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

In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

aier.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 312 posts

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#171

Post by kristopolous »

mabbo wrote: post #111

> Whereas lockdowns in the Covid-19 case might have contributed to a lengthening of the crisis by delaying herd immunity The point of the lockdown was not to entirely stop the spread- that was obviously not happening. It was to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming hospitals. It allowed us to reduce the lethality of COVID-19 by having more resources per sick person.

Also it's not the same disease.

I assume experts look at a large number of factors to assess whether it should or should not happen and measure the disease by a variety of metrics.

Also I'd assume the urbanization, science, and ability to execute a lockdown changes over 62 years. Also the nature of work is different. Nobody was doing home computer video conferencing in 1958.

If anyone really wanted to compare it, they'd probably need to have some technical expertise in both diseases and also be some kind of specialized historian.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#172

Post by kelipso »

refurb wrote: post #121
shapenamer wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always blows my mind when people suggest the only reason someone wouldn't trust the US government is because they've fallen for some misinformation. The US government does a great job of destroying trust all by itself.

It's really odd seeing comments on HN upvoted like: US government overthrew Iran democratic government -> "I know the US is so evil!" US government secretly injecting US citizens with radioactive material -> "My gosh, what's wrong with these people?" US government lies about reasons for Iraq War -> "One of the great crimes of the century" Then someone suggests , that just maybe , the lockdowns weren't based on scienc…

They are propagandised to the gills. Their brains will break and they probably won't be able to function anymore if they try to go through all the contradictions.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#173

Post by rndmwlk »

saiya-jin wrote: post #129
mabbo wrote: post #111

> Whereas lockdowns in the Covid-19 case might have contributed to a lengthening of the crisis by delaying herd immunity The point of the lockdown was not to entirely stop the spread- that was obviously not happening. It was to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming hospitals. It allowed us to reduce the lethality of COVID-19 by having more resources per sick person.

Yeah but there were and are nasty side effects to this, covering literally hundreds of millions or rather billions of people in some form. Missed social interaction is super important for child development, but how do you want to measure that, how many harm points do you assign to this versus some old or frail person dying. And look at ie India, delaying the height of infection didn't help them at all, estimated numb…

>human life is human life regardless of origin

Not regardless of age though apparently?

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#174

Post by peyton »

nicoburns wrote: post #151
TeeMassive wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No, but an infectious disease is also limiting on people's freedoms, so it's equally not obvious that those rights override the rights of people to be protected from infectious diseases.

So at least in the US the founding political ideology is based on natural rights and social contract theory. Your conception is closer to patriarchal rights, which is in conflict (at least here in the US).

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#175

Post by eggy »

xadhominemx wrote: post #130
heyjamesknight wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obesity rate is 4X what it was back then. So 2X for population, 4X for obesity, and then however you want to calculate the additional increase for an aging population. 10X ain't that crazy.

Why does it matter? When crafting the policy response, what matters is how many people will actually die, not some theoretical obesity-adjusted cfr

I would agree, but we're talking about 35 to 40% prevalence of obesity and all the attendant diseases caused by it in the US. If the next wave of the flu or pneumonia would kill those same people who were pushed over the edge by COVID, would you be for lock downs and business closings in these cases too? Because that's what happens whenever a person with that many comorbidities gets an infection like the flu or pneumonia and they are over 80, just like COVID. Diagnoses of obesity changed during this period too due to fat-shaming blow back. A lot of excuses are made for these actions saying any criticism is in hindsight, but there were scientists being censored and suppressed who were raising very good points with early data and reference to past social measures during pandemics too. The memory-holing of natural immunity in those who already had COVID, was almost criminal by the CDC and others. SARS-CoV-1 immunity studies were being conducted on survivors of it from 2003 for over 18 years and they still showed antibodies or immunity traits from natural infection. Even though, SARS-CoV-2 is pretty much believed to have been enhanced in the WIV at this point with an accidental lab leak causing it to spread worldwide, why wouldn't it have similar correlations with it's sibling virus re: natural immunity? Having contracted COVID in my mid-fifties and it being no more than the flu for me, I decided not to get vaccinated when it was becoming scary that I may lose my job for this stance and being stigmatized by all of my fellow workers. I did not argue against the vaccination in the vulnerable and those who didn't ever have COVID, but I had it, and I went with the overwhelming precedent of natural immunity as something that had always been recognized by the CDC and others (funny how the definition of natural immunity was edited over time on the CDC website to fit the narrative and push for vaccination). Glad I stuck to my guns and not to the mob's. One of the loudest voices at work rushed for all of his boosters and had COVID twice and was ill enough to take off work for a week for each incident not just because of quarantine rules, since he was working from home. Sadly, my nephew in his early twenties at the time received the vax and was rushed to the emergency room by ambulance with myocarditis, and to this day has follow-up appointments to track his cardiac health. He is a runner, athlete, with no previous medical conditions. Statistically, he was not even in any significant risk category.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#176

Post by TeeMassive »

nicoburns wrote: post #151
TeeMassive wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No, but an infectious disease is also limiting on people's freedoms, so it's equally not obvious that those rights override the rights of people to be protected from infectious diseases.

People are free to stay inside if they're afraid of getting sick. Rights can only be overridden if and only if there are no other choices, which is not the case here. Me getting to an hospital doesn't limit someone else's freedom.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#177

Post by empath-nirvana »

mabbo wrote: post #111

> Whereas lockdowns in the Covid-19 case might have contributed to a lengthening of the crisis by delaying herd immunity The point of the lockdown was not to entirely stop the spread- that was obviously not happening. It was to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming hospitals. It allowed us to reduce the lethality of COVID-19 by having more resources per sick person.

My general opinion of it is that lock downs at the beginning were essential for slowing the spread of the disease and allow the hospitals to prepare for it, but there was a point where the virus was endemic anyway that all the masking and isolation protocols were doing more harm than good.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#178

Post by actuallyalys »

This article seems to be hoping people will ignore differences between the two pandemics even though we just lived through one of them:

* Covid killed far more people. One estimate for global deaths for the 1957 flu is 1.1 million—around the number of deaths from COVID-19 in the U.S. alone

* COVID-19 hospitalized more people. Apparently, the 1957 flu did not overburden hospitals. Even with efforts to “flatten the curve,” COVID-19 did.

* COVID-19 is a longer illness. While some people recover in 3-5 days (the article’s estimate for the 1957 flu), 5 days is the minimum isolation period and longer recoveries (not even factoring in Long COVID) are common.

* The vaccine was available earlier in the pandemic’s course, at least in the U.S. According to a Smithsonian article [0], a vaccine researcher was able to convince companies to start manufacturing a vaccine before it became widespread in the U.S.

It also ignores the fact that despite not locking down in 1957, the U.S. went into a recession anyway.

[0]: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/unite...

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#179

Post by eggy »

weberer wrote: post #126
orwin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So Ebola virus is not as deadly as COVID because fewer people have died from it? Yes? That's the definition, no? Cows are deadlier than sharks, cars are deadlier than planes, even though you're more likely to survive a cow attack or a car crash?

>Yes? That's the definition, no? No, it pretty much always refers to the case fatality rate.

Yes, MERS killed less people but had R0 estimates from 2 to 5 based on the Saudi and South Korea infections. MERS killed 936 people with a CFR of 36%. The US has an observed-CFR of 1.1% due to COVID-19 (close to Canada with more stringent measures), and Peru, the highest, at 4.9%.

In more visceral terms, if the doctor says you either have MERS or SARS-CoV-2. What is your first thought, question? Which is more deadlier?

Post reply on HN