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

[Unkotare]

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.

Holy misreading history, Batman!

 

[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.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

In areas that have single payer healthcare having people treated in the hallway is pretty normal.

Oh really you think so? Italy has more hospital beds per capita more doctors per capita and more ventilators per capita.

That is skewed. US has more critical care beds per 100,000 than Italy. 35 - 12.

Yes, but when someone is trying to make statements about single-payer countries typically treating patients in hallways hospital beds is more relevant is it not?

By the way, I'm still waiting on my little math sum.

What math sum?

Ok, simple math what's a lower percentage? I'll make this simple not realistic. 200000 infected and 1000 deaths or 100000 infected and 1000 deaths?

Ok, simple math what's a lower percentage? I'll make this simple not realistic. 200000 infected and 1000 deaths or 100000 infected and 1000 deaths?

This one.

That’s assuming your divisor is accurate. That’s the pertinent factor.

 

[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.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

That headline you refer to of the US having the most cases worldwide just came onto my phone screen an hour ago. Out of context, of course. Alarmist. It doesn’t consider overall population compared to other countries.
As for crowded medical facilities, I can see where an urban area like NY would have an issue. As for Italy, open borders and and many carriers exposing an aged population exacerbates that image.

I wasn't talking about the headline but the actual article. I don't post headlines I post articles that contribute to the argument in this one several governors are making statements of what's happening in their states, right now. I find it interesting you are completely willing to reject stuff out of hand. Anyways

I didn’t dispute any of your points about case numbers and limited facilities. I just added necessary context that a headline leaves out on purpose.

I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

Actually that's exactly what you did, and something I felt I needed to respond to.

Selective numbers may suggest that but overall it’s likely not so. NY, WA and LA are not the rest of the country.

Everywhere where your "Wuhan" hits hospitalizations increase. By what mechanism do you think this won't be the case in other states? Is there a special level of immunity for Montana I'm not aware of?

Yeah. People aren’t crammed together in high rise incubators.

So you think that being less densely populated means that you won't end up in a hospital as much if you get infected by Covid 19?

It certainly reduces the risk. Less close contact.

 

[Pogo]

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.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

That headline you refer to of the US having the most cases worldwide just came onto my phone screen an hour ago. Out of context, of course. Alarmist. It doesn’t consider overall population compared to other countries.

That would be expressed as a ratio. In this event it's calculated as "infections per 1M population".

Ours is right now 258. This past Saturday, it was 60. At the Ides of March it was Six. That give you an idea?

 

[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.

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.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

In areas that have single payer healthcare having people treated in the hallway is pretty normal.

Oh really you think so? Italy has more hospital beds per capita more doctors per capita and more ventilators per capita.

That is skewed. US has more critical care beds per 100,000 than Italy. 35 - 12.

Yes, but when someone is trying to make statements about single-payer countries typically treating patients in hallways hospital beds is more relevant is it not?

By the way, I'm still waiting on my little math sum.

What math sum?

Ok, simple math what's a lower percentage? I'll make this simple not realistic. 200000 infected and 1000 deaths or 100000 infected and 1000 deaths?

Ok, simple math what's a lower percentage? I'll make this simple not realistic. 200000 infected and 1000 deaths or 100000 infected and 1000 deaths?

This one.

That’s assuming your divisor is accurate. That’s the pertinent factor.

No, I'm simply saying and you were simply denying that a higher number of infected who survive gives a lower mortality rate. As I said it might mean people are overstating how infectious it is but it lowers mortality. That was your original argument, right?

 

[Polishprince]

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.

You are only guessing on this. No one knows at this early point in time what the death rate is, as most people haven't been tested.

I'm sure libs HOPE that this is as deadly as the 1349 Black Death, but right now its just the liberal hope.

 

[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.

