Source: Original Site Post

  • Conservatives = Happier Because Lower Neuroticism

    CONSERVATIVES = HAPPIER BECUSE LOWER NEUROTICISM (and higher disgust) Conservative states tend to have higher levels of life satisfaction because they have lower levels of neuroticism compared to liberal states, according to new research from a psychologist at Cape Breton University. The study, published in the journal Psychological Reports, helps explain why there is a correlation between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction. “I have had longstanding interests in social, personality, and political psychology,” explained study author Stewart J. H. McCann. “My special interest in personality and its state-level correlates was sparked in 2008 when Dr. P. Jason Rentfrow of the University of Cambridge and his colleagues produced average scores for each of the 50 states on each of the five main personality dimensions—openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism—based on the responses of 619,397 residents of the USA to a widely used 44-item personality questionnaire. “Since that time, I have published 17 research articles showing relations between state-levels of these personality variables and various other important differences between states such as political attitudes, work satisfaction, illness, mortality, residential mobility, creativity, volunteering, emotional health, smoking, and obesity.” “Previous research by others had shown that conservatives generally were happier and more satisfied with their lives than liberals. But why?” McCann told PsyPost. “Three different explanations had been put forward by others. However, I thought that there might be a fourth and more convincing explanation.” “Existing research demonstrated that there are associations not only between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction but also between lower neuroticism and higher life satisfaction and between lower neuroticism and higher conservatism. Perhaps if neuroticism was statistically controlled or effectively held constant, the association between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction would vanish.” “The relation between conservatism and life satisfaction might be dependent upon neuroticism levels. The present study was conducted to test this possibility in a state-level analysis.” McCann analyzed data from Rentfrow’s study, Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, U.S. Census Bureau, CBS News and the New York Times polls, and the presidential election results from 2000 to 2008. He found that differences in the levels of neuroticism in each state could account for the state-level association between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction. Other factors he examined, including socioeconomic status, did not account for the association. “The results of the present study strongly suggest that there is nothing inherent in a conservative worldview as opposed to a liberal worldview that promotes greater happiness and life satisfaction,” McCann explained. “Rather it is the underlying higher neuroticism that tends to be more likely in liberals and the underlying lower neuroticism that tends to be more likely in conservatives that accounts for the greater happiness and life satisfaction in conservatives.” “For example, higher neuroticism is characterized by higher levels of vulnerability, self-consciousness, depression, tenseness, moodiness, angry hostility, impulsiveness, nervousness, anxiety, worry, emotional instability, and poor stress management. Clearly, such a constellation does not bode well for happiness and satisfaction with life.” The study used a cross-sectional methodology, meaning McCann cannot make inferences about cause and effect. He believes, based on previous research, that higher neuroticism fosters lower life satisfaction and that lower neuroticism promotes higher conservatism — but the reverse could also be true. His study has another caveat as well. “Readers must understand that this was a study carried out with the 50 states rather than a sample of individuals as the cases,” McCann explained. “What was found is that state levels of resident neuroticism can account for the relation between state levels of conservatism and state levels of life satisfaction. “I am assuming that the state-level relations are dependent upon parallel individual-level relations. Caution must be exercised in making such cross-level extrapolations. However, some comfort is taken from the fact that other researchers (Burton, Plaks, & Peterson, 2015) also have found the same dynamics in an individual-level analysis and reached the same conclusion regarding why conservatives tend to be happier and more satisfied with life.” The study was titled: “State Resident Neuroticism Accounts for Life Satisfaction Differences Between Conservative and Liberal States of the USA”. Source: https://www.psypost.org/…/study-suggests-lower-levels-neuro… DEFINING NEUROTICISM Neuroticism Neuroticism is one of the Big Five higher-order personality traits in the study of psychology. Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than average to be moody and to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness. People who are neurotic respond worse to stressors and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. They are often self-conscious and shy, and they may have trouble controlling urges and delaying gratification. Neuroticism is a trait in many models within personality theory, but there is a lot of disagreement on its definition. Some define it as a tendency for quick arousal when stimulated and slow relaxation from arousal, especially in concern to negative emotional arousal; others define it as emotional instability and negativity or maladjustment, in contrast to emotional stability and positivity, or good adjustment. Others yet define it as lack of self-control, poor ability to manage psychological stress, and a tendency to complain.[6] Various personality tests produce numerical scores, and these scores are mapped onto the concept of “neuroticism” in various ways, which has created some confusion in the scientific literature, especially with regard to sub-traits or “facets”.[6] Individuals who score low in neuroticism tend to be more emotionally stable and less reactive to stress. They tend to be calm, even-tempered, and less likely to feel tense or rattled. Although they are low in negative emotion, they are not necessarily high on positive emotion. Being high in scores of positive emotion is generally an element of the independent trait of extraversion. Neurotic extraverts, for example, would experience high levels of both positive and negative emotional states, a kind of “emotional roller coaster”.[7][8] (Impulsive) Neurotic <-> Calm (Agency) ======= STUDIES 1) State Resident Neuroticism Accounts for Life Satisfaction Differences Between Conservative and Liberal States of the USA Stewart J. H. McCannFirst Published August 11, 2017 Research Article Find in PubMed https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117725072 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0033294117725072 Abstract Past research indicates associations between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction, lower neuroticism and higher life satisfaction, and higher conservatism and lower neuroticism. Qualified deduction led to the following hypothesis: Neuroticism can account for the association between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction. The 50 American states served as the units of analysis. Responses of 619,397 residents to the 44-item Big Five Inventory in an internet survey conducted from 1999 to 2005 provided mean neuroticism scores for each state. Conservative-liberal leaning of over 84,000 respondents to CBS News/New York Times polls from 1999 to 2003 and the percent voting Republican in each state in the 2000 to 2008 presidential elections combined to form a conservatism score for each state. The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index provided life satisfaction scores for over 1,000,000 respondents, transforming to a 2008 to 2010 composite score for each state. In a sequential multiple regression equation with life satisfaction as the criterion, state socioeconomic status and white population percent entered first as a block, conservatism entered second, and neuroticism entered third, the demographic controls accounted for 45.7% of the variance, conservatism accounted for another 10.4%, and neuroticism accounted for an additional 10.6%. However, with the entry order of conservatism and neuroticism reversed, neuroticism accounted for another 19.6% but conservatism accounted for only an additional nonsignificant 1.4%. Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Three alternative explanations suggested by other researchers were not supported in the state-level analysis. 2) Why Do Conservatives Report Being Happier Than Liberals? The Contribution of Neuroticism Caitlin M. Burton*a, Jason E. Plaksa, Jordan B. Petersona [a] Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/117/html Abstract Previous studies suggest that conservatives in the United States are happier than liberals. This difference has been attributed to factors including differences in socioeconomic status, group memberships, and system-justifying beliefs. We suggest that differences between liberals and conservatives in personality traits may provide an additional account for the “happiness gap”. Specifically, we investigated the role of neuroticism (or conversely, emotional stability) in explaining the conservative-liberal happiness gap. In Study 1 (N = 619), we assessed the correlation between political orientation (PO) and satisfaction with life (SWL), controlling for the Big Five traits, religiosity, income, and demographic variables. Neuroticism, conscientiousness, and religiosity each accounted for the PO-SWL correlation. In Study 2 (N = 700), neuroticism, system justification beliefs, conscientiousness, and income each accounted for PO-SWL correlation. In both studies, neuroticism negatively correlated with conservatism. We suggest that individual differences in neuroticism represent a previously under-examined contributor to the SWL disparity between conservatives and liberals.

