How about that earlier pandemic in our lifetime that killed up to 4 million people...
 

...or in most of our lifetimes anyway. I'm referring to the the Hong Kong flu of 1968. I vaguely remember it because I watched Walter Cronkite almost every night, but don't recall any change at all to our way of life. According to this source, it killed 1 to 4 million people worldwide, with 100,000 deaths in the US. 1968 flu pandemic | History, Deaths, & Facts | Britannica

There was yet another pandemic in the lifetime of many Villagers - the Asian Flu of 1957. That one killed 1 to 2 million people worldwide and 116,000 in the US. Some people believe a strain of this flu reappeared a decade later to cause the Hong Kong flu. 1957 flu pandemic | Cause, History, Deaths, & Facts | Britannica

Two previous deadly pandemics in our lifetime, and nobody - especially the media - is bringing them forward to see what we can learn from them. I do believe the world didn't shut down during either of them. Perhaps that contributed to the high mortality rate. Maybe someone can confirm that. I do know my school was not closed down - I sure would have remembered that.

It was a completely different world then. There was no internet - it hadn't been invented yet. There was no such thing as a portable telephone. There was no cable TV, and color TV was still new enough that many households didn't own a color TV set. The 1968 pandemic was also a "new" virus. Most of its victims were over 65 years old. The average lifespan for a man in 1968 was only 66 - so at least half the men of that age already had one foot in the grave anyway. The average age for a woman was only 74.

Compare to 2019 - the average life expectancy was 76 for a man, and 81 for a woman. Pretty significant difference and obviously it means we HAVE learned from then.

Our vaccines are more efficient now, we have better technology and means of communication to engineer medicines and pharmaceuticals. We have more access to more research on a global scale, at lightning speeds.

The media doesn't have to "bring them forward" so "we" can learn from them. We're not the ones who have to learn from them. Scientists, researchers, the medical community, teaching hospitals, pharmaceutical companies - THEY are the ones who need to learn from them. If they're learning it from the media, then I fear for the future of humanity.

Um. Hmm. Point??

The point is that as far as I can tell, they each killed well over a million people and sickened millions more, but life didn't come to a standstill. I was hoping to discuss some theories as to why we're self-isolating now but didn't then.

OBB, I'm not sure why lifespan is relevant. Are you saying we didn't impose restrictions like we're doing now during the deadly 1968 Hong Kong flu because most of the victims were close to the end of their statistical lifespan ("...one foot in the grave anyway")? Couldn't one make a similar case with Covid-19?

I was in military then, and half our battalion was out of commission with it. We were young and fit, so had no deaths, but it wasn't very pleasant for many of us.

I caught the Hong Kong flu in 68 and was hospitalized in BAMC for 5 days, then released to home. Got the info 6-7 weeks later (can't remember exactly) from the blood draws while hospitalized that I had tested positive...that is how long it took to get results back in the day. Sickest I have EVER been in my life to this day. Not only felt like I was dying, WANTED to as well.

It amazes me that people are still comparing coronavirus with the flu. Good grief!

I'm sorry if you misunderstood my post. The type of disease is immaterial. The comparison here is being made with a historic flu pandemic that killed millions of people, not the relatively mild seasonal flu that we see every year. But it could have been measles, tuberculosis, ebola, you name it. The question is why are we locking down now, but not back then when we were faced with another contagious ***illness*** that was even more dangerous? Perhaps we'll never know?

I guess this kind of misunderstanding comes with discussion groups. I do find it fascinating that you focused on the admittedly controversial word "flu" rather than evaluate the rest of the message. All the best to you. Stay healthy.

All flu is a virus.
This virus is a flu.
Back in the day all flu pandemics were named after where the source alegedly started.
This virus would have been named Wuhan Flu, or wherever they eventually decide it started, but skin being so thin all over the world these days, they give it a fancy name so no one gets to upset
It's still a flu!

Technically no. "Flu" is short for influenza, one type of virus. COVID-19 is a coronavirus, a different class of virus. Some are more virulent than others----some "common colds" are caused by coronaviruses, at the other end of the spectrum, MERS, with up to a 30% mortality rate is also a coronavirus. So they were never going to name it "the Wuhan flu".

