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.

My DD has walking pneumonia. It was not what I’d call mild- she had 3 weeks off school, slept constantly and lost lots of weight. Dreadful.

Had

I was talking in comparison between 'mild'/'walking' pneumonia and pneumonia requiring intensive treatment as a hospital in-patient. It's still going to be unpleasant but my point was that not everyone develops pneumonia
and of those who do develop pneumonia, a lot of them will be able to be cared for at home.

"One of the theories is you could take it on the chin, take it all in one go and allow the virus to move through the population without really taking as many draconian measures.”

• Boris Johnson

I actually think it is chilling.

The complete lack of action that our government is taking is entirely irresponsible. There is no 'new epidemiology'. The British immune system is no different from any other human immune system. We know what happens from Italy and China. It's coming for us too, despite the fact that we can see from the example of other countries like Hong Kong and Singapore that it is possible to mitigate by putting in place containment measures like closing schools.

Someone else said that the Spanish flu was pre antibiotics. But Corona doesn’t respond to antibiotics as it’s a virus.

And so is the flu.

We understand better the immune response to these viruses and can modulate the immune system to a point. We also have machines that keep people breathing.

Plus, OP, this is a different beast. The 1918 flu killed mostly young people, this one is mostly older people. The young ones are a risk for transmission, but they are not particularly vulnerable in terms of deaths.

Boris Johnson is stupid, though.

Mother, our gov is following medical advice.

The very same advisors who would have had the misfortune to also advise corbyn.

Obviously, someone, perhaps not the ones we saw today, or who knows... Maybe one of them has obviously told boris this...

It's been presented as an option.
It's obviously not an option he's given for. He said he wanted to mitigate that..

Lweji all that seems to be shifting now.
Italy is seeing younger people affected and the patient 1 in Italy, 38 year old marathon runner has needed round the clock care.

New Scientist had an article which described a growing consensus that there are (at least?) two varieties of COVID-19. Viruses mutate, and changes to the way it behaves are possible.

Time to start fiddling with the Plague Inc app again

The life expectancy thing isn't totally accurate fwiw. Life expectancy was so low largely because infancy and childhood was so hard.

In the 1910s, the overall average life expectancy was 55. But, girls who reached the age of 10 could expect to live until an average of almost 66. For those who reached 20, it was over 67. 35 was certainly middle-aged, but it wasn't anything close to old.

From the Newscientist article

"The differences between the two identified strains are tiny. In fact, they can’t really be considered to be separate “strains”, says Jones. And many of the genetic differences won’t affect the production of proteins, and so won’t change the way the virus works, or the symptoms it causes, he says. One is not more deadly than the other."

@Facingtheunkown, with respect, most medical advice about pandemics suggests urgent pre-emptive action.

So I think there is an element of picking which medical "advice" they think is acceptable! Certainly the current course of action is not approved of by the World Health Organisation, who seem extremely concerned about it.

For the reasons I gave on the other thread, I think it is too early to close schools. However I do think it's nuts that the Cheltenham Festival and other public gatherings that are purely for leisure are going ahead.

I agree with you, op. I don't know why it is making people so angry when the suggestion of closing schools comes up. Why are people still answering it with "children aren't that badly affected" ? I don't understand why they haven't worked out that it's not to protect the children.

Thewheels I think some people are incredibly and inherently selfish. Already some are saying they won't self-isolate if that becomes UK policy and others are saying they won't avoid badly-hit countries for holidays. No government wants to threaten its own people with jail but I'm starting to understand why Italy thinks it's necessary as a deterrent to breaking the lockdown.

And according to some experts, Boris is applying flu protocols for a virus that doesn't behave the same, for which we have no immunity, no vaccine and no cure. He's also obviously prioritising today's economy but that is shortsighted and is why he avoided the journalist who asked the question about competing priorities at the first briefing imo.