  • Lumping Abrahamic Religons

    Jan 31, 2020, 8:37 PM by Anne Summers with Curt

    [That collection of posts on Christianity] only explains / compares female/r capacity and ethnic judaic group strategy. I still don’t see what exactly Christianity is in this. On the one hand Christianity is founded by a pretty alright dude (Jesus) who, for the most part got things right. His teachings seem a bit too radicle for his Semite Bros and are accepted into (found compatible enough for the [female] population of Europe).

    ( CD: Correct. )

    You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival. Islam started out r and turned feral (Mohamed is very r) and Christianity is (In my opinion) full on K. Human individualism is a constant act of sin against the commons. It takes self sacrifice to correct the damage done to the commons. I grant that there are a lot of christians who are r, or deeply poisoned by Marxist culturalism. I can’t speak for them. And maybe, in a way my questioning you and partially answering my own questions has clarified my own take on Christianity. Thanks for such an opportunity of the thought dive.


    Very, very, good Anne Summers Damn. Impressed. As for this quote:

    —“You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival. “—

    Because I disambiguate the method of arguing the religion with the content of it. The content is fine. But the abrahamic method of deceit that is used to create the monotheistic religions is the same method used to create the false promises and undermining of marxism, cultural marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and politcal correctness (denialism). So if I want to end that category of lying and protect our people from undermining by the false promise of abrahamic deceit, then I am sort of stuck with scientifically explaining christianity, following jefferson’s example of the Jeffferson Bible ( thin new testament) and discovering some way of combining our ancestral religions so that we get the benefits of them without the cancer of abrahamism. So that is what you’re not seeing. And that’s why it’s not making sense to you.

  • Lumping Abrahamic Religons

    Jan 31, 2020, 8:37 PM by Anne Summers with Curt

    [That collection of posts on Christianity] only explains / compares female/r capacity and ethnic judaic group strategy. I still don’t see what exactly Christianity is in this. On the one hand Christianity is founded by a pretty alright dude (Jesus) who, for the most part got things right. His teachings seem a bit too radicle for his Semite Bros and are accepted into (found compatible enough for the [female] population of Europe).

    ( CD: Correct. )

    You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival. Islam started out r and turned feral (Mohamed is very r) and Christianity is (In my opinion) full on K. Human individualism is a constant act of sin against the commons. It takes self sacrifice to correct the damage done to the commons. I grant that there are a lot of christians who are r, or deeply poisoned by Marxist culturalism. I can’t speak for them. And maybe, in a way my questioning you and partially answering my own questions has clarified my own take on Christianity. Thanks for such an opportunity of the thought dive.


    Very, very, good Anne Summers Damn. Impressed. As for this quote:

    —“You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival. “—

    Because I disambiguate the method of arguing the religion with the content of it. The content is fine. But the abrahamic method of deceit that is used to create the monotheistic religions is the same method used to create the false promises and undermining of marxism, cultural marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and politcal correctness (denialism). So if I want to end that category of lying and protect our people from undermining by the false promise of abrahamic deceit, then I am sort of stuck with scientifically explaining christianity, following jefferson’s example of the Jeffferson Bible ( thin new testament) and discovering some way of combining our ancestral religions so that we get the benefits of them without the cancer of abrahamism. So that is what you’re not seeing. And that’s why it’s not making sense to you.

  • Pre and Postwar Europe – and The World Order that Is Coming Back Into Natural State

    Feb 1, 2020, 9:23 AM

    –“Anglos were against germans”–

    I disagree entirely. America prewar was 50% ethnically german and the heartland still is. America was on the german side in both wars until it couldn’t afford to be. Before 1914, Germany (manufacturing) and England (navy, market) had the same economic interdependency as china(manufacturing) and America (navy, market). The British empire wanted, as America until Trump has wanted, to restore the balance of powers – including the Russians and the ottomans. Otherwise they would not have prohibited the Russian reconquest of Istanbul, or the restoration of the german empire post napoleonic conquest. This is the problem with ‘overdoing’ capitalism (middle class government): we seek profits and stability of profits because of the expansion of economic risk under middle class government, when we should always seek the natural self interest of the great powers, and only interfere once the outcome is far enough along that we can choose sides – as we did by going after the communists. I would argue that yes, the British were swayed to jewish extractive financialism instead of Christian profiting from domestication under white mans burden, after ending the prohibition on jews in the state, and the rise of Disraeli’s government. The British problem with Germany was that in response to napoleon’s terrors in Europe, Germany unified, and began to defend her (huge) continental interests. Had we sided with Germany the empires would all still exist and the world would not have experienced communism, the failure to Complete the colonial program of world-modernization, loss of european confidence in the european program post war, jewish undermining of european, British, and american civilization post war, the immigration crisis that has almost achieved jewish cosmopolitan ends, and the coming civil war – and islam could have been transformed, because tribal boundaries would have been possible to install. The mistake was our misunderstanding of the heart of german civilization being in the north and particularly Prussian – but the french post-war wanted to ‘de-Prussify’ Germany by manipulating american morality (we’re wrong), and making it possible for France to conquer and rule the continent (as they are trying to do with the EU). Unfortunately, France chose more socialism and agrarianism than Germany, and Germany chose her traditional excellence in manufacturing, so between the german mark and german industry and german education and german culture, Germany economically rules by demonstrated superiority …. until …. there is a decline in auto sales … and germans revolt at a loss of (everything) and she re-asserts herself in defense, and they are stuck with France having confidence and the will to rule Europe, and Germans needing to restore their will to rule themselves and Europe. Yet it is France that maintains colonies in Africa, and is the origin of Jewish intellectual influence, and Muslim immigration and invasion into Europe. France has always been the enemy of Europe since she was more latinized and retained imperial ambitions and catholic church dominance, including her long standing attempt to relocate the papacy to France. It’s the Germanics that have tried to complete the transition back to SOVEREIGNTY while France continues the jewish christian (catholic) pursuit of monopoly authority. The countryside may be germanic. but France is Paris, and Paris might as well be Constantinople trying to conquer the western empire. Russia is, as I had hoped, taking over her natural position as the leader in the middle eastern sphere of influence. France is, as I had warned, still attempting her conquest of Europe and the destruction of germanic civilization – out of overconfidence and arrogance (both unwarranted). Germany is still indoctrinated by what they call their (special history) except they were in the right and need a generation to unlearn blaming themselves for what was a french, anglo, and Russian attack on their attempt to unify the germanic peoples and the lands which germanic excellence had influenced. If Germany gains independence and restores herself, then the slavic and baltic peoples will strategically, economically, align with them. The Anglosphere has time to unify again, draw ‘the rest’ of Canada into it’s sphere, and prevent the conquest of Australia by Chinese interests, thereby creating enough of a population to not be the victim of a hostile china, a powerful Russia-Islam, an islam, and a hostile french conquest of Europe. The balkans are screwed until the Russians or united eastern european Intermarium can save them by completing the removal of islam from old europe as thoroughly as the spanish have from iberia. These are not simple moral choices. They are choices necessary for western survival. All of this is made possible (a) by Brexit and (b) by american Red-Exit … or re-conquest. The latter I hope we will begin this year.

