What's up with the shift in facemask use?

[GodsGrace101]

That's what I thought -- they wouldn't really understand much. Of course, it's right compared to today, but....

I was surprised to see that indeed they not only understood spread to a significant degree, but wore face masks widely.

1918 Flu Pandemic
U.S.

Overseas:

Photos of the 1918 Flu Pandemic

They DID know about germs by 1918.

IF these pix are representative,,,then why did so many die? Another member posted 50 to 100 milliion.

 

[Halbhh]

there was 1.8 billion people on earth in 1918 today there is 7.7 billion. So if we say 100 million died of Influenza in 1918 it's like 5.5% of the world's population.

100 million today is 1.2% of the world's population, currently the 74,807 deaths is 0.001% of the world's population.

stuff like ventilators weren't invented yet in 1918 so I suspect technology has played a significant role in saving lives that were out of reach in 1918.

I don't understand why people post totals like this from before the peak as if to suggest this would also be very roughly the right order of magnitude of the total deaths from this pandemic. (as if it would only be 100k or 200k or so in the world when it's all done)

Is it a communication problem?

Maybe if you write in "so far" as in "even though it's very early, at this early moment, so far, we have only like 75,000 deaths, that is, earlier today, but by now it's more of course"

Then people wouldn't react to the post in a corrective way so much.

If the huge and dramatic world wide efforts are successful, with a large fraction of all workers in the world currently idle, it would be quite great if we could hold world wide deaths under 1 million. That's pretty optimistic guessing though. It's very early.

 

[ap_Earwood]

It's not just about you though, you probably can man it out sure, but what if you give it to someone else who can't? I was told that 2 babies in the US have died from it. Think about their parents. We all have to do what we can to help others as well as ourselves. To think about the weaker members of society, and also the hospital staff who are overworked, tired and stressed. At the very least everyone should practice social distances and good hygiene and for goodness sakes stay home if you even suspect that you are sick.



Corvid has not even reached its peak yet. Compare figures come September.

It does not mean that I should wear a facemask. If you are worried about your child's safety, or your own safety for that matter, then you should stay home or wear a facemask.

It's like, someone gets sick, and they lock everybody up, when really they need to be locking the sick person up.

And some of the best reasoning I've ever heard a pastor say, if you are afraid of catching the virus, don't come to church! But, do not force ME to stop holding church. (I'm pretty sure the pastor got arrested for holding physical church service). It's a libertarian way of thinking, no doubt.

 

[Halbhh]

They DID know about germs by 1918.

IF these pix are representative,,,then why did so many die? Another member posted 50 to 100 milliion.

Very contagious, like this virus, but unlike this virus, the 1918 flu also was very dangerous to healthy younger adults. This current virus seems to be dangerous primarily to those with a serious underlying condition(s), which for the U.S. is a large portion of the population, like on the order of 40% or more (40-60%). (older people do tend to have such conditions more on average, but some not-small number of under 60yr olds do also). Of course in 1918 they didn't realize what was going on so quickly, nor did they have such massive stay-at-home.

 

[RDKirk]

That's what I thought -- they wouldn't really understand much. Of course, it's right compared to today, but....

I was surprised to see that indeed they not only understood spread to a significant degree, but wore face masks widely.

Yes, they understood the need for quarantine better than people understand it today, and many communities went to "shelter in place" not differently from today.

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, they understood the need for quarantine better than people understand it today, and many communities went to "shelter in place" not differently from today.

Ah, currently 90% of the American population is under shelter in place orders in their location.

I wonder what that percentage was in 1918, or even just a well founded guesstimate....I'll try to find.

 

[RDKirk]

They DID know about germs by 1918.

IF these pix are representative,,,then why did so many die? Another member posted 50 to 100 milliion.

They knew about bacteria--and that was pretty recently applied knowledge for the medical community--and they tried to apply what they knew about bacteria to the flu...but many of their newly learned lessons for protection and prevention against bacteria didn't work against viruses. They spent a lot of time spinning their wheels before they learned they were facing something very different. They couldn't detect viruses, and wouldn't be able to for another twenty years, so they were handicapped.

Moreover and more importantly, the world at large was a very, very different environment. Ordinary living conditions were much much worse even in the industrialized nations. Common concepts of keeping a clean house, having clean drinking water, having effective sewage, effective heating and air conditioning, et cetera, were still decades away for most people even in the industrialized nations.

Also, they were just getting into the era of moving great quantities of people very quickly around the world. A lot of the international spread was caused by the US moving large numbers of troops between the US and Europe--a social phenomenon that hadn't occurred before.

