To be very concerned that the UK is not yet closing schools or introducing other quarantining measures, despite clear evidence that in 1918, it reduced total deaths by as much as 50% in cities that

[effingterrified]

The 1918-19 Spanish flu pandemic infected a third of the planet’s population and killed an estimated 50 million people. The number of Americans who died of the Spanish flu was greater than the number of Americans killed in both World Wars. However, not all US cities suffered as badly as others. Research published in 2007 (at a time of heightened interest due to the avian flu outbreak) explored how cities across the US had responded in 1918, and the impacts this had had on mortality rates.

St Louis and Philadelphia provide good examples of how different approaches to public health led to radically differing outcomes. In Philadelphia, where the disease struck in September, authorities were slow to realise the threat posed by the virus, and allowed large public gatherings, including a citywide parade, involving 200,000 people in support of a World War I loan drive, to take place as planned. In four months, more than 12,000 Philadelphians died, an excess death rate of 719 people for every 100,000 inhabitants
.
In St Louis, on the other hand, two weeks before Philadelphia officials began to react, the highly-experienced Health Commissioner, Dr. Max Starkloff, insisted that the city cancel all public gatherings, from football games to Halloween parties, close all schools for ten weeks, and even station police officers in department stores to keep people from lingering. St Louis made the mistake of reacting to an initial fall in cases by lifting controls, leading to a second wave of the illness; however controls were immediately reinstituted.

Excess deaths in St. Louis were 347 per 100,000 people, LESS THAN HALF the rate in Philadelphia. Early action appeared to have saved thousands of lives.

The 2007 studies used mathematical models to show that such large differences in death rates could be explained by the ways the cities carried out prevention measures, especially in their timing. Cities that instituted quarantine, closing schools and banning public gatherings and other such procedures early in the epidemic, had peak death rates 30 percent to 50 percent lower than those that did not.

A study examining the course of the epidemic in 23 cities across the US found that San Francisco, St. Louis, Milwaukee and Kansas City, Mo., had the most effective prevention programs, and time was of the essence. If restrictions were introduced too late or lifted too early, success rates declined substantially.

What good are anti biotics for viral pneumonia?

BloggersBlog - advances in mmedicine can indeed help - but only where the NHS is not swamped.

In a situation where even 50% of the population caught it over say 3 months, requiring say 3 weeks in hospital each for 20% of those with it more seriously (looking at what is happening in other countries), that would be 20% of approx. 30 million = 6 million people needing to be in hospital or about 1.5 million at any one time. Of which about a quarter ie 5% of the total so about 400,000 would need to be in intensive care.

And bearing in mind that doctors and nurses themselves are likely to be affected at a higher rate than the rest of the population, going by the experience of other countries, and all these estimates are at the very low end - the reality is that in many countries, around 40% of those suffering are in hospital, not 20%, and medical experts here have suggested 50% of those who catch it will have it within a 3-week period.

But let's go with my optimistic figures. Do you really think the UK has 1.5 million spare beds in hospital, including 400,000 in intensive care, at any point??

Really?? I think you are deluded.

Economic impact would be horrendous

Business as usual please

Controlling travel would be far more reasonable. If you close schools etc I'm guessing you would still expect key workers to magic childcare out of thin air and still attend work? The world is not comparable over 100 years on; globalisation, healthcare, economic markets, understanding of viruses and diseases.

I think we should be doing more to stop the spread of these threads outside of the designated topic section

If you disagree with the conclusions of the two 2007 studies, please explain why and how

Do you and the million other armchair experts really think nobody in actual government and/or health authorities are gaming out what to do in different scenarios?

You're all coming over like you think you're heroically saving the country with your unparalleled insight and knowledge, while the professionals paid to do that are sat round playing candy crush or something.

All we have to go on So far is China and Italy, and they have had to take these drastic measures. I’m almost certain Britain won’t follow suit, because, as above, we clearly care less about people dying of a virus than Chinese government. That’s pretty worrying to me.

That's what I wondered too @WarIsPeace . The availability of workers will be severely curtailed?

I wonder if "containment" will move to "delay" after a magic number of infections.