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.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

That headline you refer to of the US having the most cases worldwide just came onto my phone screen an hour ago. Out of context, of course. Alarmist. It doesn’t consider overall population compared to other countries.
As for crowded medical facilities, I can see where an urban area like NY would have an issue. As for Italy, open borders and and many carriers exposing an aged population exacerbates that image.

I wasn't talking about the headline but the actual article. I don't post headlines I post articles that contribute to the argument in this one several governors are making statements of what's happening in their states, right now. I find it interesting you are completely willing to reject stuff out of hand. Anyways

I didn’t dispute any of your points about case numbers and limited facilities. I just added necessary context that a headline leaves out on purpose.

I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

Actually that's exactly what you did, and something I felt I needed to respond to.

Selective numbers may suggest that but overall it’s likely not so. NY, WA and LA are not the rest of the country.

Everywhere where your "Wuhan" hits hospitalizations increase. By what mechanism do you think this won't be the case in other states? Is there a special level of immunity for Montana I'm not aware of?

Yeah. People aren’t crammed together in high rise incubators.

So you think that being less densely populated means that you won't end up in a hospital as much if you get infected by Covid 19?

It certainly reduces the risk. Less close contact.

I wasn't talking about the risk of infection I was talking about the consequences of being infected. By all means, though let's talk about the risk of infection. The Spanish Flu succeeded in 1918, an age in which cars were rare and commercial airlines non-existent to infect every corner of the globe.

I have a question. Do you think it better or worse when a virus hits a community that has only a small hospital and no easy access to things like an ICU? What if a place like that all of a sudden needs to take care of ten people in severe respiratory distress?

 

[forkup]

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.

You are only guessing on this. No one knows at this early point in time what the death rate is, as most people haven't been tested.

I'm sure libs HOPE that this is as deadly as the 1349 Black Death, but right now its just the liberal hope.

At the moment my guess is a hell of a lot more educated than your and the rights hope. I hope I'm wrong. If that means Trump gets 4 more years I'll take that as taking the bad with the good. Until the time tough when we have more than a guess following the advice and leaning on the knowledge of medical professionals makes a hell of a lot more sense than hoping everything will work out in the end.

 

[Flopper]

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.

You didn't mention that there was a war going on which had a major impact on how America responded to the epidemic. Wilson's war cabinet saw any national response to the flu as a detriment to the war effort. In Congress, the epidemic was referred to as the Grip. Laughingly, a Senator suggest that the best treatment was a good shot of hot whiskey and getting back to work. In munition plants, posters emphasized the importance of working even if you were ill. A newspaper, made a worker who died of influenza while packing a munitions carton a hero. A US Senator suggested the 1918 Sedition Act could be used to silence those spreading rumors about influenza. The war ended in 1918 and the number influenza cases were on decline in 1919. 116,700 Americans died WWI and 675,000 died due to the influenza.

There is another side to story to consider. In 1918, the cause of the disease was not understood and the only treatment was to relieve the symptoms. There were no antivirals to destroy the virus and no antibiotics to treat the bacteria pneumonia that often follow the influenza. There was only one weapon know to stop the spread of the epidemic and that was separating people.

Most cities made little effort to quarantine or stop the transmission of the virus. Like today, unemployment was low and the stock market was doing well. Suggestions of stopping the great parades for troops returning from war was considered unpatriotic. Closing businesses was met by stiff resistance from Washington and business owners. However, one city was determine to stop the virus.

In St. Louis when the first outbreak occurred, the mayor wasted no time closing the schools, shuttering movie theaters and pool halls, and banning all public gatherings. There was a push back from business owners, Washington, and the public but the mayor held his ground. When infections swelled as expected, thousands of sick residents were treated at home by a network of volunteer nurses which the city organized. Because of these precautions, St. Louis public health officials were able to “flatten the curve” and keep the flu epidemic from exploding.

What American should have learned from the Spanish Influenza epidemic was that we should not ignore an epidemic. We should plan for them and we should not allow political pressure or economic consequences dissuading us from winning the battle.
How U.S. Cities Tried to Halt the Spread of the 1918 Spanish Flu

 

[Pogo]

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.