  • Pre and Postwar Europe – and The World Order that Is Coming Back Into Natural State

    Feb 1, 2020, 9:23 AM

    –“Anglos were against germans”–

    I disagree entirely. America prewar was 50% ethnically german and the heartland still is. America was on the german side in both wars until it couldn’t afford to be. Before 1914, Germany (manufacturing) and England (navy, market) had the same economic interdependency as china(manufacturing) and America (navy, market). The British empire wanted, as America until Trump has wanted, to restore the balance of powers – including the Russians and the ottomans. Otherwise they would not have prohibited the Russian reconquest of Istanbul, or the restoration of the german empire post napoleonic conquest. This is the problem with ‘overdoing’ capitalism (middle class government): we seek profits and stability of profits because of the expansion of economic risk under middle class government, when we should always seek the natural self interest of the great powers, and only interfere once the outcome is far enough along that we can choose sides – as we did by going after the communists. I would argue that yes, the British were swayed to jewish extractive financialism instead of Christian profiting from domestication under white mans burden, after ending the prohibition on jews in the state, and the rise of Disraeli’s government. The British problem with Germany was that in response to napoleon’s terrors in Europe, Germany unified, and began to defend her (huge) continental interests. Had we sided with Germany the empires would all still exist and the world would not have experienced communism, the failure to Complete the colonial program of world-modernization, loss of european confidence in the european program post war, jewish undermining of european, British, and american civilization post war, the immigration crisis that has almost achieved jewish cosmopolitan ends, and the coming civil war – and islam could have been transformed, because tribal boundaries would have been possible to install. The mistake was our misunderstanding of the heart of german civilization being in the north and particularly Prussian – but the french post-war wanted to ‘de-Prussify’ Germany by manipulating american morality (we’re wrong), and making it possible for France to conquer and rule the continent (as they are trying to do with the EU). Unfortunately, France chose more socialism and agrarianism than Germany, and Germany chose her traditional excellence in manufacturing, so between the german mark and german industry and german education and german culture, Germany economically rules by demonstrated superiority …. until …. there is a decline in auto sales … and germans revolt at a loss of (everything) and she re-asserts herself in defense, and they are stuck with France having confidence and the will to rule Europe, and Germans needing to restore their will to rule themselves and Europe. Yet it is France that maintains colonies in Africa, and is the origin of Jewish intellectual influence, and Muslim immigration and invasion into Europe. France has always been the enemy of Europe since she was more latinized and retained imperial ambitions and catholic church dominance, including her long standing attempt to relocate the papacy to France. It’s the Germanics that have tried to complete the transition back to SOVEREIGNTY while France continues the jewish christian (catholic) pursuit of monopoly authority. The countryside may be germanic. but France is Paris, and Paris might as well be Constantinople trying to conquer the western empire. Russia is, as I had hoped, taking over her natural position as the leader in the middle eastern sphere of influence. France is, as I had warned, still attempting her conquest of Europe and the destruction of germanic civilization – out of overconfidence and arrogance (both unwarranted). Germany is still indoctrinated by what they call their (special history) except they were in the right and need a generation to unlearn blaming themselves for what was a french, anglo, and Russian attack on their attempt to unify the germanic peoples and the lands which germanic excellence had influenced. If Germany gains independence and restores herself, then the slavic and baltic peoples will strategically, economically, align with them. The Anglosphere has time to unify again, draw ‘the rest’ of Canada into it’s sphere, and prevent the conquest of Australia by Chinese interests, thereby creating enough of a population to not be the victim of a hostile china, a powerful Russia-Islam, an islam, and a hostile french conquest of Europe. The balkans are screwed until the Russians or united eastern european Intermarium can save them by completing the removal of islam from old europe as thoroughly as the spanish have from iberia. These are not simple moral choices. They are choices necessary for western survival. All of this is made possible (a) by Brexit and (b) by american Red-Exit … or re-conquest. The latter I hope we will begin this year.