OP, my guess we didn’t know how many people died during these earlier pandemic’s until after they were over and done. The technology was not available to daily/weekly/monthly to track the pandemic’s. Perhaps mediation efforts, like we have today, would have saved many more lives. If we had done nothing with the Coronavirus, let it run it’s course, it seems reasonable thousands more Americans would likely have died. I suspect many conspiracy theories will come out of Coronavirus, books will be written, and money will be made because such conspiracy writings are the type of books/articles that people love to read.

Dead people don't care what they name it.

Thanks, I believe I said that already. But you can use it for a small copyright fee:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

I'm sorry but your copyright is invalid. You used number, I used name. :boxing2:

True, but just like web sites, I gobbled up all the variants of that statement:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Okay, you start.

I'm not a sociologist, historian or epidemiologist and am unfamiliar with statistical modeling. Any theories I have would be superficial at best and crackpot at worst.

Not everywhere has shut down as much as the US (and other places have shut down more tightly) so it will be interesting to see the relative "deaths per million" once it blows over, which could take a long time as shutting down merely flattens the curve, which extends the process and could produce a higher number of deaths than would have just letting it run its course.

It is impossible to make an accurate comparison between different locations as they are so different from each other in terms of population density and human vulnerability (age, health etc.)

The biggest obstacle to a meaningful comparison between countries is that each has its own system of recording a death. Not all will test all deaths to see if Covid-19 was the cause, and others may assign another cause if, for example, there was a pre-existing condition.

To your point as to why the extreme measures now and not then. I took a small piece form a previous reply

"It was a completely different world then. There was no internet - it hadn't been invented yet. There was no such thing as a portable telephone. There was no cable TV, and color TV was still new enough that many households didn't own a color TV set. "

This is a double edged sword. Parts of the government aided by the media are much more likely to shape our thoughts and beliefs now. There are no more sheeple now than in previous eras but those who control information have a MUCH greater influence.

But we can brainstorm, can't we? We often look for layperson insight on forums like these, no? And if a real pro happens to chime in, so much the better.

My reading, from the SWAGs so far, is that because we didn't have the technology to communicate and track instantly like we do now, we didn't know how serious the threat was until it was over. Plausible enough, and I thank those that offered up their thoughtful replies. When we're able to put aside our love of snark, real learning sometimes happens on these boards!

However (isn't there always a however?), I'm not sure I fully buy that explanation. First, there was some serious social distancing going on during the internet-bereft 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. Second, during the 1957 and 1968 pandemics, we didn't have the technology we have now, but scientists/epidemiologists/MDs certainly were able to communicate with each other around the world in real time. And I'd be very surprised if Health Departments around the world were not sharing information with each other, and with the WHO, which by the way was founded in 1948.

In 1968, Walter Cronkite could tell us how many Americans died in Vietnam everyday, so I'm pretty sure hospitals around the world could track and report their influenza cases too.

I hear the Villages is teeming with archivists, archeologists and epidemiologists. It would be great if they could help us unlock the mystery. Maybe the answer is simply that the world just wasn't in the mood to shut down either time. Or it just didn't occur to anyone to do so.

Just saw the posts invoking the media as probable players. I agree it is remarkable how we allow the media to shape public opinion and public policy. Their power is astounding. Another thought that comes to mind is China was hit first and they imposed rigid restrictions. I believe we had no choice but to follow suit. Could you imagine the condemnation if we didn't follow China's example and allowed thousands of people to die?

Hmmm, now that I think of it, I wonder if the conspiracy theorists have considered the influence of China's "example." Maybe their lockdown was a charade knowing we'd do the same and in the process bring down our economy. Disclosure: I'm not a conspiracy theorist (except for that little something that happened in 1963 which the majority of Americans agree is a little fishy*), but I do let my mind wander.

*The One Thing All Americans Agree On: JFK Conspiracy

As fast as everything has happened in such a short time, and no it wasn't the media's fault that so many people have been infected and/or died, I think it will be interesting to read these threads in 4-6 weeks from now and see how everyone's viewpoint (or conspiracy theories) has either changed-or been reinforced.

Of course it is not the media's fault that people died. The discussion is about the unprecedented reaction to the virus. But thanks for jumping in.

My comment was precipitated by more than one poster (in numerous threads) implying, that the "unprecedented reaction" was caused in part by modern day media and it's ability to immediately relay information worldwide, compared to previous pandemics, and that in part some way contributed to the infections and deaths of this one.

No need to thank me for anything though, as I believe I have the same right to post my own opinions and observations, just as you have done.

Have a wonderful evening.