They did know about quarantines, however, and practiced that probably a bit more effectively than we do today.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Very contagious, like this virus, but unlike this virus, the 1918 flu also was very dangerous to healthy younger adults. This current virus seems to be dangerous primarily to those with a serious underlying condition(s), which for the U.S. is a large portion of the population, like on the order of 40% or more (40-60%). (older people do tend to have such conditions more on average, but some not-small number of under 60yr olds do also). Of course in 1918 they didn't realize what was going on so quickly, nor did they have such massive stay-at-home.

Italy has an older population so the death rate here is at about 10%, or slightly higher.

I didn't think the states were an older or weak population...but things change.

I was also wondering about travel...
No planes in 1918...how did it spread so quickly from country to country? I never thought of this....

 

[RDKirk]

Ah, currently 90% of the American population is under shelter in place orders in their location.

I wonder what that percentage was in 1918, or even just a well founded guesstimate....I'll try to find.

You'll find some communities that had social shutdowns and some that didn't. You'll also find starkly different consequences between those that did and those that didn't.

My point is that our "shelter-in-place" in 2020 is not a novel concept in America...there were communities doing it the same way in 1918.

 

[RDKirk]

I was also wondering about travel...
No planes in 1918...how did it spread so quickly from country to country? I never thought of this....

For the first time mass numbers of people were being moved between continents because of WWI--particularly by the US. A lot of the intercontinental spread has been pinpointed to movement of American troops.

 

[GodsGrace101]

They knew about bacteria--and that was pretty recently applied knowledge for the medical community--and they tried to apply what they knew about bacteria to the flu...but many of their newly learned lessons for protection and prevention against bacteria didn't work against viruses. They spent a lot of time spinning their wheels before they learned they were facing something very different. They couldn't detect viruses, and wouldn't be able to for another twenty years, so they were handicapped.

Moreover and more importantly, the world at large was a very, very different environment. Ordinary living conditions were much much worse even in the industrialized nations. Common concepts of keeping a clean house, having clean drinking water, having effective sewage, effective heating and air conditioning, et cetera, were still decades away for most people even in the industrialized nations.

Also, they were just getting into the era of moving great quantities of people very quickly around the world. A lot of the international spread was caused by the US moving large numbers of troops between the US and Europe--a social phenomenon that hadn't occurred before.

They did know about quarantines, however, and practiced that probably a bit more effectively than we do today.

Thanks for all the info.

I had just asked another member how it could have spread so quickly since there were no planes...silly me, I forgot about WWI

And good point about not being able to detect virus for many more years...they're much smaller in size.

 

[Halbhh]

You'll find some communities that had social shutdowns and some that didn't. You'll also find starkly different consequences between those that did and those that didn't.

My point is that our "shelter-in-place" in 2020 is not a novel concept in America...there were communities doing it the same way in 1918.

Yes, been hearing that. St. Louis vs Philadelphia, and the devastating outcome in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia (below) went ahead with a big parade, unlike St. Louis.

This chart of the 1918 Spanish flu shows why social distancing works

"A different story played out in St. Louis, just 900 miles away. Within two days of detecting its first cases among civilians, the city closed schools, playgrounds, libraries, courtrooms, and even churches. Work shifts were staggered and streetcar ridership was strictly limited. Public gatherings of more than 20 people were banned."

Dr. Acton in the daily briefings with Gov. Dewine of Ohio has been especially good last month in illustrating. She's probably why Ohio led the nation in closing schools, I'm guessing.

I'm seeing it's not easy to just search up an estimate of how many sheltered in place back in 1918. Maybe there won't be any number that is other than a guess. Do you have any source to look at?

 

[crossnote]

Corvid has not even reached its peak yet. Compare figures come September.

Thing is typically influenza seasons last only about 3-4 months. This one would really have to spike big time and last a long time.
"Seasonal flu kills 291,000 to 646,000 people worldwide each year, according to a new estimate that's higher than the previous one of 250,000 to 500,000 deaths a year." .. Flu Kills 646,000 People Worldwide Each Year: Study

 

[Halbhh]

Thing is typically influenza seasons last only about 3-4 months. This one would really have to spike big time and last a long time.
"Seasonal flu kills 291,000 to 646,000 people worldwide each year, according to a new estimate that's higher than the previous one of 250,000 to 500,000 deaths a year." .. Flu Kills 646,000 People Worldwide Each Year: Study

Well....

Coronavirus Update (Live): 1,383,436 Cases and 78,917 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer
Look at the 2 graphs under the 3 big numbers.

See how the peak is in the future? We are not even close.

Or were you thinking of just 1 nation?

 

[crossnote]

Well....