You're COMPLETELY omitting the fact that the USG blatantly lied about the epidemic, SUPPRESSED news of it and set up situations for those 700,000 to DIE.

THAT's why there wasn't a shutdown. THE PEOPLE WEREN'T TOLD ABOUT IT. They were just left to suffer.

Matter of fact it's erroneously called the "Spanish Flu" even though Spain had nothing to do with spawning it -- actually most likely came from Kansas.

HOW COME you uh... "forgot" (wink wink, yeah right) to mention any of that? Hm?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand nuttin' but crickets from the OP. Quelle surprise.

 

[Pogo]

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.

You didn't mention that there was a war going on which had a major impact on how America responded to the epidemic. Wilson's war cabinet saw any national response to the flu as a detriment to the war effort. In Congress, the epidemic was referred to as the Grip. Laughingly, a Senator suggest that the best treatment was a good shot of hot whiskey and getting back to work. In munition plants, posters emphasized the importance of working even if you were ill. A newspaper, made a worker who died of influenza while packing a munitions carton a hero. A US Senator suggested the 1918 Sedition Act could be used to silence those spreading rumor about influenza. The war ended in 1918 and the number influenza cases were on decline in 1919. 116,700 Americans died WWI and 675,000 died due to the influenza.

There is another side to story to consider. In 1918, the cause of the disease was not understood and the only treatment was to relieve the symptoms. There were no antivirals to destroy the virus and no antibiotics to treat the bacteria pneumonia that often follow the influenza. There was only one weapon know to stop the spread of the epidemic and that was separating people.

Most cities made little effort to quarantine or stop the transmission of the virus. Like today, unemployment was low and the stock market was doing well. Suggestions of stopping the great parades for troops returning from war was considered unpatriotic. Closing businesses was met by stiff resistance from Washington and business owners. However, one city was determine to stop the virus.

In St. Louis when the first outbreak occurred, the mayor wasted no time closing the schools, shuttering movie theaters and pool halls, and banning all public gatherings. There was a push back from business owners, Washington, and the public but the mayor held his ground. When infections swelled as expected, thousands of sick residents were treated at home by a network of volunteer nurses which the city organized. Because of these precautions, St. Louis public health officials were able to “flatten the curve” and keep the flu epidemic from exploding.

What American should have learned is that we should not ignore an epidemic. We should plan for them and we don't allow political pressure or economic consequences from dissuading us from winning the battle.
How U.S. Cities Tried to Halt the Spread of the 1918 Spanish Flu

Philadelphia by contrast declared the parade must go on because it would generate so much money in war bonds >> Just 72 hours after the parade, all 31 of Philadelphia’s hospitals were full and 2,600 people were dead by the end of the week. <<

It recalls New Orleans and its blossoming of infections two weeks after Mardi Gras in our own epidemic.

 

[Flopper]

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

1.2-1.5% mortality rate is estimated from confirmed cases. People that show no symptoms or those that are never tested are not included. We will not see any really accurate figures for a long time. The reason for this is that the most serious cases are in the hospitals for two weeks are longer. So when you look a mortality rate, you are dividing the number of deaths by the number cases which have recently skyrocket. Only when the number cases is constant can you get a good idea of the mortality rate.

 

[Polishprince]

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

1.2-1.5% mortality rate is estimated by confirmed cases. People that show no symptoms or those that are never tested are not included.

I was under the impression that the 1.2-1.5% wasn't an estimate at all, but just a simple division between the number of dead and the total number of Confirmed cases, 2 known (not estimated) numbers.

 

[Flopper]

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.

