019–20 flu season in the Northern Hemisphere. That might partly have been an artefact caused by fewer people coming to a clinic for testing, experts say, but it was also attributable to the effectiveness of policies such as social distancing.

Pretty definitive statement, there. But not even two paragraphs later:

> “Some South American countries haven’t done such a good job controlling COVID, but even there flu is low,” says virologist Richard Webby at St Jude’s hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. “I don’t think we can put it all down to mask wearing and social distancing.” He suspects that the dearth of international travel played a part.

So...yeah. We don't know the answer. The article makes it sound like we do. The headline and photo captions really makes it sound like we know.

Reporters are constantly putting their thumb on the scale by crafting editorially convenient narratives. Richard Webby's opinion doesn't properly emphasize the impact of of social distancing? Bury it under a vaguely definitive-sounding lede, and quote some other "expert" who does agree.

</rant>