Lessons the country needs to learn from the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.

[RandomPoster]

I believe we should do our best to learn from history. In 1918, when America went through the H1N1 influenza pandemic, which killed almost 700,000 U.S. citizens, many of whom were healthy males in their 20s and 30s, unemployment actually dropped to 1.4% and the stock market did not plummet. This is because the country kept working. In fact, the massive number of deaths among the young to middle aged men in the country actually created a labor shortage. The nation didn't simply wallow in misery and do nothing. The nation adapted and overcame. One vital aspect to our survival in such a troubling time was when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Child Labor laws to be unconstitutional in June of 1918. This created an influx of labor and also put food on the table for many families. Our course of action not only forced the country to build herd immunity, it also helped build work ethic in young children and helped America become the most productive country in the world. It was the foundation of the "Roaring 20s" and the greatest stock market boom in history.

In short, we need to keep businesses open, close schools early for the year, suspend child labor laws, and get the entire nation back to work.

 

[kyzr]

Your post reads a bit cold, like you don't care how many die.

How about we discover and test a few medications, and stay away from crowds until around Easter when the weather is getting warmer and the virus is more under control? We can still keep our social distance and will probably have a few medications by then.

 

[rightwinger]

Lesson Number 1: Dying sucks

 

[rightwinger]

I believe we should do our best to learn from history. In 1918, when America went through the H1N1 influenza pandemic, which killed almost 700,000 U.S. citizens, many of whom were healthy males in their 20s and 30s, unemployment actually dropped to 1.4% and the stock market did not plummet. This is because the country kept working. In fact, the massive number of deaths among the young to middle aged men in the country actually created a labor shortage. The nation didn't simply wallow in misery and do nothing. The nation adapted and overcame. One vital aspect to our survival in such a troubling time was when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Child Labor laws to be unconstitutional in June of 1918. This created an influx of labor and also put food on the table for many families. Our course of action not only forced the country to build herd immunity, it also helped build work ethic in young children and helped America become the most productive country in the world. It was the foundation of the "Roaring 20s" and the greatest stock market boom in history.

In short, we need to keep businesses open, close schools early for the year, suspend child labor laws, and get the entire nation back to work.

Because working is more important than peoples lives

 

[EvMetro]

Lesson Number 1: Dying sucks

Don't just talk, SAY something.

 

[HenryBHough]

Pay attention to your friendly neighboring greenie. People are going to be the death of the planet. There are just too many of us. We all eat too much. We all fart too much. We all insist on heating our homes.

Oh the humanity!

But will they do their part? Where are the long lined we should see trying to get onto bridges and jump off to SAVE THE PLANET?

Gee, could it be you liberals just don't care?

 

[Jackson]

I believe we should do our best to learn from history. In 1918, when America went through the H1N1 influenza pandemic, which killed almost 700,000 U.S. citizens, many of whom were healthy males in their 20s and 30s, unemployment actually dropped to 1.4% and the stock market did not plummet. This is because the country kept working. In fact, the massive number of deaths among the young to middle aged men in the country actually created a labor shortage. The nation didn't simply wallow in misery and do nothing. The nation adapted and overcame. One vital aspect to our survival in such a troubling time was when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Child Labor laws to be unconstitutional in June of 1918. This created an influx of labor and also put food on the table for many families. Our course of action not only forced the country to build herd immunity, it also helped build work ethic in young children and helped America become the most productive country in the world. It was the foundation of the "Roaring 20s" and the greatest stock market boom in history.

In short, we need to keep businesses open, close schools early for the year, suspend child labor laws, and get the entire nation back to work.

Very interesting post.

 

[Gdjjr]

Americans learning from History? LOL- they refuse to read. They believe godvernment is the answer to all that ails us-

 

[Gdjjr]

Why wasn't there a panic in 1968? Or in 2009?
If you die it was your time to go. If you're a christian god saved you. If not, oh well. Hope you enjoyed what time you had. Godvernment will only make sure your kids, kids, kids, kids, kids, kids are in debt to allegedly save you.

 

[forkup]

I believe we should do our best to learn from history. In 1918, when America went through the H1N1 influenza pandemic, which killed almost 700,000 U.S. citizens, many of whom were healthy males in their 20s and 30s, unemployment actually dropped to 1.4% and the stock market did not plummet. This is because the country kept working. In fact, the massive number of deaths among the young to middle aged men in the country actually created a labor shortage. The nation didn't simply wallow in misery and do nothing. The nation adapted and overcame. One vital aspect to our survival in such a troubling time was when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Child Labor laws to be unconstitutional in June of 1918. This created an influx of labor and also put food on the table for many families. Our course of action not only forced the country to build herd immunity, it also helped build work ethic in young children and helped America become the most productive country in the world. It was the foundation of the "Roaring 20s" and the greatest stock market boom in history.

In short, we need to keep businesses open, close schools early for the year, suspend child labor laws, and get the entire nation back to work.

OK, a couple of remarks regarding your little history lesson. I think to advocate for child labor as somehow a good thing is a bit of. The reason unemployment dropped was because millions of Americans joined the workforce after being in the army. Also of course because production was switched from wartime to peacetime. So tying it to some kind of extraordinary resilience seems not all that accurate. The truth is the economy would always have boomed after WW1. Wartime production to the allies increased industrial capacity a capacity that also benefited peacetime capacity. The labor force increased etc. The same happened after WWII btw.


I also want to ask, 700000 deaths doesn't seem a high price to pay for economic growth? Bring this back to today where health experts think this thing will cost over a million Americans their life. How much is a life worth?

 

[forkup]

Why wasn't there a panic in 1968? Or in 2009?
If you die it was your time to go. If you're a christian god saved you. If not, oh well. Hope you enjoyed what time you had. Godvernment will only make sure your kids, kids, kids, kids, kids, kids are in debt to allegedly save you.

Maybe because neither times it had a mortality rate this high and neither of them had the capacity to overwhelm the ability of the medical community to deal with it?

I just wonder why so many, almost all of them right-wing people have trouble understanding this even though it is happening right now? This is many times more deadly than the 2009 outbreak and the 1968 outbreak. It is also more contagious and carries a much higher risk of serious health issues.

 

[WEATHER53]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

 

[Meister]

Lesson Number 1: Dying sucks

I've always thought that the point of dying is the easy part, it's the getting there that sucks.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

 

[WEATHER53]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

The 1.2-1.5% is being thrown around as if the mortality rate is in that range for the total population
That is false and an outright crime to put such alarming but incorrect info out

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

The 1.2-1.5% is being thrown around as if the mortality rate is in that range for the total population
That is false and an outright crime to put such alarming but incorrect info out

Who said anything about the entire population? You limited your calculation to not the total number of infected people you cited but rather the number of hospitalized infected people. That to me says you are doing a calculation that doesn't make sense on the face of it.

I've seen a lot of really really bad math lately and I've seen a lot of very selective use of numbers so I ask sources which so far haven't really been forthcoming.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

The 1.2-1.5% is being thrown around as if the mortality rate is in that range for the total population
That is false and an outright crime to put such alarming but incorrect info out

Who said anything about the entire population? You limited your calculation to not the total number of infected people you cited but rather the number of hospitalized infected people. That to me says you are doing a calculation that doesn't make sense on the face of it.

I've seen a lot of really really bad math lately and I've seen a lot of very selective use of numbers so I ask sources which so far haven't really been forthcoming.

The numbers I cited were per suspected cases, be they symptomatic or potential exposure. If that number renders only 10% positive then a per capita number would be even lower.