You didn't mention that there was a war going on which had a major impact on how America responded to the epidemic. Wilson's war cabinet saw any national response to the flu as a detriment to the war effort. In Congress, the epidemic was referred to as the Grip. Laughingly, a Senator suggest that the best treatment was a good shot of hot whiskey and getting back to work. In munition plants, posters emphasized the importance of working even if you were ill. A newspaper, made a worker who died of influenza while packing a munitions carton a hero. A US Senator suggested the 1918 Sedition Act could be used to silence those spreading rumor about influenza. The war ended in 1918 and the number influenza cases were on decline in 1919. 116,700 Americans died WWI and 675,000 died due to the influenza.

There is another side to story to consider. In 1918, the cause of the disease was not understood and the only treatment was to relieve the symptoms. There were no antivirals to destroy the virus and no antibiotics to treat the bacteria pneumonia that often follow the influenza. There was only one weapon know to stop the spread of the epidemic and that was separating people.

Most cities made little effort to quarantine or stop the transmission of the virus. Like today, unemployment was low and the stock market was doing well. Suggestions of stopping the great parades for troops returning from war was considered unpatriotic. Closing businesses was met by stiff resistance from Washington and business owners. However, one city was determine to stop the virus.

In St. Louis when the first outbreak occurred, the mayor wasted no time closing the schools, shuttering movie theaters and pool halls, and banning all public gatherings. There was a push back from business owners, Washington, and the public but the mayor held his ground. When infections swelled as expected, thousands of sick residents were treated at home by a network of volunteer nurses which the city organized. Because of these precautions, St. Louis public health officials were able to “flatten the curve” and keep the flu epidemic from exploding.

What American should have learned is that we should not ignore an epidemic. We should plan for them and we don't allow political pressure or economic consequences from dissuading us from winning the battle.
How U.S. Cities Tried to Halt the Spread of the 1918 Spanish Flu

Philadelphia by contrast declared the parade must go on because it would generate so much money in war bonds >> Just 72 hours after the parade, all 31 of Philadelphia’s hospitals were full and 2,600 people were dead by the end of the week. <<

It recalls New Orleans and its blossoming of infections two weeks after Mardi Gras in our own epidemic.

History does have a way of repeating itself

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

As others have said, our world is very different than it was in 1918. This pandemic will almost certainly have far fewer fatalities. Interestingly, the Swine Flu pandemic which infected 20% of the world when Obama was president and came from Mexico was a H1N1 Influenza virus like “The Spanish Flu,” though fortunately far less potent. It probably resulted from a new crossover from pigs, a modification of the original virus.

During the First World War ALL involved governments censored reporting on the epidemic, which is why it was first reported on extensively in neutral Spain and was dubbed the “Spanish Flu.” Woodrow Wilson caught it, which of course went unreported, and afterwards was not the same man. His weakness and decrepitude is often seen by historians as a reason he caved in to France’s demands at Versailles, thus helping set the world on track to WWII.

COVID-19 is a different beast, and we are lucky it hasn’t anything like the fatality rates of Ebola. But the world now is so interconnected that an epidemic can hit and spread with astonishing force. If there is a broad lesson to be learned, from China to the U.S., it is that our public health and anti-infectious disease resources must be better financed and organized, and information be shared more quickly and accurately. Outbreaks in Third World countries especially could prove catastrophic if world resources are not ready to move quickly.

We spend trillions on military preparedness, but very little on preparing for this sort of war. We have been warned. We must be ready next time.

 

[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.

You're COMPLETELY omitting the fact that the USG blatantly lied about the epidemic, SUPPRESSED news of it and set up situations for those 700,000 to DIE.

THAT's why there wasn't a shutdown. THE PEOPLE WEREN'T TOLD ABOUT IT. They were just left to suffer.

Matter of fact it's erroneously called the "Spanish Flu" even though Spain had nothing to do with spawning it -- actually most likely came from Kansas.

HOW COME you uh... "forgot" (wink wink, yeah right) to mention any of that? Hm?

