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

[Whatsthis1515]

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.

No such thing as intensive care. No expectation that we would offer such vast levels of organ support to so many people, a certain sanguine approach to life expectancy/death, cultural behaviour/government priorities at the time etc etc etc...

@PIPinghell
I thought it was a novel virus?

Rvby, what a stupid thing to say, we do not 'value human life more now'
People in the 50s and 60s valued thier loved ones just as much as you or I do today.
People throughout all time value human life, it's just offensive to say otherwise.

The Hong Kong flu strain wasn't novel in the same sense that this coronavirus is novel. The strain had similarities to the Asian flu strain in the 50s and that reduced its impact.

We've locked down with covid-19, because as a starting point, we know that we cannot rely on anyone having acquired a resistance to it from a previous go-round.

Because there was no social media to whip everyone up into a frenzy.

@Bladeofgrass yes, you're absolutely right, people throughout all time have valued human life, especially when enjoying gladiatorial combat to the death, attending public executions as a form of entertainment, and having picnics during lynchings. Of course, yes. Thank you for setting me straight.

Isn't the potential impact of covid 19 more like that of Spanish flu in 1918-20.that killed more people than the first world war? I think they did eventually lock down to curb that but only after many had already diws and then they came out too soon and the second wave killed more than the first.

‘ .. it's not brain surgery really is it?’

Nah, given the maths, it’s more like rocket science. 😉

My mother spoke of the 1968 flu’.
Although young & fit, it was so severe that she thought that she might die.

@Whatsthis1515 it was a strain of flu, so not a novel virus? If it was, I stand corrected, but please link to explanation.

Possibly because we now live in an age of mass tourism and business travel. This was just not the case in the 50s

60s not 50s.

Not a clinician....

This has spread more quickly than Hong Kong flu. Likely to do with travel but it is also looking like a more infectious disease. So whilst death toll so far is less, this has really just begun. We wont know total number for several years.

We have some natural immunity to flu as RNA the same? So even though it was novel it was still flu.

We dont really understand this virus. We don't understand symptoms, how it spreads, the impact on different sections of the population and how it mutated. We understand influenzas much better.

1968 was the year I left school, I can honestly say I was in blissful ignorance of any flu virus. Great memories of 68.

Less travel would have been a factor

The second wave of the infection apparently killed far more people than the first, so the 69/70 peak, I think ?

Primarily as they simply couldn't. Without much of a social safety net, people would have been in even bigger trouble than they are now if they couldn't work, and given the lack of internet, meant people couldn't work from home. In addition the general opinion of it being an act of god, from which government could provide no relief, meant the public simply didn't have the expectation. A massive factor would also have been that the press were faaaaaaar less likely to view it as political point scoring material, and I suspect would have been rather unacceptable to suggest destroying the economy (which was not healthy at the time). I suspect that also given that death was so much more common at this time also played a part, many people, notably actors such as Richard Harris got a believe tuberculosis and was bedridden for a year, so I simply think a large part of it was down to society's relationship with death and serious illness was far more familiar than today, where it would be considered young for someone in their 50s to die.

It's very interesting to read about these pandemics. I had no idea about the ones after 1918. When my mum talks of 1968 she talks of tanks, not virus. So this is a "nice" change.

OP you mention the figure of 17,000 in relation to UK death rate from flu in a given year. Actually in the UK 17,000 flu deaths per year is average (thought last year it was below 2,000). In 2015 a particularly severe flu caused nearly 30,000 UK deaths. This was not really noticed by the media. For comparison, smoking kills 78,000 per year in the UK.

A lot fewer people to transmit the germs.
Same sort of cohort, my grandma died in 69.
She'd already suffered a stroke, so now would have been in shielded group.
Although she was bedridden anyway, so wouldn't have been going out.
We didn't know about anything that wasn't reported. If it wasn't deemed necessary to tell us what was going on, we didn't know.
Not like today when we know instantly.

My DF remembers the flu in the 50s, he had it. People just seemed to get on with it. I think he's a bit bemused with all the fuss now.

Global travel- or lack of

I was 21 in 1968/9 and I remember the Hong Kong flu and the second wave in 1969/1970 which killed thousands of people in the UK
of course lives were valued and people carried on as best they could.
The population was smaller, more people worked locally rather than travelling on long commutes. Resources -including medical were available locally and those suffering were more able to get prompt attention.
No social media to fan the flames of panic
People were more inclined to follow rules and less about 'me, me,me'
Foreign travel was not for everyone.
I miss the 1960s/1970s

YANBU OP. I think we have lost the capacity to make decisions (individually and as a society) based on a risk assessment approach, so the default strategy is to be as risk averse as possible. Decisions should be based on assessing risks over the long term, not just 'daily covid death numbers'.

The other thing I don't understand is that some people seem to expect the government to tell them exactly what to do for their own particular circumstances; or demand lock down for all, rather than taking their decisions (within limits and constraints) to isolate themselves if they feel vulnerable, regardless of whether the government ends lockdown or not.

It wasn't as deadly or infectious and according to my parents people weren't really aware of it. 700,000 deaths worldwide in a few months is a lot. However this virus has killed more than 1/3 of that in only a few weeks and that is with the lockdown in just about every country that has been affected.

A normal flu season kills 500,000.The pandemics of Asian Flu and Hong Kong Flu killed about 1-2M so a death rate of up to 4x normal flu. This has a death rate of ~10x a normal flu season. Thankfully much lower than Spanish Flu that killed ~10% of those who got it and killed about 50M worldwide, that is more than WW1. There were lockdown in 1918-19 that saved millions across the world. And there was no long lasting recession after Spanish Flu.