  • Christian Pseudoscience: Electric Universe and Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model

    Feb 1, 2020, 9:42 AM Each is another ridiculous pseudoscience – it’s just christian biased pseudoscience vs jewish biased pseudoscience(marx, freud, cantor, boas, bohr, derrida, friedan, etc). Every culture has tried some version of pseudoscience or sophistry to persist it’s traditional model of the universe. But, no pseudoscience pls. We know the laws of the universe. We have at least one problem left and I am pretty sure we will have to solve it by computational trial and error like protein folding. We may or may not ever know how many universes there are, and how they emerge, but within this universe we are going to know relatively shortly as much about the physical and biological as we do about the atomic and chemical. The only thing I put forward is that these same laws apply to man’s behavior, and that memory provides an accounting system that allows us to cooperate by trade of debts and credits in time. If there are gods, they have written their laws in the universe for all of us to see. The rest of history is full of men who lied or told half truths about those laws. And there appears to be no means by which for any god to influence us, other than as stories in the minds of others. This is where science leads. This is why some people need faith. Because they cannot bear the truth. And we must not deprive people of their means of sedation. On the other hand we may not permit them to influence the material world with their sedatives.

  • Christian Pseudoscience: Electric Universe and Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model

    Feb 1, 2020, 9:42 AM Each is another ridiculous pseudoscience – it’s just christian biased pseudoscience vs jewish biased pseudoscience(marx, freud, cantor, boas, bohr, derrida, friedan, etc). Every culture has tried some version of pseudoscience or sophistry to persist it’s traditional model of the universe. But, no pseudoscience pls. We know the laws of the universe. We have at least one problem left and I am pretty sure we will have to solve it by computational trial and error like protein folding. We may or may not ever know how many universes there are, and how they emerge, but within this universe we are going to know relatively shortly as much about the physical and biological as we do about the atomic and chemical. The only thing I put forward is that these same laws apply to man’s behavior, and that memory provides an accounting system that allows us to cooperate by trade of debts and credits in time. If there are gods, they have written their laws in the universe for all of us to see. The rest of history is full of men who lied or told half truths about those laws. And there appears to be no means by which for any god to influence us, other than as stories in the minds of others. This is where science leads. This is why some people need faith. Because they cannot bear the truth. And we must not deprive people of their means of sedation. On the other hand we may not permit them to influence the material world with their sedatives.

  • A State Religion?

    Feb 1, 2020, 9:52 AM

    —“Would a P government endorse a religion?”–Tim Abbott

    P-law allows the truthful reciprocal construction of any form of government and any economy as long as it’s stated in strictly constructed p-law. A continuation of the european sovereigns under rule of law by natural law of reciprocity, that we see in the proto-germanic, germanic, anglo saxon, english, british, american constitutions would yes, permit and possibly require a state religion. It would require compatibility with natural law. This leaves only traditional european religions (all of them), and christianity, and prohibits all others. And it posits chirstianity in scientific terms. In general, history has taught us that state religion is necessary, and so it appears we will have a set of state religions and state funding of religion as we do schools. Even though that religion will cover a broad spectrum of secular, pagan, and monotheistic christian religions.