Why did I not mention the fact that referring to it as the "Spanish Flu" is a misnomer? Probably because first, it had nothing to do with the content of my post and second, because I never referred to it as the "Spanish Flu". I swear I have seen multiple people "enlighten" others with that piece of trivia on many threads out of nowhere and completely out of context to the discussion at hand. Newsflash, most of us are aware of the fact that the name Spanish Flu originated from the fact that Spain was neutral in World War I and did not censor their reporting of the outbreak.

Also, the "USG" preventing people from over-reacting was on behalf of the war effort. It probably saved our war effort and our economy as well. This also has nothing to do with content of my post.

My post was about hiding in your house vs. getting back to work during the coronavirus spread and the consequences of each of those courses of action.

 

[Flopper]

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

1.2-1.5% mortality rate is estimated by confirmed cases. People that show no symptoms or those that are never tested are not included.

I was under the impression that the 1.2-1.5% wasn't an estimate at all, but just a simple division between the number of dead and the total number of Confirmed cases, 2 known (not estimated) numbers.

There is no standard. If the number of new cases is increasing rapidly, a mortality rate based on the current total number of cases will be an underestimate of the mortality rate because you will be dividing the number deaths due to a small number of cases by a very large number of current cases. However if the number new cases is not increasing then you'll will get a closer estimate as to the mortality rate. The only correct estimate comes after the epidemic ends. Then when you divide the total number of deaths by the total number of cases, you will an accurate figure.

 

[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.

You didn't mention that there was a war going on which had a major impact on how America responded to the epidemic. Wilson's war cabinet saw any national response to the flu as a detriment to the war effort. In Congress, the epidemic was referred to as the Grip. Laughingly, a Senator suggest that the best treatment was a good shot of hot whiskey and getting back to work. In munition plants, posters emphasized the importance of working even if you were ill. A newspaper, made a worker who died of influenza while packing a munitions carton a hero. A US Senator suggested the 1918 Sedition Act could be used to silence those spreading rumor about influenza. The war ended in 1918 and the number influenza cases were on decline in 1919. 116,700 Americans died WWI and 675,000 died due to the influenza.

There is another side to story to consider. In 1918, the cause of the disease was not understood and the only treatment was to relieve the symptoms. There were no antivirals to destroy the virus and no antibiotics to treat the bacteria pneumonia that often follow the influenza. There was only one weapon know to stop the spread of the epidemic and that was separating people.

Most cities made little effort to quarantine or stop the transmission of the virus. Like today, unemployment was low and the stock market was doing well. Suggestions of stopping the great parades for troops returning from war was considered unpatriotic. Closing businesses was met by stiff resistance from Washington and business owners. However, one city was determine to stop the virus.

In St. Louis when the first outbreak occurred, the mayor wasted no time closing the schools, shuttering movie theaters and pool halls, and banning all public gatherings. There was a push back from business owners, Washington, and the public but the mayor held his ground. When infections swelled as expected, thousands of sick residents were treated at home by a network of volunteer nurses which the city organized. Because of these precautions, St. Louis public health officials were able to “flatten the curve” and keep the flu epidemic from exploding.

What American should have learned is that we should not ignore an epidemic. We should plan for them and we don't allow political pressure or economic consequences from dissuading us from winning the battle.
How U.S. Cities Tried to Halt the Spread of the 1918 Spanish Flu

Philadelphia by contrast declared the parade must go on because it would generate so much money in war bonds >> Just 72 hours after the parade, all 31 of Philadelphia’s hospitals were full and 2,600 people were dead by the end of the week. <<

It recalls New Orleans and its blossoming of infections two weeks after Mardi Gras in our own epidemic.

History does have a way of repeating itself

Philadelphia was not economically devastated by the 1918 flu pandemic.

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.

