3 ms·

Don't forget the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic. Or the 1957 Asian Flu pandemic. Or polio. Or the rest of these [0]. I was very aware of the Spanish Flu and Polio b

by codyb 12y ago

Don't forget the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic. Or the 1957 Asian Flu pandemic. Or polio. Or the rest of these [0]. I was very aware of the Spanish Flu and Polio but no so much the rest. And to say "this bad" when talking about 6,000 infections in Africa seems silly compared to most of these. 675,000 dead in USA (20 million across the globe) from Spanish Flu (my great grandfather included). You mentioned polio of course but just because there aren't as many ready recordings doesn't mean people weren't stressed and/or panicked about these things. [0] - http://www.healthline.com/health/worst-disease-outbreaks-history#Cryptosporidium9 http://www.healthline.com/health/worst-disease-outbreaks-his...

hga 12y ago
Ah, yeah, the 1918 Spanish Flu was bad. But not 18th Century yellow fever or Ebola (potentially) bad (in the US). Using your figure of 675,000 dead, that's a fatality rate for the whole population of 0.6-0.7%, based on the 1920 and 1910 Census figures. Just now looking at Wikipedia, it's estimated that 28% of the population got it, so that would make a US Case Fatality Rate of 2.6% ... bad, but not hardly as bad as much of the rest of the world. It was fantastic transmissible, plus its killing young healthy people is part of what made it so bad, a lot of older folk at least in the US appear to have had some immunity. However WWI wartime censorship kept a lid on greater recognition of how bad it was (it got its name because reporting on neutral Spain was allowed). So I don't put it in the same league, and the late '50's Asian flu killed "only" around 69,800 Americans (per Wikipedia), so ... well, how many of us expect Ebola to kill that many in the country? I expect/hope sanity will prevail, that the Politically Correct will be shouted down or hounded out of office/their positions, and once we revert to the old fashioned quarantine methods the death toll will be small. But plenty will label that process as "panic" ... and if it doesn't happen, well, we may indeed see something close to well justified "panic".
- maxerickson 12y ago
  So say the death toll in the U.S. ends up being ~2 people, are you going to revisit your assumptions and conclusions? Or would that outcome be easily dismissed as belonging to luck?

by codyb 12y ago

hga 12y ago

Ah, yeah, the 1918 Spanish Flu was bad. But not 18th Century yellow fever or Ebola (potentially) bad (in the US). Using your figure of 675,000 dead, that's a fatality rate for the whole population of 0.6-0.7%, based on the 1920 and 1910 Census figures. Just now looking at Wikipedia, it's estimated that 28% of the population got it, so that would make a US Case Fatality Rate of 2.6% ... bad, but not hardly as bad as much of the rest of the world. It was fantastic transmissible, plus its killing young healthy people is part of what made it so bad, a lot of older folk at least in the US appear to have had some immunity. However WWI wartime censorship kept a lid on greater recognition of how bad it was (it got its name because reporting on neutral Spain was allowed). So I don't put it in the same league, and the late '50's Asian flu killed "only" around 69,800 Americans (per Wikipedia), so ... well, how many of us expect Ebola to kill that many in the country? I expect/hope sanity will prevail, that the Politically Correct will be shouted down or hounded out of office/their positions, and once we revert to the old fashioned quarantine methods the death toll will be small. But plenty will label that process as "panic" ... and if it doesn't happen, well, we may indeed see something close to well justified "panic".

maxerickson 12y ago
So say the death toll in the U.S. ends up being ~2 people, are you going to revisit your assumptions and conclusions? Or would that outcome be easily dismissed as belonging to luck?