4 ms·

I mean, in the United States, 149,324 deaths is a systemic failure. Another 834 today, and the day isn't over. Do you not think that constitutes a massive crisi

I mean, in the United States, 149,324 deaths is a systemic failure. Another 834 today, and the day isn't over. Do you not think that constitutes a massive crisis?

pdog 6y ago
That's my point. The Spanish flu killed 750,000 in the United States at a time when the population was around 100 million. It was certainly a massive crisis. What was the reporting like and how has it changed?
- mr_toad 6y ago
  People had lower expectations of healthcare back in the 20’s. Many of the vaccines we have today didn’t exist, and there were no antibiotics.
- oneplane 6y ago
  I think it was actually relatively the same. Different styles etc, but there were people back then that didn't feel like distancing or wearing a mask and there were laws put in place that would land you in jail if you went out without a mask. And there were protestors against that, just like now. And they too got infected, spread it around and some died. It's an excellent (sad) example of history repeating itself. On the other hand, things aren't all that comparable. Consider the distances people travel, the amount of people that use the same space, but also the amount of single-use things we have now that we didn't have (at scale) back then (even simple things like spoons, napkins, cups). People love to make comparisons, but it's not always as useful or helpful as one might think (even if we went all the way down the rabbit hole and tried to find all the variables between now and then).
- ModernMech 6y ago
  Back then there was hardy any reporting at all. They tried to keep it under wraps as much as possible. It’s the whole reason it was called the “Spanish” flu, as Spain was the only country accurately reporting on the crisis, which made it seem like a problem unique to them.
- jussij 6y ago
  When talking about mortality rates I don't think it is easy to make a comparison of these two virus. Firstly, the medical technologies of 1918 were nothing like what we have today. For example, even though it would have been no help fighting Spanish Flu, wide spread use of penicillin was still some 20 years, showing just how far behind the medical system of that time really was. That difference also shows up in things like life expectancy which back then was in the low 50s where as today it is in the 70s. Finally the two virus are very different. One factor that made the Spanish Flu virus so deadly was it killed both young and old. If COVID-19 had the same death profile I suspect we would be seeing those same 750,000 totals.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    All of that, plus a context of wartime And this deathcount was for an event that extended for 16 months between 2918 and 1920. We are in the eight month of covid-19 still
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      2918... (LOL) 1918
jjcon 6y ago
Per capita it is still less than France, Italy, UK, Sweden and plenty others - did they all have systemic failure too?
- king_magic 6y ago
  I think it’s pretty obvious that yes, they also did have systemic failures.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  “Per capita it is still less than France” Give it a couple days.
- MandieD 6y ago
  We also know more about how the virus spreads and treating people who are severely ill with it than we did 3-4 months ago. Part of why Germany’s death rates were a lot lower than its neighbors is likely due to having far more ICU beds per capita before the crisis, but also, hitting our infection rate peak a bit later. Those two things combined meant that our doctors had more time to figure out what does and doesn’t work, and never came close to the horrible decisions doctors in Italy had to make - Germany was even able to take in several hundred patients from Italy and France. Also of interest: Germany has almost as many ECMO-equipped hospitals as the US does, despite having 1/4 the population and a tiny fraction of the land area.
- QuesnayJr 6y ago
  Italy you can maybe excuse that they were caught by surprise, but yes, the other countries in Europe handled it badly initially. The surprising thing about the US is that somehow it's handling it worse.
  - makomk 6y ago
    From what I can tell, Italy being caught by surprise was a largely self-inflicted problem - they seem to have not tested any patients who were hospitalized with potential symptoms unless they'd travelled to China or had contact with someone who had. Other countries like the US had testing policies that, on paper, excluded those patients but in reality they did get tested anyway often enough that community spread was detected relatively early on. Italy only spotted theirs when someone happened to be hospitalized who'd had contact with a person that'd travelled to China but hadn't caught it from them. This is very different from the narrative the American and British press have been pushing, probably for political reasons - in that narrative Italy was just unlucky, and it was the other countries that didn't learn from them and stop themselves following in Italy's footsteps that failed. That doesn't seem to match reality. As best I can tell, Italy screwed up so badly that they doomed not only themselves, but any hope of containing Covid-19 in Europe and America. Everywhere else seems to have done a reasonably good job of stopping it coming from China, and it was the unexpected, undetected cases from Italy when they claimed to be completely clean that caused the outbreaks.
refurb 6y ago
80,000 died of the flu in the US in 2018. Yes, I know Covid will be worse, but 80,000 died and nobody seemed to notice. Was that a crisis? Based on numbers alone, I’d say yes. But it sure didn’t seem like it.
vl 6y ago
But in the country of 330000000 this is relatively minor. Yes, this happened quickly, but other, and more importantly, preventable deceases are killing way more people over time. Yet we don’t test for flu, don’t close McDonald’ses or allow driving only with special permit once a week. Basically current hysteria is disproportionate.
- king_magic 6y ago
  Flu could never kill 2 million (or more) Americans in a single year like COVID can unchecked. The current hysteria is not disproportionate.
  - vl 6y ago
    Not only it could, it did. Adjusted for today’s population Spanish flu would kill 2 million. Yet lockdowns were way less severe and schools, for example, reopened. Moreover, looking at current numbers, covid is not on track to reach 2 million by any degree of imagination.
    - king_magic 6y ago
      > Moreover, looking at current numbers, covid is not on track to reach 2 million by any degree of imagination. That is only the case because we shut down so much of the economy & society.

