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.

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'.

Rubbish. People weren't assessing the risk as they didn't know about it. It was kept pretty quiet,

In 1968 I was 8. My mother talked about things such as diptheria and polio being killers; there was a new immunisation for measles, no MMR, whooping cough vaccine was new. Children died from leukaemia and and there were children at my school (one in my year and one each in the year above amd below) with a hand missing - mild cases due to thalidomide. Cancer barely diagnosed let alone cured. Lots of spinsters around due to two world wars.

Life was different and more precarious.

The NHS would not have coped if there wasn't a lockdown.

Theres so many reasons why...

But from the other side of the debate does social media not then inform people of issues? Yes, there will always be some 'hype' of any issues, but at least people know? A small scale would be - 3 people buy food from a hotdog stall and develop a stomach bug. The 3 people post online to verify they've got, and notify safety food standards, they may also then potentially prevent say 50 people from going to purchase food there the next day because they're aware via social media. That then potentially prevents say 150 people from getting ill, potentially vomiting at home/at work and then spreading the bug via touching door handles, toilets, taps and so on, which may then spread it to say 600. If nobody passed on the initial information by day 3 how many people will have be infected?

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.

Not in the 60s they didn't

I remember the Hong Kong flu in 1969/70.
I was only 5 but a particular day is etched on my mind because our neighbours' baby died. He was the same age as my sister.

That flu virus was not completely new in the same way that this one was, so some people had immunity.

I was born in 1963 and my husband in 57. This was mentioned in the news the other day. We looked at each other with raised eyebrows, neither of us had ever heard of it!
We’re reasonably intelligent and well read, try to keep up to date with things 🤷‍♀️

Considering 99% who get it, live, I think there is some overreaction happening according to the figures in worldometer, @93percent who get it live. If there hadn't been lockdown or other measures taken by various countries the exponential growth would have continued and continued and many, many more would have got it, and the number dying accordingly very, very high. The hospitals would not have coped and many would have had to die at home without care. The ratio of people dying would be higher as increasing numbers would not have the benefit of hospital care.

It is likely that there will be another similar virus in a few years' time so any facilities we procured for this one will be used in the future.

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' as above. Too many people out there - including the "woke" - would probably not have been able to make sensible decisions and there then would have been exponential growth and disaster.

I don't understand why so many people seem to think that the lockdown was unnecessary because they apparently don't think that many people have died. What do they actually think would have happened without the lockdown?

Fewer people being kept alive in the first place in the 1960s - less effective cancer treatments, less obesity, less diabetes, fewer people living after heart attacks and strokes, fewer people living with serious conditions that modern medicine can now treat etc, fewer people living after organ transplants, fewer elderly people....

Humans have tried all sorts of methods for preventing the spread of disease over the centuries. We’ve had leper colonies, scarlet fever ships, entire towns isolating themselves from the rest of the world and sacrificing their inhabitants’ lives in an attempt to stop the plague spreading any further, etc. In the 1918 flu pandemic, cities that imposed lockdowns did better economically and in terms of death rates than ones that didn’t in the long run.

The more successful we become at keeping people alive, the more that healthcare system needs protecting. Besides, covid-19 causes atypical lung damage - at least we know what influenza viruses do to the body. Only an idiot lets a novel virus that is not well understood rip through the global population at a rate of knots without trying to control its spread and trying to learn more about its potential long term impact on modern life - or someone who isn’t bothered about losing the benefits that modern healthcare has brought us.

Sweden seems to be doing very well without a full block lockdown.

We were told the lockdown was to protect the NHS - we’re closing the nightingale hospitals but the lockdown remains?

My parents got HK flu in the 69/70 period. They were 18 and 20 years old.
They lived in SE London and mum caught train into town.
She got it first and dad a few days later.
She is nearly 70 and said neither her, any of her children, entire extended family and any of her friends has ever had an illness as bad as that was except an uncle who got meningitis.

I got swine flu and she had to look after my children and ultimately me. I was very very ill. She said it wasn't a patch on HK.

HK flu and Spanish flu didn't seem to have levels of illness the way they think Corona does.

Why does Corona seem to only hard hit certain categories of people much more so than Flu pandemics? Or so it seems

There is evidence that people will Covid have more days between when they are infected and when they start to have symptoms so there is a much longer period when they are still wandering around infecting people before they even feel ill.

Considering 99% who get it, live, I think there is some overreaction happening according to the figures in worldometer, @93percent who get it live

Really - that means that 7/100 (about 1 in 12) die.
That seems very high - especially as we don't know how many people have been infected because not everyone who is infected is tested.

Also it's not that long ago TB sanatoriums were very active. I think the death rate was 1 in 7? So it's not that extreme that the global health care services don't really want a rematch of that? My grandad was a TB patient in a san for 7mths many years ago, and I know of many other families in the UK who had a relative that was also in isolation for that long. There wasn't the SM to report it, but the deaths were still happening and if people can at least be aware of pandemics now they can do their best to try shut them down.

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.

There is no need to be so unpleasant.
Obviously your examples didn't happen in the 60s, and if they were to be re-instated now there are bound to be some who would turn up to watch! Of course people have always valued human life, but in all times there are some who don't - including now.

Sweden seems to be doing very well without a full block lockdown.

Really - it doesn't look that way to me going by the latest figures.

Really - that means that 7/100 (about 1 in 12) die.
That seems very high - especially as we don't know how many people have been infected because not everyone who is infected is tested it represents the totals of the figures being provided by each government. You are right, we/they don't know exact figures. NB depending on the country and their healthcare, the ratio will be higher lower.

Or, to out it another way, should governments back then have done more to save lives, as they are doing at the moment?

Really - that means that 7/100 (about 1 in 12) die. That seems very high - especially as we don't know how many people have been infected because not everyone who is infected is tested it represents the totals of the figures being provided by each government. You are right, we/they don't know exact figures. NB depending on the country and their healthcare, the ratio will be higher lower.

Ita not really a good thing that it killed a million people. It actually shows that maybe they didn't react properly. Im confused. Should we have all just carried on and let everyone die?

Fascinating replies, thank you everyone

Someone mentioned Sweden - it's really very interesting as they seem to be following the same curve as is with infections. I know they have done social distancing and lots of people work from home, but they have avoided full lockdown without massively different results. The scientists who modelled their predictions said that by 1st May, Sweden would have so many more deaths than they actually have.

Life was totally different then, totally

In 1968 the aircraft were B707 or VC10s so half the passengers at 4 times the price, less tourism.