  • A State Religion?

    Feb 1, 2020, 9:52 AM

    —“Would a P government endorse a religion?”–Tim Abbott

    P-law allows the truthful reciprocal construction of any form of government and any economy as long as it’s stated in strictly constructed p-law. A continuation of the european sovereigns under rule of law by natural law of reciprocity, that we see in the proto-germanic, germanic, anglo saxon, english, british, american constitutions would yes, permit and possibly require a state religion. It would require compatibility with natural law. This leaves only traditional european religions (all of them), and christianity, and prohibits all others. And it posits chirstianity in scientific terms. In general, history has taught us that state religion is necessary, and so it appears we will have a set of state religions and state funding of religion as we do schools. Even though that religion will cover a broad spectrum of secular, pagan, and monotheistic christian religions.

  • Ordinary Flu Deaths Each Year Are Limited

    Feb 1, 2020, 11:35 AM (compiled) According to the World Health Organization (WHO), flu globally attacks 5%–10% adults and 20%–30% children annually. According to the CDC, during the year when the influenza A (H3N2) viruses are prominent, death rates are typically more than double as compared to seasons when the influenza A (H1N1) or influenza B viruses dominate. This is because the influenza A (H3N2) virus is far more potent and contagious than the H1N1 influenza virus. Hospitalizations and flu season deaths occur mainly among the high-risk groups such as young children below the age of 5 years, the elderly above the age of 65 years, and those with chronic medical illnesses. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), experts say the flu season is in full swing with an estimated 4.6 million flu illnesses, 39,000 hospitalizations and 2,100 deaths from flu so far this season. The rate of outpatient visits for influenza-like illnesses (ILI) spiked in the week ending on Dec 21, from 3.9% to 5.1% — a trend typically seen during winter holidays. Rates of ILI have been above the national baseline of 2.4% for 7 weeks. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and New York City reported high levels of ILI. Flu activity was described as widespread in 39 states. The CDC said hospitalization rates rose to 6.6 per 100,000 population, up from 5.5 per 100,000 population during the second week of December. The highest rate of hospitalization was among adults aged older than 65 (14.4 per 100,000 population), followed by children ages 0 to 4 (12.5 per 100,000 population) and adults ages 50 to 64 (7.0 per 100,000 population). All age groups have seen a significant increase in the last week. The CDC said hospitalization rates mirror previous seasons. Influenza A has been detected in 52.9% of hospitalized cases, and 46.4% were associated with influenza B. In testing at public health labs, influenza B accounts for 58.8% of positive flu samples collected from across the country, 98.7% of which are Victoria lineage. Influenza A was detected in 41.2% of specimens, with most of those (94.8%) subtyped as the H1N1 strain first seen in 2009. “Activity is being caused mostly by influenza B/Victoria viruses, which is unusual for this time of year. A(H1N1) viruses are the next most common and are increasing in proportion relative to other influenza viruses in some regions,” the CDC said. Three pediatric deaths were also recorded in the last week, raising the season’s total to 22. All three recent deaths were associated with influenza B viruses; only six deaths in total this season have been associated with influenza A. In the 2018-2019 flu season, the CDC confirmed 143 pediatric deaths. The CDC encouraged all who have not yet done so to receive a seasonal influenza vaccine, as the season is set to last for several more weeks. DEATHS DUE DO EPIDEMICS The world has seen five pandemics during the last century, which took a large number of lives. Here are the figures of deaths that occurred in the United States and Worldwide during those years.

    1. 1889 Russian Flu Pandemic – about 1 million flu deaths

    2. “Spanish flu” A of 1918-19 caused the highest number of influenza-related deaths: approximately 500,000 deaths occurred in the U.S. and 20 million worldwide. That figure is more than the total number of deaths caused by the World War one — 16 million. As a matter of fact, during that year, the flu had killed more people than any other illness in recorded history.

    3. “Asian flu” A of 1957-58 caused 70,000 deaths in the United States and about one million to two million deaths worldwide

    4. “Hong-Kong flu” A of 1968-69 resulted in 34,000 deaths in the United States and an estimated one million to three million people died worldwide.

    5. 2009 H1N1 Flu Pandemic – about 18,300 deaths in the United States and up to 203,000 deaths worldwide