I mean, in the United States, 149,324 deaths is a systemic failure. Another 834 today, and the day isn't over. Do you not think that constitutes a massive crisis?

pdog 6y ago

That's my point. The Spanish flu killed 750,000 in the United States at a time when the population was around 100 million. It was certainly a massive crisis. What was the reporting like and how has it changed?

mr_toad 6y ago
People had lower expectations of healthcare back in the 20’s. Many of the vaccines we have today didn’t exist, and there were no antibiotics.
oneplane 6y ago
I think it was actually relatively the same. Different styles etc, but there were people back then that didn't feel like distancing or wearing a mask and there were laws put in place that would land you in jail if you went out without a mask. And there were protestors against that, just like now. And they too got infected, spread it around and some died. It's an excellent (sad) example of history repeating itself. On the other hand, things aren't all that comparable. Consider the distances people travel, the amount of people that use the same space, but also the amount of single-use things we have now that we didn't have (at scale) back then (even simple things like spoons, napkins, cups). People love to make comparisons, but it's not always as useful or helpful as one might think (even if we went all the way down the rabbit hole and tried to find all the variables between now and then).
ModernMech 6y ago
Back then there was hardy any reporting at all. They tried to keep it under wraps as much as possible. It’s the whole reason it was called the “Spanish” flu, as Spain was the only country accurately reporting on the crisis, which made it seem like a problem unique to them.
jussij 6y ago
When talking about mortality rates I don't think it is easy to make a comparison of these two virus. Firstly, the medical technologies of 1918 were nothing like what we have today. For example, even though it would have been no help fighting Spanish Flu, wide spread use of penicillin was still some 20 years, showing just how far behind the medical system of that time really was. That difference also shows up in things like life expectancy which back then was in the low 50s where as today it is in the 70s. Finally the two virus are very different. One factor that made the Spanish Flu virus so deadly was it killed both young and old. If COVID-19 had the same death profile I suspect we would be seeing those same 750,000 totals.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  All of that, plus a context of wartime And this deathcount was for an event that extended for 16 months between 2918 and 1920. We are in the eight month of covid-19 still
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    2918... (LOL) 1918

jjcon 6y ago

Per capita it is still less than France, Italy, UK, Sweden and plenty others - did they all have systemic failure too?

king_magic 6y ago
I think it’s pretty obvious that yes, they also did have systemic failures.
ModernMech 6y ago
“Per capita it is still less than France” Give it a couple days.
MandieD 6y ago
We also know more about how the virus spreads and treating people who are severely ill with it than we did 3-4 months ago. Part of why Germany’s death rates were a lot lower than its neighbors is likely due to having far more ICU beds per capita before the crisis, but also, hitting our infection rate peak a bit later. Those two things combined meant that our doctors had more time to figure out what does and doesn’t work, and never came close to the horrible decisions doctors in Italy had to make - Germany was even able to take in several hundred patients from Italy and France. Also of interest: Germany has almost as many ECMO-equipped hospitals as the US does, despite having 1/4 the population and a tiny fraction of the land area.
QuesnayJr 6y ago
Italy you can maybe excuse that they were caught by surprise, but yes, the other countries in Europe handled it badly initially. The surprising thing about the US is that somehow it's handling it worse.
- makomk 6y ago
  From what I can tell, Italy being caught by surprise was a largely self-inflicted problem - they seem to have not tested any patients who were hospitalized with potential symptoms unless they'd travelled to China or had contact with someone who had. Other countries like the US had testing policies that, on paper, excluded those patients but in reality they did get tested anyway often enough that community spread was detected relatively early on. Italy only spotted theirs when someone happened to be hospitalized who'd had contact with a person that'd travelled to China but hadn't caught it from them. This is very different from the narrative the American and British press have been pushing, probably for political reasons - in that narrative Italy was just unlucky, and it was the other countries that didn't learn from them and stop themselves following in Italy's footsteps that failed. That doesn't seem to match reality. As best I can tell, Italy screwed up so badly that they doomed not only themselves, but any hope of containing Covid-19 in Europe and America. Everywhere else seems to have done a reasonably good job of stopping it coming from China, and it was the unexpected, undetected cases from Italy when they claimed to be completely clean that caused the outbreaks.

refurb 6y ago

80,000 died of the flu in the US in 2018. Yes, I know Covid will be worse, but 80,000 died and nobody seemed to notice. Was that a crisis? Based on numbers alone, I’d say yes. But it sure didn’t seem like it.

vl 6y ago

But in the country of 330000000 this is relatively minor. Yes, this happened quickly, but other, and more importantly, preventable deceases are killing way more people over time. Yet we don’t test for flu, don’t close McDonald’ses or allow driving only with special permit once a week. Basically current hysteria is disproportionate.

king_magic 6y ago
Flu could never kill 2 million (or more) Americans in a single year like COVID can unchecked. The current hysteria is not disproportionate.
- vl 6y ago
  Not only it could, it did. Adjusted for today’s population Spanish flu would kill 2 million. Yet lockdowns were way less severe and schools, for example, reopened. Moreover, looking at current numbers, covid is not on track to reach 2 million by any degree of imagination.
  - king_magic 6y ago
    > Moreover, looking at current numbers, covid is not on track to reach 2 million by any degree of imagination. That is only the case because we shut down so much of the economy & society.