You didn't mention that there was a war going on which had a major impact on how America responded to the epidemic. Wilson's war cabinet saw any national response to the flu as a detriment to the war effort. In Congress, the epidemic was referred to as the Grip. Laughingly, a Senator suggest that the best treatment was a good shot of hot whiskey and getting back to work. In munition plants, posters emphasized the importance of working even if you were ill. A newspaper, made a worker who died of influenza while packing a munitions carton a hero. A US Senator suggested the 1918 Sedition Act could be used to silence those spreading rumor about influenza. The war ended in 1918 and the number influenza cases were on decline in 1919. 116,700 Americans died WWI and 675,000 died due to the influenza.

There is another side to story to consider. In 1918, the cause of the disease was not understood and the only treatment was to relieve the symptoms. There were no antivirals to destroy the virus and no antibiotics to treat the bacteria pneumonia that often follow the influenza. There was only one weapon know to stop the spread of the epidemic and that was separating people.

Most cities made little effort to quarantine or stop the transmission of the virus. Like today, unemployment was low and the stock market was doing well. Suggestions of stopping the great parades for troops returning from war was considered unpatriotic. Closing businesses was met by stiff resistance from Washington and business owners. However, one city was determine to stop the virus.

In St. Louis when the first outbreak occurred, the mayor wasted no time closing the schools, shuttering movie theaters and pool halls, and banning all public gatherings. There was a push back from business owners, Washington, and the public but the mayor held his ground. When infections swelled as expected, thousands of sick residents were treated at home by a network of volunteer nurses which the city organized. Because of these precautions, St. Louis public health officials were able to “flatten the curve” and keep the flu epidemic from exploding.

What American should have learned is that we should not ignore an epidemic. We should plan for them and we don't allow political pressure or economic consequences from dissuading us from winning the battle.
How U.S. Cities Tried to Halt the Spread of the 1918 Spanish Flu

Philadelphia by contrast declared the parade must go on because it would generate so much money in war bonds >> Just 72 hours after the parade, all 31 of Philadelphia’s hospitals were full and 2,600 people were dead by the end of the week. <<

It recalls New Orleans and its blossoming of infections two weeks after Mardi Gras in our own epidemic.

Philadelphia's parade and economic activity did generate revenue and I have seen no evidence that Philadelphia suffered long term unemployment as a result of the disease. In fact, I believe Philadelphia fared better in the year's following the pandemic than St. Louis. You could argue Philadelphia got it right and St. Louis got it wrong.

 

[Markle]

Lesson Number 1: Dying sucks

I'm not sure about that. I know to get old along with the various maladies that come with old age suck but I'm not sure about dying. I've been with a number of people when they passed and they didn't tell me how it was but it seemed that it was a release of some kind.

 

[RandomPoster]

As others have said, our world is very different than it was in 1918. This pandemic will almost certainly have far fewer fatalities. Interestingly, the Swine Flu pandemic which infected 20% of the world when Obama was president and came from Mexico was a H1N1 Influenza virus like “The Spanish Flu,” though fortunately far less potent. It probably resulted from a new crossover from pigs, a modification of the original virus.

During the First World War ALL involved governments censored reporting on the epidemic, which is why it was first reported on extensively in neutral Spain and was dubbed the “Spanish Flu.” Woodrow Wilson caught it, which of course went unreported, and afterwards was not the same man. His weakness and decrepitude is often seen by historians as a reason he caved in to France’s demands at Versailles, thus helping set the world on track to WWII.

COVID-19 is a different beast, and we are lucky it hasn’t anything like the fatality rates of Ebola. But the world now is so interconnected that an epidemic can hit and spread with astonishing force. If there is a broad lesson to be learned, from China to the U.S., it is that our public health and anti-infectious disease resources must be better financed and organized, and information be shared more quickly and accurately. Outbreaks in Third World countries especially could prove catastrophic if world resources are not ready to move quickly.

We spend trillions on military preparedness, but very little on preparing for this sort of war. We have been warned. We must be ready next time.

We can only prepare for viruses we see coming. The best way to prepare for another outbreak of any strain of Coronavirus is to stop sheltering the population and build herd immunity.