First, this isn't a reproduced study and as far as I know it has not undergone peer review.

(I sort of wish that we had the kind of gag rule that the UK imposes on the press after an arrest when it comes to scientific studies which are unreviewed first studies, but Americans would never allow such a thing.)

A UK study involving samples taken from patients with an acute respiratory illness reported an interesting statistic. They claimed that compared to other dual or multiple viral infections that if a person had Influenza A they were statistically 70% less likely to have the rhinovirus (common cold) than other dual or mutiple viral combinations. The problem that I saw right away is that although there were 36 thousand patients only about 2900 had dual or multiple infections and they involved 11 different viral strains. Mathematically, I'm wondering if this is a large enough sampling on which to make even a preliminary evaluation.

It sounds like an interesting signpost for future studies which may or may not support it. It would be interesting if it is statistically supported by other studies.

But remember, correlation does not demonstrate or prove causation.