...Remember the 1968 Pandemic?...

Status
Not open for further replies.
ParadiseRoad

ParadiseRoad

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
4,776
Reaction score
39,804
Location
Colorado
...neither do I...

...notable...as was the 1957 Pandemic...by the lack of manufactured hysteria and panic...

...from the CDC:

..."The 1968 pandemic was caused by an influenza A (H3N2) virus comprised of two genes from an avian influenza A virus, including a new H3 hemagglutinin, but also contained the N2 neuraminidase from the 1957 H2N2 virus. It was first noted in the United States in September 1968. The estimated number of deaths was 1 million worldwide and about 100,000 in the United States. Most excess deaths were in people 65 years and older. The H3N2 virus continues to circulate worldwide as a seasonal influenza A virus. Seasonal H3N2 viruses, which are associated with severe illness in older people, undergo regular antigenic drift."...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Register to hide this ad
Actually, yes I do. It blitzed the London area and put my dad down on his butt hard for a week or so. As a small child I recall being told not to go near him during this period. How the heck my mother didn't get I'll never know. Just as well as she'd had a brush with TB in the early 50s.
 
Apples and oranges. How many people died in the first 3 months of any flu pandemic? How does that compare to what’s happened with covid?

It’s awesome if you’re going to compare. It can help put things in perspective. But at least be honest enough to make an apples to apples comparison instead of just tossing out uncorrelated numbers.
 
...the point is that in '57 and '68...

...the planet wasn't shut down...

...healthy people weren't locked down...

...and politicians weren't causing citizens to be at each others throats...

...this is a normal biological event being used as a political weapon...

...by the way...400,000 young people were allowed to attend Woodstock before the '68 pandemic was over...
 
Last edited:
ParadiseRoad said:
...the point is that in '57 and '68...

...the planet wasn't shut down...

...healthy people weren't locked down...

...and politicians weren't causing citizens to be at each others throats...

...this is a normal biological event being used as a political weapon...

...by the way...400,000 young people were allowed to attend Woodstock before the '68 pandemic was over...
Click to expand...
33,000 people died in the US between Sept 68 and Mar 69 from the Hong Kong Flu. If you adjust that for the population difference between 1968 and 2020 (200 million vs 328 million) that would be the 2020 equivalent of 54,000 deaths over 6 months. There were move deaths than that from Covid in April 2020 alone. There may be another 60,000 to 100,000 more covid deaths in just May 2020.

The low death toll in the 68/69 pandemic may be why the planet didn't shutdown and why they didn't stop 400,000 kids from attending Woodstock.

If you're going to compare, great, but compare like periods to like periods and then see if your point still works.
 
Last edited:
ParadiseRoad said:
...you can speculate...

...but I can't compare?...
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges again. Seems to be your specialty.

You're comparing a two year total run for the 68/69 flu pandemic against the first three months of something that's just getting starting. Totally bad comparison. You already know that though.

Looking three weeks ahead based on the current velocity from a 12 week trend isn't really much speculation at all. But you already know that too.
 
ParadiseRoad said:
...I guess I'm an optimist...because I think it's ending...at least the worst of it...

...we'll see...
Click to expand...
I like optimism. I wish there were better signs based on rates of infection, standardized treatment and a vaccine, but I'd be happy to be wrong about all of it and you to be correct on this one. It'd be better for all of us.
 
Last edited:
Hapworth said:
I like optimism. I wish there were better signs based on rates of infection, standardized treatment and a vaccine, but I'd be happy to be wrong about all of it and you to be correct on this one. It'd be better for all of us.
Click to expand...

...I'm basing my optimism on the fact that I think it's been around longer than the estimates...and we are approaching a fair level of herd immunity...

...that and the mildness of the disease among the majority of the population may hopefully limit the number of future fatalities...
 
ParadiseRoad said:
...I'm basing my optimism on the fact that I think it's been around longer than the estimates...and we are approaching a fair level of herd immunity...

