4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957%E2%80%931958_influenza_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957%E2%80%931958_influenza_pa... "About 70,000 to 116,000 peo

by _qulr 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957%E2%80%931958_influenza_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957%E2%80%931958_influenza_pa... "About 70,000 to 116,000 people died in the United States" "The second wave, in January and February 1958, was more pronounced among elderly people and so was more fatal." There have been over 150,000 deaths in the US in the first 7 months of the current pandemic. So no, you're incorrect.

_qulr 6y ago
Heh, someone downvoted me for posting facts in response to a false assertion. Gotta love HN.
- edanm 6y ago
  I upvoted your previous comment, and it shouldn't have been downvoted. But please refrain from writing comments complaining about voting behavior - it's against the rules.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
xyzzyz 6y ago
US population is now more than twice of what it was in 1957.
- _qulr 6y ago
  And 150,000 is more than twice 70,000. Just stop.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    But less than twice 116,000. If you were more charitable to my argument, and less antagonistic towards me, you’d get fewer downvoted.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      The numbers 70,000 to 116,000 are for the entire 1957-1958 pandemic, which of course is done. The number of over 150,000 for the current pandemic is only the deaths to date, which are at a rate of about 1500 per day now and rising. So I'm not clear on what your argument is supposed to be? We could split hairs over the numbers to date, but we know that the current pandemic is very far from over. Is there any serious dispute that when it's over, the current pandemic will surpass 1957-58, if it hasn't already? We don't have a vaccine, only a minority of the population has been infected, and it's still spreading. I was arguing for a hard lockdown to stop the current increase in cases. I'm not sure how it even matters whether the final toll in 1958 was 70K or 116K or somewhere between. We know the current cases have been trending upward for the past month in the US. Without a lockdown, they're likely to continue trending upward.
      - xyzzyz 6y ago
        No, I agree that this one will be worse than the one in 1957, hence the use of “so far” in my original comment. However, I don’t think it will be very significantly, qualitatively worse than the one in 1957, at least from medical perspective. My point is that the current one is only really worse because of the response and perception. I think it is reasonable to say that if we followed Swedish approach to COVID, we’d have similar outcomes. The epidemics in Sweden is mostly finished, they get few new cases and very few new deaths. If we had similar fatality rate to Sweden, we’d be looking at 200,000 deaths in the US. That’s an enormous, dizzying numbers. However, it wouldn’t be qualitatively different than 1957 Asian flu, and given how nobody has even heard of 1957 Asian flu epidemics, I claim that we wouldn’t have done such an enormous damage to livelihoods of hundreds of millions of Americans. The cases in the US are going up, because this is how we go through with this whole ordeal. This is what happened in UK, Italy, Sweden, France, New York or New Jersey. They are now done with epidemics. Look at their graphs, despite relaxation of restrictions, case numbers are very low and flat or trending downwards. New York and New Jersey, with their absolutely disastrous policy of deliberately infecting nursing homes by forcing them to take COVID-positive patients, have most definitely resulted in very high death rates there compared to European countries. However, if instead of lockdowns, we pursued a sensible policy of protecting the most vulnerable, we’d be already done by now and could get on with our lives.

by _qulr 6y ago

_qulr 6y ago

Heh, someone downvoted me for posting facts in response to a false assertion. Gotta love HN.

edanm 6y ago
I upvoted your previous comment, and it shouldn't have been downvoted. But please refrain from writing comments complaining about voting behavior - it's against the rules.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

xyzzyz 6y ago

US population is now more than twice of what it was in 1957.

_qulr 6y ago
And 150,000 is more than twice 70,000. Just stop.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  But less than twice 116,000. If you were more charitable to my argument, and less antagonistic towards me, you’d get fewer downvoted.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    The numbers 70,000 to 116,000 are for the entire 1957-1958 pandemic, which of course is done. The number of over 150,000 for the current pandemic is only the deaths to date, which are at a rate of about 1500 per day now and rising. So I'm not clear on what your argument is supposed to be? We could split hairs over the numbers to date, but we know that the current pandemic is very far from over. Is there any serious dispute that when it's over, the current pandemic will surpass 1957-58, if it hasn't already? We don't have a vaccine, only a minority of the population has been infected, and it's still spreading. I was arguing for a hard lockdown to stop the current increase in cases. I'm not sure how it even matters whether the final toll in 1958 was 70K or 116K or somewhere between. We know the current cases have been trending upward for the past month in the US. Without a lockdown, they're likely to continue trending upward.
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      No, I agree that this one will be worse than the one in 1957, hence the use of “so far” in my original comment. However, I don’t think it will be very significantly, qualitatively worse than the one in 1957, at least from medical perspective. My point is that the current one is only really worse because of the response and perception. I think it is reasonable to say that if we followed Swedish approach to COVID, we’d have similar outcomes. The epidemics in Sweden is mostly finished, they get few new cases and very few new deaths. If we had similar fatality rate to Sweden, we’d be looking at 200,000 deaths in the US. That’s an enormous, dizzying numbers. However, it wouldn’t be qualitatively different than 1957 Asian flu, and given how nobody has even heard of 1957 Asian flu epidemics, I claim that we wouldn’t have done such an enormous damage to livelihoods of hundreds of millions of Americans. The cases in the US are going up, because this is how we go through with this whole ordeal. This is what happened in UK, Italy, Sweden, France, New York or New Jersey. They are now done with epidemics. Look at their graphs, despite relaxation of restrictions, case numbers are very low and flat or trending downwards. New York and New Jersey, with their absolutely disastrous policy of deliberately infecting nursing homes by forcing them to take COVID-positive patients, have most definitely resulted in very high death rates there compared to European countries. However, if instead of lockdowns, we pursued a sensible policy of protecting the most vulnerable, we’d be already done by now and could get on with our lives.