Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask why The Asian Flu pandemic in 1968/69 didn't cause the world to shut down?

222 replies

Whatsthis1515 · 04/05/2020 19:22

I have been reading about the Asian Flu pandemic in 1968-69, which was also a novel virus, and was surprised to see that there wasn't a lock down etc. Over a million people died of it globally.

I can't help but wonder if the reason the world is in lockdown with covid 19 is because of the media/social media and the internet. It causes mass panic.

I am wondering what everyone else's thoughts are?

I am not a conspiracy theorist btw, but I am wondering why it's so different this time. Being a human being is risky, and I struggle to understand why we have reacted so differently this time and am genuinely interested in if it because of how freely we can access media to panic us and the governments world wide have had to react to that?

I think there was also a strain of flu in 2004 where 17,000 in the UK died. I wasn't even aware of it at the time, yet that's a huge number of people.

OP posts:
Toothsil · 04/05/2020 19:30

My mum was just saying this yesterday, she said she'd forgotten about the Asian flu pandemic until my dad mentioned it recently and that it wasn't handled anything like this, she said they weren't actually all that aware of it at the time.

Amanduh · 04/05/2020 19:32

Because it was 1968.

OmgThereAreNoPlanesAboveMeNow · 04/05/2020 19:36

Asian flu was in 50s. Do you mean Hong Kong flu? It did kill a million, didn't it

Apolloanddaphne · 04/05/2020 19:36

Loads of reasons. Off the top of my head: Less global travel. No social media stirring things up. Not so much medical research. Fewer people working together in big offices and travelling together. It was a very different world in the 60's

Musicalmistress · 04/05/2020 19:37

Possibly because there was not quite as much cross border travel?

ChangeThePassword · 04/05/2020 19:39

From what I can tell, it had a much lower mortality rate, and didn't put nearly as much pressure on health services as covid-19.

While current coronavirus deaths are lower, that's primarily because of the lockdown measures in place to limit infection.

(not an expert, could be wrong)

Funko · 04/05/2020 19:40

I imagine most people worked very close by to where they lived and rarely ventured far.

Much less global travel, smaller populations.

Offices probably not crammed wall to wall with hot desks.

Less and smaller public gathering in sports venues, theatre, restaurants.

There's an endless list of reasons..

Madein1995 · 04/05/2020 19:40

Yanbu. I truly hate this lockdown and believe it's being kept going to save face, not backtrack too soon etc. Gleeful idiots screaming 'dont ease it's. It's gone on long enough. Considering 99% who get it, live, I think there is some overreaction happening. A very uncommon view here where anyone wanting anything less than 2yrs locked in til a vaccine appears, is a murdering monster. The media have had a field day and it shows.

Judashascomeintosomemoney · 04/05/2020 19:41

It causes mass panic
Er, or it causes mass awareness. The 1968 pandemic didn’t cause 1 million deaths, it was estimated between 1 and 4 million deaths. So far Covid is at around 250,000.00 worldwide deaths so far, of course that will increase but hopefully not to the extent of up to 4 million people. Given the huge increase in international travel since the 1960s, I’d say the internet, the spreading of awareness and information, has largely helped not hindered populations around the world.

TroysMammy · 04/05/2020 19:44

Probably because travel abroad was limited, people didn't go out for takeaways, coffee, lunch, pubs weren't open all day and eating out was a treat. Shops closed half a day in the week and not open Sundays or Bank Holidays. There were 11 million less people in the UK in 1968 than today.

BlackKite · 04/05/2020 19:48

Isn’t the answer that it was significantly less deadly?

Flopjustwantscoffee · 04/05/2020 19:49

I think a number of reasons. One is that it has the potential (if left unchecked) to kill considerably more than 1 million. The 1968 flu was particularly bad in the us and caused about 100 thousand deaths - if covid-19 was left to run its course it would probably cause considerably more than that in America. Also we’re only a few months in to this in the west and it hasn’t even got going In some other parts of the world - whereas the death toll for the 1968 flu is the total deaths for the whole period it ran for. I think covid 19 has the potential to be as deadly as the 1918 flu pandemic so probably better to compare it with that. Of course they weren’t able to take the same sorts of measures we are taking now in 1918, partly due to scientific knowledge and lessons learned and partly due to not being at the end of a world war... The fact we are able to now is a good thing...

Flopjustwantscoffee · 04/05/2020 19:51

I say potential because if the covid-19 death toll ends up lower than the 1968 death toll when we reach the end of this thing that will be a good thing and a sign the measures taken worked, rather than a sign they weren’t needed

BlackKite · 04/05/2020 19:53

Yup. Covid-19 looks like it will kill more than the HK Flu in the US with a lockdown

LuckyMarmiteLover · 04/05/2020 19:54

I think unchecked in the UK we were told it would kill 500,000 people and that’s just the uk. COVID 19 is unfortunately much more deadly.

BlackKite · 04/05/2020 19:59

Is the OP Russian?

Flopjustwantscoffee · 04/05/2020 20:00

I’ve just read further and some other reports put the 1968 death toll at 38 thousand in the us rather than 100 thousand.... so by some estimates covid-19s already winning...

BelfryBat · 04/05/2020 20:01

I think it's the death rate is lower, and also the rate at which people pass it on. If you look at COVID 19, it is baffling the medical profession by the number of ways in which it affecting different groups of people. It is weird.

BelfryBat · 04/05/2020 20:02

Sorry, the death rate for Asian flu and the rate at which it was passed on was lower.

noavailablename · 04/05/2020 20:03

Because it wasn't nearly as bad as this.

Original poster
Whatsthis1515 · 04/05/2020 20:03

Very interesting points.

I should have said, I don't disagree with the lockdown we've got/had, just interested in the differences.

Going to read about the 1918 flu pandemic

OP posts:
rvby · 04/05/2020 20:04

Because that was 50+ years ago and the world is a different place now.

We value human life more now
We have a better understanding of how mass trauma can impact a country for hundreds of years
We can communicate internationally more easily
Governments are more connected to each other and leaders can compare notes
It is more possible to save lives now, compared to then, so taking measures to slow the spread is now worth doing

... it's not brain surgery really is it

Original poster
Whatsthis1515 · 04/05/2020 20:07

@rvby
Really good points thanks..not sure why you were rude at the end.

I have so much hope for a vaccine.

OP posts:
GrumpyHoonMain · 04/05/2020 20:08

The flu was one of the reasons for the global recession in the early 70s.

PIPinghell · 04/05/2020 20:09

Because it wasn't a novel virus like Covid-19.