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

[Markle]

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?

Certainly not. A percentage of people infected will be hospitalized. That's the way percentages work. More densely populated areas will have more infected because of their close proximity to each other.

What is not clear?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

"We can only prepare for viruses we see coming" sounds completely wrongheaded. Part of preparation is having in place trained forces to identify early new viral outbreaks, examine them, isolate them and rapidly develop appropriate treatment protocols and vaccines. If you are not prepared, what starts in a little village in Africa can spread to the whole world. Ebola killed 50-80% of those it infected. it would have been much worse had it spread to big cities.

As for waiting until "herd immunity" develops -- you sound like you mean to just give up. Medically speaking, "herd immunity" includes the protective effect to the community of vaccines that are in widespread use! Doing nothing when danger threatens is often just another form of laziness or resignation, though sometimes even in war we may have to accept defeat and adjust our strategy, to retreat to fight another day. We don't want to treat the patient but kill the body politic.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I think we can afford to see tons more people die but no amount is worth shutting the economy down for....

Government isn't God...


The free market is the closest thing to God this Earth has ever seen

 

[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.

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?

Pretty much. The inconclusive would be how many tested for flu end up not having flu. Likely a lower percentage than the 90% demonstrated in the Wuhan case. Bottom line is, yes, Wuhan may be less contagious which impacts the realistic mortality rate.

 

[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.

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?

I would place blame on the locals. The locale is the responsibility of its constituents.

 

[Nia88]

So as long as the economy is running, who cares how many people die?

Let's not let covid-19 be a repeat of 1918 flu. 50 million people died and world population at that time was 1.8 billion. We have 7 billion people now. 5% would be 350,000,000 now.

 

[forkup]

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?

Certainly not. A percentage of people infected will be hospitalized. That's the way percentages work. More densely populated areas will have more infected because of their close proximity to each other.

What is not clear?

Perfectly clear, that's why I put it like that. To point this out tooa nother person.

 

[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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
In areas that have single payer healthcare having people treated in the hallway is pretty normal.
[/QUOTE]
Oh really you think so? Italy has more hospital beds per capita more doctors per capita and more ventilators per capita.
[/QUOTE]
That is skewed. US has more critical care beds per 100,000 than Italy. 35 - 12.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
What math sum?
[/QUOTE]

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.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
That’s assuming your divisor is accurate. That’s the pertinent factor.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. The inconclusive would be how many tested for flu end up not having flu. Likely a lower percentage than the 90% demonstrated in the Wuhan case. Bottom line is, yes, Wuhan may be less contagious which impacts the realistic mortality rate.
[/QUOTE]
Lol now I'm doing it. Less people actually infected means a higher mortality rate.

 

[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?

I would place blame on the locals. The locale is the responsibility of its constituents.

I wasn't assigning blame. And you are dodging the question.

It does have me intrigued though. You think it logical to demand for a place like Council Grove, Kansas to have capacity enough to handle a pandemic of this scale? Having 10 times the capacity of normal operations? Are you willing to pay for that?

 

[Maxdeath]

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.

Sorry if you don't like reality. Per capita is extremely misleading. But thanks for playing

 

[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?

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.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Mr Weaselword. Good morning Weasel. Good to see you're in fine disingenuous form, zipping by the entire point with your own homemade Checkers speech.

So your answer to why you didn't mention the entire underlying reason for your dishonest shit is that you're just fucking dishonest. We could already see that. You see Weasel, when I put the question in front of you it was rhetorical. It didn't need an answer. Its function was to expose your rank dishonesty. Not only did it do that, but now you've confirmed it.

 

[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.

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.

Maybe YOU could argue setting mass numbers of people up to die by carelessness "got it right" but you're apparently a sociopath with zero tolerance for human life, so basically, fuck you.

 

[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.

History does have a way of repeating itself

And of visiting similar consequences on those who choose to ignore it. In this case the entire context was ignored as, apparently, "inconvenient".

 

[RandomPoster]

"We can only prepare for viruses we see coming" sounds completely wrongheaded. Part of preparation is having in place trained forces to identify early new viral outbreaks, examine them, isolate them and rapidly develop appropriate treatment protocols and vaccines. If you are not prepared, what starts in a little village in Africa can spread to the whole world. Ebola killed 50-80% of those it infected. it would have been much worse had it spread to big cities.

As for waiting until "herd immunity" develops -- you sound like you mean to just give up. Medically speaking, "herd immunity" includes the protective effect to the community of vaccines that are in widespread use! Doing nothing when danger threatens is often just another form of laziness or resignation, though sometimes even in war we may have to accept defeat and adjust our strategy, to retreat to fight another day. We don't want to treat the patient but kill the body politic.

" If you are not prepared, what starts in a little village in Africa can spread to the whole world. Ebola killed 50-80% of those it infected. it would have been much worse had it spread to big cities."

That seems to be a recurring message with Ebola, "It could have been so bad." However, the reality is that it only racks up big body counts in third world countries.

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.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Mr Weaselword. Good morning Weasel. Good to see you're in fine disingenuous form, zipping by the entire point with your own homemade Checkers speech.

So your answer to why you didn't mention the entire underlying reason for your dishonest shit is that you're just fucking dishonest. We could already see that. You see Weasel, when I put the question in front of you it was rhetorical. It didn't need an answer. Its function was to expose your rank dishonesty. Not only did it do that, but now you've confirmed it.

"when I put the question in front of you it was rhetorical. It didn't need an answer."

A question that does not want to be answered is the very definition of a rhetorical question People without evidence love rhetorical questions because they are burden shifts.

