1957 and 1968 flu pandemics

[TotorosFurryBehind]

An interesting article in the Lancet about the history of these previous pandemics and how press response may have influenced how the public reacted:

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31201-0/fulltext

The article notes the 68 pandemic killed 'more than 30 000 in the UK...with half the deaths among individuals younger than 65 years'

Yet I'd never heard of the 68 pandemic until recently. It's interesting.

The article also notes that in comparing Covid with previous pandemics we should be mindful of the excess death rate, which is thus far 55 000 for the UK from March to May. But it's not clear if those are directly caused by Covid, us it?

Down through the years there have been a lot of threads on MN about how attitudes towards risk and safety have changed over the years (a common one is the attitude towards driving - no car seats, regular drink driving) and the same question often comes up - 'what effect will the ever-increasing need to control and avoid risk have on how people behave as time goes on?'

IMO, the answer is in this pandemic. A relentless focus on risk means that people believe they can and should do what they can to avoid an identified risk - it becomes a moral duty, much like observing the rules of a religion - with the added element that if you do succumb to the risk then that's your fault, you're to blame. You weren't good enough, vigilant enough, prepared enough.

That's what's led to people being willing to suffer, extensively and decisively, leading to ongoing disaster, pain and difficulty in order to avoid a risk that for most people, isn't a risk at all. They're not only happy, but keen to risk their children's education, their livelihoods, the economy and stability of their country, the opportunities available to them and their family, because they can't bear the thought that they might be the ones who fall foul, the ones who weren't good enough.

The author of the Lancet article acknowledges that the speed with which cv has killed a lot of people already shows it may be a different animal to those flu pandemics. Being wary of it is not just a sign of being too risk averse, or of having been pushed into worrying by the press. It is its own thing, a new disease with effects we're only just learning about. This is the one we have to deal with, not another flu.

"There was no panic in 1957 and 1968, runs this argument, so why the panic today?"

"However, critics of the UK Government's response are perhaps right to point to the role of epidemiology and statistical modelling in propagating fear."

In both of those quotes from the Lancet article the author uses the words 'panic' and 'fear' to imply that actions taken today are unnecessary and driven by emotion, rather than just different actions driven by different rationales and circumstances (that can then be agreed with or disagreed with on their own merits).

Have people worried about lockdown going on too long just been driven to panic about the economy by reading the Daily Telegraph? Or are their concerns valid?

People referring to actions they don't see as necessary as evidence of 'panic' comes up over and over again at the moment. There's a whole space in which we could discuss coronavirus measures as worth doing or not based on all sorts of reasons, so it's a shame the argument often seems to end up unhelpfully reduced to accusations of panic.

Not that fear itself, as opposed to actual panic, is always a bad thing. This is an interesting article about that:

www.psandman.com/col/SARS-1.htm

@eeeyoresmiles - IMO panic is the only good word for it. People in a panic make choices that, when looked at later, seem crazy. If you are under 60 and in general good health your chances of dying of coronvirus are absolutely tiny. Putting a whole country, a whole continent into quarantine, when millions of people are not infected and are unlikely to be in danger if they are infected is mind-bogglingly inexplicable. It's beyond extreme.

Essentially if you're not in danger from covid, it doesn't matter, that's of no benefit to you because the government has ensured you will still suffer. You may not get sick, and if you do get sick you'll likely be fine, but nonetheless the virus is going to severely and permanently affect you, in the form of public sector cuts, job losses and a ruined economy. So some people get very sick, some people die, but absolutely everyone suffers the consequences of lockdown. You simply can't escape. The misery has been blown up, extended, to ensure that even children, who are at almost zero risk of covid, suffer as much as possible. It is truly bizarre.

My grandfather died in the 1957 pandemic. I never met him as he died before I was born.

IMO panic is the only good word for it. People in a panic make choices that, when looked at later, seem crazy.

It doesn't work the other way round though. I can't argue that anyone who makes a choice that seems crazy to me must be panicking. There could be all sorts of other reasons. If I just accuse them of panicking then those other reasons can never be looked into.

With increased lifespans, we no longer see the age of 60 as being in any way approaching old-age. People expect to live comfortably until eighty.

If you are under 60 and in general good health your chances of dying of coronvirus are absolutely tiny. Putting a whole country, a whole continent into quarantine, when millions of people are not infected and are unlikely to be in danger if they are infected is mind-bogglingly inexplicable. It's beyond extreme.

I would say that this argument underestimates the effect of widespread covid illness in the community on all of us, whether our individual risk is high or low. A lot of the effects of that are not dissimilar to the effects of the temporary lockdown itself - high infection rates would stop normal medical treatment, close businesses, reduce spending, cause mental health problems, disrupt education and so on. Plus, it's becoming increasingly obvious that some even young and healthy people can be ill for weeks.

That doesn't mean I think we should be locked down forever, far from it. I just disagree that a low individual risk of death from the disease for lots of people translates into a low risk to society if we try to carry on without some pretty strong public health measures. I may be right or wrong in that view, but holding it is not a sign that I'm either crazy or panicking.

I was a teenager in my first job in 1968, I have no memory of the flu pandemic. I had 3 grandparents at the time, all over 70 and they went about their lives perfectly normally from what I remember.

The one thing this pandemic has taught me is how quickly we can change, 4 months ago who'd have thought we'd have people reporting their neighbours for going out for 2 walks a day, or people would be wearing face masks to go shopping, or that we'd look at tv programmes and think, "Social distancing!!!!" and then realise it was something made months ago and people being close to each other was perfectly normal.

I'm not sure what to make of it all to be honest.

Without the lockdown, this covid19 virus would have killed in excess of half a million people in the UK, and millions would have been very poorly and required medical attention of some kind. The health service would have collapsed. That estimate is only to the beginning of May

There is no comparison

I think the reason you'll find the response in 2020 is so different is in the article itself. To quote from the article:
In the 1957 pandemic "deaths peaking at about 600 in the week ending Oct 17, 1957" - that's peak 600 in a week. COVID-19 in the UK was taking over a 1,000 a day at the peak.
The 1957 flu killed 20,000 people in 12 months. COVID-19 has done double that in two months.
The 1968 pandemic "raged over three years" and killed 30,000. Again, COVID-19 has killed many more in two months.
It's also worth pointing out that we build lasting immunity to influenza strains. Not so with coronavirus. We broadly understanding how influenza works and its complications. We are only just beginning to understand SARS-CoV-2 and possible long-term health impacts for recovered patients.

If you follow the author of the Lancet article, Mark Honigsbaum, on Twitter you will see that he certainly does not think COVID-19 is a little flu - he thinks it's a lot worse.
twitter.com/honigsbaum/status/1265905804785455105?s=20

People referring to actions they don't see as necessary as evidence of 'panic' comes up over and over again at the moment.

Agree. We have to acknowledge that this isn't 1968, and that actions that would have been justified in 1968 by lack of knowledge and resources, would now be a deliberate choice not to provide care.

@Flaxmeadow is that Nail Ferguson’s dodgy report?

With lockdown and staying within nhs it will kill 500k. We are at 55k or so excess. For 7% immunity. So toget to 70% having had it x10 so 550k. The only way it wont is if people do have an immunity that is immate and not measured by antibodies.
So even if say only maybe 3000 under 60 - not sure of the number that would be 30k under 60.
And only 100 kids with kawasaki becomes only 1000 kids.
And this is without any thought that those having had it could get again and die not least because they may have permanent organ damage