I do think people that suggest school closures don’t realise many grandparents would have to look after the kids so the parents can still work.
Not gonna stop the kids spreading it about to the elderly/risk groups.
The kids will still be out and about you can’t just lock them up at home 24/7
What about children due to sit exams this year?! They miss out on education
As a single parent closing schools will be a disaster!
It would impact nhs staff/police/fire brigade staff going to work
The main problem is people bringing it to the uk from travelling abroad but no one has suggested stopping travel

WTF is the point of the special Coronavirus section, which was created specially for this sort of hysterical nonsense, when you just post in AIBU instead.

And when it's been pointed out it shouldn't be in AIBU you just carry on anyway.

YABVFU.

Why not listen to medical expertise on this? That drives 'the government' response. A lot of people seem to think they know better. I'm going to do what I'm told when I'm told to do it, and stay calm till then.

ProhibitionBud and StepAwayFromGoogle - it would be nice if you bothered to actually read what I had posted before replying.

Children are indeed at relatively low risk. Closing schools and other quarantine measures are not primarily intended to protect the children - they are intended to stop the spreading of the disease.

There is already a long thread on exactly the same topic - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/3842236-Time-to-close-the-schools

But, go ahead and whip up a bit more panic, OP - that will definitely help

Move this shit to the panic topic

Spanish flu killed so many people because it was 1918, and healthcare was shite.

It was nbd to close schools, because far fewer women worked (it being 1918) and everyone was less precious about childcare (1918, again) so the workforce didnt disappear overnight.

The mortality rate of Covid 19 is nowhere near the mortality rate of Spanish Influenza. You're talking out of your arse.

Children may not be at great risk as regards their health however most parents will be aware that when they have a child attending school more infectious diseases are transmitted into the household.

cactus2020 - ah, right. So all the medical experts I linked to are not real then.

Ooookaaaay.

I guess the 200,000 people at the Philadelphia parade in 1918 also believed the politicians who told them it was a great idea with no safety implications at all. And the government has never, ever been economical with the truth for economic reasons, no not ever.

FFS.

Buzzshit and Cactus, wise words. How come you know more than the Chief Medical Officer OP?

Given that 2 weeks ago, Italy had the same number of infections that we do now, AND they implemented quarantine measures after that.

I'm curious how people see this playing out in the UK in 2 weeks, given we're not taking any similar measures at all here.

I am honestly becoming more and more convinced that the illness we really need to worry about is not the coronavirus.
So many are absolutely thriving with all the alarmist posts, often becoming amateur researchers and 'experts' overnight.
Not to mention the sheer number who believe they have it, their children have it, they had it last week/month/year.
Who are basing their whole lives around the next 'update' and gleefully 'sharing' that information.
It really is a sad state of affairs and there is absolutely NO way this doesn't rub off on, and affect, their children

Why do people bother posting on threads they have no interest in, just to be dicks? Just scroll past...

CJsGoldfish - I would be absolutely thrilled for you to be right. I really would.

Explain why what research has shown is the impact of quarantine measures in infectious diseases doesn't apply here.

And "I really want to believe this" doesn't count as evidence.

So, OP brings evidence and sources to a
Discussion, but the critics bring nothing but personal insults.

I can see how these methods can lower the death rate from the illness. And I have been wondering whether authorities should be more aggressive about this sort of preventative action. But do these figures take into account the increase in deaths from the impact on the economy? This is what I wonder about balancing. For people where I am currently (US, not the UK, but we have covid-19 "in the wild") closing schools means people having to stay off work, no work means no pay and no pay may well mean homelessness. It's hard to get back into housing once you're out and homeless people die at high rates. Not specific to shutting schools, but generally shutting down aspects of the city will mean less employment and therefore fewer people covered by health insurance.

I'm reminded of the way the rejection of air travel after September 11th lead to half as many deaths through extra road traffic accidents as died when the World Trade Center collapsed. Unintended consequences need identifying and taking into account.

How long would these measures have to stay in place for? With travel the way it is everywhere is going to be at risk while the disease holds ground anywhere, aren't they? Is it practical or will it lead to more harm of other sorts?

I definitely think that closing schools would do more harm than good. If workplaces were not closed, Granny might have to look after the kids, putting the elderly at even more risk. If they were closed, then this might result not only in massive economic damage, but in catastrophic disruptions to supply chains, causing shortages of vital goods that might for many people be even more life-threatening than the virus itself. I do, however, think that a temporary crackdown on travel, especially by plane (where viruses constantly get circulated) would be desirable. And certainly all cruises should be cancelled till the crisis is over.