...that and the mildness of the disease among the majority of the population may hopefully limit the number of future fatalities...
Click to expand...
There is reasonableness in all of this. Most new viruses it's ultimately found were in the population earlier than originally thought.

I think some of the harder hit areas will ease down as you predict relatively soon. But I expect new outbreaks and spikes in other population centers are inevitable. It's just how virus travels.

That's to me why one unified approach to it doesn't work and I disagree with policymakers pushing either/or. This is more like a grand military engagement -- offense and defense alternating in different amounts in different theaters, battles and skirmishes of the campaign based on when the various mini-outbreaks are advancing or retreating, to make an imperfect analogy.

As a nation our physical, social and economic health are inextricably linked and none can be allowed to fall too far for the sake of the other -- they're all the same.

We hunker down in the specific localities where the hits are coming, open up and get the economic wheels moving again in other geographic areas where smart testing and treatment demonstrate we have the virus sub-exponential threshold.

Anyway, like most everyone I just want us on the comeback not the downhill.
 
Hapworth said:
I like optimism. I wish there were better signs based on rates of infection, standardized treatment and a vaccine, but I'd be happy to be wrong about all of it and you to be correct on this one. It'd be better for all of us.
Click to expand...

FWIW, data from the CDC (here: Cases in the U.S. | CDC...scroll down to "New Cases by Day") indicates that new cases have been declining overall for the past month, with some spikes here and there.

Based on that, I think it's time to start reopening, but it should be done intelligently. Areas that are not showing declining new case rates should probably keep restrictions in place. Areas with declines should start reopening in phases so as to monitor for any significant increases. Social distancing and masks should probably be kept in place until businesses have been in operation without any increases in the new case rate. 2-3 weeks seems like a reasonable timeframe to re-evaluate. If the rates continue to decrease, then additional business reopenings and relaxed restrictions can be considered. If rates start going up again, then it may be time to re-institute lockdowns and restrictions.

I think this is the most balanced approach to reopening while still protecting public health.

Just my opinion.
 
ContinentalOp said:
FWIW, data from the CDC (here: Cases in the U.S. | CDC...scroll down to "New Cases by Day") indicates that new cases have been declining overall for the past month, with some spikes here and there...
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's my understanding that New York -- hit the hardest and also doing the most to respond -- significantly skews the national numbers and if you take it out the overall trend becomes worse.

And of course, the real issue is testing. We need good tests widely administered to have any real idea what's happening where to guide smart decision making on where we can rev normal life back up and where we need to slow it back down.

And I worry that the implementation of testing will in some places be politicized based on pressure to open up or lock down irrespective of the real economic or health impacts.
 
Last edited:
Hapworth said:
Yes, but it's my understanding that New York -- hit the hardest and also doing the most to respond -- significantly skews the national numbers and if you take it out the overall trend becomes worse.

And of course, the real issue is testing. We need good tests widely administered to have any real idea what's happening where to guide smart decision making on where we can rev normal life back up and where we need to slow it back down.

And I worry that the implementation of testing will in some places be politicized based on pressure to open up or lock down irrespective of the real economic or health impacts.
Click to expand...

Expanded testing is definitely part of it, which is happening.

NYC is an example of why unilateral, nationwide reopenings is not a good idea, and why I said it should be done based on specific areas. You can look at data for individual states and see flattening and declining of the curve in some of them, including states that have expanded testing.

Just my opinion. Nothing I post will change people's minds about what should or shouldn't happen.
 
How many deaths occurred in the U.S. in the 1968 Asian flu pandemic that were not listed as a result of the Asian flu, but should have been?

Conversely, how many deaths have occurred in the U.S. during the SARS-COV-2 pandemic that were not a result of the infection, but were listed as such because the patient had a positive test or was thought to have contracted the virus, but was never tested?

Statistics are interesting, you can put in whatever data you wish and skew them in your desired direction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top