Coronavirus Update (Live): 1,383,436 Cases and 78,917 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer
Look at the 2 graphs under the 3 big numbers.

See how the peak is in the future? We are not even close.

Or were you thinking of just 1 nation?

No, I was thinking of the average duration of the flu season (3-4 months) and then comparing the stats. Remember those worldwide deaths (2-5 million) happened mainly in a short time span of 5 months max.
But as you say, we'll wait and see.

 

[Ricky M]

It does not mean that I should wear a facemask. If you are worried about your child's safety, or your own safety for that matter, then you should stay home or wear a facemask.

It's like, someone gets sick, and they lock everybody up, when really they need to be locking the sick person up.

And some of the best reasoning I've ever heard a pastor say, if you are afraid of catching the virus, don't come to church! But, do not force ME to stop holding church. (I'm pretty sure the pastor got arrested for holding physical church service). It's a libertarian way of thinking, no doubt.

What a self centered, ignorant view! Certainly NOT Christian AT ALL!

For your information, the current knowledge is that the virus is being spread by people who are infected but showing no symptoms. THAT is why we are to stay at home and THAT is why we are to wear masks when we go out. They are in effect locking up the sick. AND THAT INCLUDES YOU!!!

Man up and wear your dang mask! Or answer to God why you had no care or concern for those around you.

 

[ap_Earwood]

What a self centered, ignorant view! Certainly NOT Christian AT ALL!

For your information, the current knowledge is that the virus is being spread by people who are infected but showing no symptoms. THAT is why we are to stay at home and THAT is why we are to wear masks when we go out. They are in effect locking up the sick. AND THAT INCLUDES YOU!!!

Man up and wear your dang mask! Or answer to God why you had no care or concern for those around you.

The whole purpose of this is to condition us into accepting the new world order and antichrist. This is a step towards it. Therefor, by rejecting it I am correct.
It's not ignorant or self-centered, it's logical and right.
Jesus said he came to give us "abundant-life", now I am not 100% sure what abundant-life is, but I definitely know what it isn't: quarantine.
I believe abundant-life is free will, but that's my personal belief.

I am not saying I do not have concern for those around me, if they are outside then they are openly accepting the risk of catching it, no? If they are fine with taking the risk, why should I be forced to wear a mask? I'm 100% fine with catching it. If someone is outside, they know the risk they are taking. (personally, I think the numbers are doctored out of proportion to push the agenda)

This is all a scheme for the new world order. Force everybody to stay at home. Soon, the majority will be so tired of staying home, that the new world order will promise them to have their lives back the way it was as long as they accept the mark of the beast. That's whats gonna happen! Another thing this does, is disbandon the church and make it purely online. If something is online, the government can see it and has access to it. They want everything online, so they can track everything. Bill Gates has been talking about putting "digital trackers" into people who have gotten the vaccine for coronavirus, I believe that's the mark of the beast.

Now, what's self-centered about personal freedom? What is not christian about personal-freedom? I will never, ever, wear a mask.

 

[Ricky M]

The whole purpose of this is to condition us into accepting the new world order and antichrist. This is a step towards it. Therefor, by rejecting it I am correct.
It's not ignorant or self-centered, it's logical and right.
Jesus said he came to give us "abundant-life", now I am not 100% sure what abundant-life is, but I definitely know what it isn't: quarantine.
I believe abundant-life is free will, but that's my personal belief.

I am not saying I do not have concern for those around me, if they are outside then they are openly accepting the risk of catching it, no? If they are fine with taking the risk, why should I be forced to wear a mask? I'm 100% fine with catching it. If someone is outside, they know the risk they are taking. (personally, I think the numbers are doctored out of proportion to push the agenda)

This is all a scheme for the new world order. Force everybody to stay at home. Soon, the majority will be so tired of staying home, that the new world order will promise them to have their lives back the way it was as long as they accept the mark of the beast. That's whats gonna happen! Another thing this does, is disbandon the church and make it purely online. If something is online, the government can see it and has access to it. They want everything online, so they can track everything. Bill Gates has been talking about putting "digital trackers" into people who have gotten the vaccine for coronavirus, I believe that's the mark of the beast.

Now, what's self-centered about personal freedom? What is not christian about personal-freedom? I will never, ever, wear a mask.

You are conflating two entirely separate issues. That is not a healthy attitude. Certainly not a Christian one.

Get help.

And please STAY OUT OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

 

[Ricky M]

.

 

[ap_Earwood]

You are conflating two entirely separate issues. That is not a healthy attitude. Certainly not a Christian one.

Get help.

And please STAY OUT OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

What is not christian about my response man?

Also, watch this.