Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the 1918 Flu Spread Across America (2017)

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 155 posts

Re: How the 1918 Flu Spread Across America (2017)

#91

Post by certmd »

Macha wrote: post #86
nostromo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that the 1918 flu was unique in that it killed many young, healthy people. Corona virus is more typical in that it's primarily killing the very old or otherwise ill. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...

How much of that was down to the disease, compared to the conditions that "young, healthy" people would have been subjected to during a world war?

From the article (as well as other places I've read similar things).

"Why did so many young adults die? As it happens, young adults have the strongest immune systems, which attacked the virus with every weapon possible—including chemicals called cytokines and other microbe-fighting toxins—and the battlefield was the lung. These “cytokine storms” further damaged the patient’s own tissue."

The more robust immune response was a large cause of the increased mortality.

Re: How the 1918 Flu Spread Across America (2017)

#92

Post by anonAndOn »

nostromo wrote: post #40
jtdev wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add a little context: I’m currently scheduled to attend a ~50000 attendee international conference in the U.S. My employer has sponsored - and I’m not in a position to refuse to attend (yet). The host org is standing firm on pushing forward as scheduled, but has released a bunch of PR B.S. communications about hand sanitizer, face masks, etc. being provided and quarantine of symptomatic individuals at the event (n…

Panic is unwarranted. On the cruise ship, which is known for being full of old people, there were 3 deaths out of ~750 known cases. Almost everyone dying so far has had another medical issue or been very old. Reports now say that many people testing positive have no symptoms at all and aren't getting sick. There have been zero deaths of children so far, which is unlike the flu. The youngest death was in his mid 30s.…

While it may not kill many quickly, you might be underestimating the long term effects of permanent lung damage. [0]

[0]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/here-is-w...

Re: How the 1918 Flu Spread Across America (2017)

#93

Post by pault »

jtdev wrote: post #46
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, what conference is that big? NAB?

HIMSS (Health Information and Management Systems Society), the irony is just...

I suggest dropping some of your concerns around social media to see if it picks up steam. If it gets the attention of enough people, they'll have to take it more seriously. The way you've described it irks me a little bit.

Re: How the 1918 Flu Spread Across America (2017)

#94

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

bitbuilder wrote: post #80
nostromo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Panic is unwarranted. On the cruise ship, which is known for being full of old people, there were 3 deaths out of ~750 known cases. Almost everyone dying so far has had another medical issue or been very old. Reports now say that many people testing positive have no symptoms at all and aren't getting sick. There have been zero deaths of children so far, which is unlike the flu. The youngest death was in his mid 30s.…

>3 deaths out of ~750 known cases Actually it's 6 out of 705. [0][1] May seem like a small difference, but a 0.8% chance of dying is 8x more than the flu. Never mind the fact that the data out of China, Italy, Japan and Iran is all trending around the 2-3% CFR calculated and published in multiple peer reviewed journals. [2][3] (However, South Korea might be reason for hope.) >or been very old It bothers me immensely…

>Actually it's 6 out of 705. [0][1] May seem like a small difference, but a 0.8% chance of dying is 8x more than the flu.

There's a good chance being confined to a cabin in a cruise ship and acquiring COVID-19 is more detrimental to someone than if they had a community acquired infection going about their normal life.

Being restricted like that implies they're getting significantly less exercise than they would normally, and the stress combined with lack of sun can do a number on someone's sleep cycle. That in turn can influence cognition, especially in the elderly, and I imagine increases the chances of being dehydrated/etc...

It's like being in a hospital, which tends to do a number on most people, but without supportive around the clock care.

Re: How the 1918 Flu Spread Across America (2017)

#95

Post by feral »

nostromo wrote: post #40
jtdev wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add a little context: I’m currently scheduled to attend a ~50000 attendee international conference in the U.S. My employer has sponsored - and I’m not in a position to refuse to attend (yet). The host org is standing firm on pushing forward as scheduled, but has released a bunch of PR B.S. communications about hand sanitizer, face masks, etc. being provided and quarantine of symptomatic individuals at the event (n…

Panic is unwarranted. On the cruise ship, which is known for being full of old people, there were 3 deaths out of ~750 known cases. Almost everyone dying so far has had another medical issue or been very old. Reports now say that many people testing positive have no symptoms at all and aren't getting sick. There have been zero deaths of children so far, which is unlike the flu. The youngest death was in his mid 30s.…

Cruise ship analysis is naive.

People from the cruise ship are still in the process of dieing. 2 more deaths occured today.

The number of recovered cases from the cruise ship is low, so naive inference on death rate so far is misleading.

Re: How the 1918 Flu Spread Across America (2017)

#96

Post by evanelias »

erikerikson wrote: post #74
Loughla wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I've been on a politics fast for a few days, so I missed that. Without devolving into an inevitable political shouting match, what would the purpose of that move be?

Signaling that it's being taken seriously at the "highest levels" to support confidence?

I wonder if it could also be an insurance strategy: if things go south, Pence takes all the blame and is booted from the 2020 ticket?

Re: How the 1918 Flu Spread Across America (2017)

#97

Post by pbourke »

jtdev wrote: post #52
moneil971 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been seeing quite a lot of major conferences being cancelled and/or large companies deciding not to attend. In many cases they’ve waited as long as possible before officially cancelling to see if things improve. I would think you have the right to express your concerns and decide not to attend - if enough people do the same, the event may be postponed or cancelled.

They (HIMSS PR) blocked me for asking about the preparedness plan (which is completely inadequate) on Twitter... maybe I should have asked via email, but it seemed like a conversation that the community would have interest in. They seem to be in complete “protect sunk costs at all measures” mode.

HIMSS is a healthcare conference? That’s rather ironic.

Re: How the 1918 Flu Spread Across America (2017)

#98

Post by anonAndOn »

nostromo wrote: post #55
bcrosby95 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why officials haven't come out suggesting things like this. And to avoid non-mandatory travel. It's probably a bit late for this stuff from a containment perspective. But it would help reduce the r0. Speaking personally, I have to decide by mid March if we should take our trip to Legoland in San Diego. Right now I'm leaning towards "no". And I don't imagine the outlook will be much better in just 2 weeks…

Because they're balancing being extra-cautious with the serious risks of overreacting. The worst case scenario right now is that some people might lose their grandparents a couple years early -- which is obviously incredibly sad, but also not something worth crashing the world economy over.

As cavalier and apathetic as your assessment is, that is far, far from the worst case scenario.

Re: How the 1918 Flu Spread Across America (2017)

#99

Post by nostromo »

tkahnoski wrote: post #78
nostromo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're balancing being extra-cautious with the serious risks of overreacting. The worst case scenario right now is that some people might lose their grandparents a couple years early -- which is obviously incredibly sad, but also not something worth crashing the world economy over.

Ouch. I have this opinion of my dog. An extra year or two... not a big deal. I do not have this opinion of my parents or any other immuno-compromised individual. Your worst-case-scenario is absolutely the worst-case scenario in many individual's minds. If the greater good is not the extension of the life of those around us what exactly are we trying to do here? There are many things worth crashing the world-economy o…

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

Re: How the 1918 Flu Spread Across America (2017)

#100

Post by ci5er »

pbourke wrote: post #97
jtdev wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They (HIMSS PR) blocked me for asking about the preparedness plan (which is completely inadequate) on Twitter... maybe I should have asked via email, but it seemed like a conversation that the community would have interest in. They seem to be in complete “protect sunk costs at all measures” mode.

HIMSS is a healthcare conference? That’s rather ironic.

Health IT. Less about fixing broken humans and more about selling technology. But, your point stands.
Post reply on HN