Allow me to explain further. Every single thing in life that can not be verified through sensory perception or mathematical expression is by definition meaningless. This has been established over and over again throughout history. When someone wants to claim something, they either prove it or attempt to shift the burden of proof with a "rhetorical question" and shout down any objections afterwards. This is reflected in the fact that the only legitimate fields of study reside exclusively in the hard physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering based technology. There are no other legitimate intellectual pursuits.

 

[Pogo]

"We can only prepare for viruses we see coming" sounds completely wrongheaded. Part of preparation is having in place trained forces to identify early new viral outbreaks, examine them, isolate them and rapidly develop appropriate treatment protocols and vaccines. If you are not prepared, what starts in a little village in Africa can spread to the whole world. Ebola killed 50-80% of those it infected. it would have been much worse had it spread to big cities.

As for waiting until "herd immunity" develops -- you sound like you mean to just give up. Medically speaking, "herd immunity" includes the protective effect to the community of vaccines that are in widespread use! Doing nothing when danger threatens is often just another form of laziness or resignation, though sometimes even in war we may have to accept defeat and adjust our strategy, to retreat to fight another day. We don't want to treat the patient but kill the body politic.

" If you are not prepared, what starts in a little village in Africa can spread to the whole world. Ebola killed 50-80% of those it infected. it would have been much worse had it spread to big cities."

That seems to be a recurring message with Ebola, "It could have been so bad." However, the reality is that it only racks up big body counts in third world countries.

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.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Mr Weaselword. Good morning Weasel. Good to see you're in fine disingenuous form, zipping by the entire point with your own homemade Checkers speech.

So your answer to why you didn't mention the entire underlying reason for your dishonest shit is that you're just fucking dishonest. We could already see that. You see Weasel, when I put the question in front of you it was rhetorical. It didn't need an answer. Its function was to expose your rank dishonesty. Not only did it do that, but now you've confirmed it.

"when I put the question in front of you it was rhetorical. It didn't need an answer."

A question that does not want to be answered is the very definition of a rhetorical question People without evidence love rhetorical questions because they are burden shifts.

Allow me to explain further. Every single thing in life that can not be verified through sensory perception or mathematical expression is by definition meaningless. This has been established over and over again throughout history. When someone wants to claim something, they either prove it or attempt to shift the burden of proof with a "rhetorical question" and shout down any objections afterwards. This is reflected in the fact that the only legitimate fields of study reside exclusively in the hard physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering based technology. There are no other legitimate intellectual pursuits.

All those keystrokes for the purpose of not touching the question at all.

Well I guess at least you won't be "infected" by it will you. Dishonest HACK.

 

[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.

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?

I would place blame on the locals. The locale is the responsibility of its constituents.

I wasn't assigning blame. And you are dodging the question.

It does have me intrigued though. You think it logical to demand for a place like Council Grove, Kansas to have capacity enough to handle a pandemic of this scale? Having 10 times the capacity of normal operations? Are you willing to pay for that?

Why would west bumfuck Kansas need to accommodate the numbers of NYC?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

I would rather compare it to financial crisis of 1929, which was pretty much crisis. Everybody sank their money in money sinks and then nobody could either loan or get loans. The 2020 market crisis is much more fundamental, even disregarding the "voluntary" shutdown of all economy activity until we can figure out what's going on.

The problems are:
The world lost faith in the ability of China to be part of every supply chain that exists.
Yet they can't simply reshore because they don't even have the industrial capacity on this short notice.
They also can't afford to pay western wages while keeping the current prices, and they can't also just import millions of people because the current zeigeist is anti immigration.
And also the pandemic ended up closing the borders anyway and severely limiting the movement of people.

The 1929 crisis could be solved by simply printing money. This one? It will take a complete change in the fundamentals of every single economy in the world, weather it's Europe, the US, Japan, the Brits, globalism died on February 20 2020 and people still didn't realize because it was a giant and the body is still standing, lifeless.

Here is the sign that will wake people up... one big manufacturer will "reshore" production, bite the bullet, raise the prices but get a jump on their competitors. I wonder who will be.

 

[WEATHER53]

The main lesson to learn from this one is to Not take the most dire predictions and react as if they are already happening

 

[Ame®icano]

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

He's not saying that.

However, working is important, because without healthy economy, according to statistics, damage could be much higher.

There are correlations that are linking high unemployment rates with higher rates of suicide, homicide, overdoses, alcoholism and mental illness. Every 1 percent increase in unemployment likely increases violent crime by 14.3 per 100,000 residents. LINK Also, property crime increases 1.8 percent LINK and increases opioid death rates by 3.6 percent LINK

Now, in response to COVID-19 governments around the world are mandating astronomical unemployment and social isolation, all in the name of preventing deaths. These government responses to COVID-19 will almost certainly kill far more people that the disease itself.

What's sad, and scary is that U.S. government response has been something of a copy of draconian responses by the world’s most tyrannical dictators. Virus outbreak that started in Wuhan pushed Chinese communists to reaction that was both, Orwellian and ineffective. According to Guardian article... China's reaction to the coronavirus outbreak violates human rights China response was a month long government cover up that led to the rapid spread of the coronavirus. Chinese police punished and imprisoned doctors for “spreading rumours” about the virus. The government denied for months that the virus was spread by human to human contact. Officials suppressed reports of potential cases and turned people with symptoms away from hospitals. And when they could no longer contain rumors they ordered the entire province of Wuhan locked down, in the middle of the night with an eight-hour gap before the order went into effect. Thousands fled. That's when they ordered 50 million people to quarantine, that was largest prison camp in history, and that record was surpassed almost two months later by who else but our country. We stopped country from working, and that is where the strenght of our country is.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

I don't think that any of the countries with single payer actually gave a choice to people weather they want it or not. I'm pretty sure that, if they had say in it, they would reject it instantly. But they cant, cause they're stuck with it, and government is holding a grip without chance to let go.