Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

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

215 replies

effingterrified · 08/03/2020 21:41

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.

OP posts:
effingterrified · 08/03/2020 22:51

MotherOfDragonite - do you find that quote as chilling as I do?

OP posts:
excitedmumtobe87 · 08/03/2020 22:54

AndromedaPerseus

Coronavius causes viral pneumonia. Anti biotics don’t touch it.

Hoik · 08/03/2020 22:57

so do you think that the various professors in biology, medicine etc I quoted are all "hysterically" "determined to whip themselves and others up into a frenzy"?

No, I think people posting on forums stating that there will be hundreds of thousands of deaths are the ones creating panic.

So far there have not been hundreds of thousands of deaths in any of the countries with reported cases. The current forecast for an overall mortality rate of 1-2% is expected to drop further once testing becomes more refined than it currently is and once testing is widened to pick up those mild to moderate cases currently flying under the radar.

effingterrified · 08/03/2020 22:58

lilgreen - thanks so much for the link to the other thread.

Interesting to see that an NHS doctor is posting along such similar lines.

Terrifying to see how many ostriches/ignoramuses who are unable to understand that all these measures are going to be introduced anyway, it is just a matter of when jot if.

And doing it sooner will vastly reduce casualties.

And reduce the economic cost, for all those who appear, depressingly, to think this is the most important thing.

OP posts:
anonymousLangFan · 08/03/2020 22:59

Hundreds of thousands of deaths?

This is a novel virus, meaning we have not built any immunity towards it, and it is highly contagious. The estimates are that it could infect 40-70% of the population.

The death rate seems to be about 1-2%.

You do the math.

effingterrified · 08/03/2020 23:01

Hoik - the professors I quoted were all posting on Twitter!

Does that mean that they fall into the category of "people posting on forums stating that there will be hundreds of thousands of deaths"?

And are you simply unaware that the CHief Medical Officer has stated deaths of at least 100,000 are expected?

What do you think is going to happen, that this is all going to magically go away, and you'll wake up and it was all a dream?

OP posts:
AnneOfTeenFables · 08/03/2020 23:02

The WHO states the current projected mortality rate is 3.8%

Hoik · 08/03/2020 23:02

There is no point even discussing this with you when you're so determined that we are all doooooooooomed and aren't willing to listen to any viewpoints other than the ones who agree with you.

You need to get a grip.

SirVixofVixHall · 08/03/2020 23:02

I think you are right OP. I agree we need to close as many avenues as possible for social mingling. Isn’t John Campbell saying much the same thing ?
I want to pull my dc out of school, but one is doing GCSEs , if the schools closed then special measure would be put in place to cover exams.

Cam77 · 08/03/2020 23:03

Listening to people here, you’d think China, the worlds second largest economy, put more than 100 million people into quarantine and shutdown the entire economy - a nation bigger than the whole of Western Europe - for two months just for shits and giggles. As has Italy just yesterday effectively shutting down the whole country. 15%- 20% of people who contract this disease will be hospitalised. Now, in terms of the UK that could be 300 people or it could 300,000 people depending on the steps we take now. “Business as usual”. Er, no.

Freezingold · 08/03/2020 23:05

For me it is the 1 in 10 who need critical care, that is the reason to manage this virus as best we can. Which includes looking at ways to reduce transmission rate as best we can. Even if only 10% of the UK population got infected that is a lot of people in critical care.

The medics in Lombardy in their warning to ‘get ready’ to the rest of Europe are saying clearly that if the Italian public do not adhere to the latest quarantines, that they will soon run out of ICU beds, they are already using corridors...

Are people not getting this? I agree we have to debate which is better, school closures / when how / big events etc but we have to do something and getting ahead of the curve seems very sensible.

CJsGoldfish · 08/03/2020 23:05

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

I don't actually believe that you would be.
Like I said, I don't believe the 'illness' that is most dangerous here is coronavirus but now that this thread has been moved, I'll leave you to it.

effingterrified · 08/03/2020 23:06

Depressingly, the only reason I think the government might care is that by killing off old, unproductive people they also in effect kill off their voting base.

Which happens to consist largely of the elderly.

Oops.

OP posts:
AnneOfTeenFables · 08/03/2020 23:07

We're not doomed if we act decisively and quickly, taking into account the global response, the recent statistics and the most dynamic emergency preparedness protocols.
Yy that will be inconvenient for some and difficult for others, but that's impossible to avoid.

effingterrified · 08/03/2020 23:07

CJsGoldfish - you don't think I'd be thrilled if coronavirus turned out not to be a major problem?

Like you think I or other people posting here wish to go down with a horrible disease that kills people?

Er...right.

OP posts:
effingterrified · 08/03/2020 23:10

SirVixofVixHall - will have to google John Campbell.

Discussions are underway about what to do about the summer exam season - no decisions on that yet.

OP posts:
Devlesko · 08/03/2020 23:11

I think we should lock down, last week.
It's funny the comments presuming granny will have to provide childcare when schools closed.
Granny won't be answering the door, she'll be on the loo with her hand gel and loo roll. Grin A lot of old people have hibernated and I don't blame them.

BestZebbie · 08/03/2020 23:12

I think people are hoping to sign up to be Gunnison, rather than Eyam, at this stage...

Furfockssake · 08/03/2020 23:15

I've been talking about the maths for days and always get called alarmist. Now the Government are saying the same thing and yet it still doesn't sink in. In my opinion it doesn't help that far from being sensationalist, a lot of reporting said that it was a flu like illness and likely to be mild in the majority of cases. Whilst that stopped a lot go the panic, it also instilled a sense that the threat was not great enough for people to take seriously.

Mintychoc1 · 08/03/2020 23:17

OP, putting aside whether or not closing schools would slow the spread of disease, can you suggest how it would work in practical terms? Who would look after the kids who weren’t at school? I’m a doctor and a single parent with no family other than my frail elderly mother. You may think I’m selfish and not seeing the bigger picture, but seriously, who would look after my kids while I looked after poorly people?

LastTrainEast · 08/03/2020 23:17

There is some value in quarantining small groups who have been exposed, but if we shut everything down that means no food deliveries, no electricity and no water for however many months it is before we say that's long enough. Or did people think that all that stuff happened on its own?

We'll be sending the doctors home too of course. They will need to look after their children who are not at school, and anyway you don't want them spreading it.

Enough4me · 08/03/2020 23:20

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300403
I have read the start and end of this thread, have not seen the link to the petition relating to this, so sharing now. It is already over 100,000 but is still a way of raising concern.

AutumnRose1 · 08/03/2020 23:21

OP “ And yes, it would be boring, quarantines aren't imposed for fun, but frankly there are worse things that your kids being a bit bored. Like you or your elderly parents dying.”

My mum is 82. She doesn’t care about dying. I’m 44 with underlying chronic health issues. I don’t care about dying either. Dad died at 79. It was grim, but better than losing friends who died in their 20s.

We’re much more concerned about being able to live before we do die. And we don’t live in the same area so a no notice quarantine would separate us. Is that fair?

As I said on other threads

  1. overpopulation won’t be solved by humans who show no sign of being responsible about it. Nature was bound to step in.

  2. quarantine for those of us in shoebox flats is fine for a couple of weeks. Get into longer and there’ll be a lot of suicides.

Did you know aboit 280 elderly people have died after falls at home this year?

FurrySlipperBoots · 08/03/2020 23:22

The world needs a good plague. There are far too many people for the planet to support.

ALeapOfFaith · 08/03/2020 23:22

Not all kids in schools need parents at home to look after them. Secondary school age children are quite capable of staying home whilst parents work.

Swipe left for the next trending thread