Another highly relevant thing has changed: population density. The US, for example, has tripled in population since 1918. That means three times as many people to get sick...Let’s assume the new avian flu was essentially identical to the 1918 variant. You’re looking back at stats from 100 years ago, but important things have changed. While our practice & science of medicine have improved, so has the speed of travel. A person infected with the flu today could be spreading it on the other side of the world tomorrow. That was impossible in 1918.
I believe the word ”if” would be more accurate here.If there is another epidemic, we won't have Nixon to kick around any more.
So when the plans do not work out as envisioned, will the "experts" use data from past experience to change adapt and (we hope) improve The Plan, or will they stand on the sidelines, point fingers at each other / everybody else, and complain?
I meant to mention that and my brain farted. Thanks for filling that particular gap!Another highly relevant thing has changed: population density. The US, for example, has tripled in population since 1918. That means three times as many people to get sick...
They had that low percentage largely because- as noted- they masked and practiced stepped-up hygiene, generally speaking. Had we done likewise, we would have had hundreds of thousands more Americans still breathing air.Although, to be fair, if proper measures are taken, population density doesn't seem to be a big contributing factor. I mean, Japan has what, ten times the population density of the US and only 1% of the deaths? It just freaks me out to watch how poorly the West has handled all of this. It's just so mind boggling that, in Canada, we've had 16000 plus deaths and people are STILL protesting mask mandates.
It really is discouraging.
Add to that the probability that a Japanese person will stay home from work when contagious Vs Americans who would do likewise.
No question, that’s not an option everyone has. An Indian politician made that point months ago regarding lockdowns & quarantines in his country.Hr. I mean, I have a well-paid, salaried job. I have sick days, and a really lenient work-from-home policy to fall back on. Lots of other folks, not so much.
I stand by "when".I believe the word ”if” would be more accurate here.
12% of a plan.... Winging it works in a sci-fi movie. Not so much in a real life crisis.I stand by "when".
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
And if what we implemented was a medically-derived plan, it suffered gaping flaws that non-experts saw early on (pat self on back):
Little effort to contact trace unless the patient became Intensive Care serious.
Did not distinguish between sick and healthy.
Did not separate the sick from the healthy, nor put containment lines around areas known to be affected to prevent carriers from spreading it more widely.
No research (or findings ignored) into immunobooster activities that would help civilians fend off exposure.
Lockdowns had not been used against any other epidemic for a century; why was this the proper strategy and not another?
The potential economic and psychological side-effects of universal lockdowns not taken seriously - and led straight to a violation of Hippocrates' maxim "First, do no harm" when they became actual effects.
Hmph, I'm bleeding over from the plan to stubbornly refusing to adapt it as circumstances dictated, I'll stop now.