
What we can learn from the 1918 flu pandemic - jkuria
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-we-can-learn-from-the-20th-centurys-deadliest-pandemic-11583510468
======
neonate
[https://archive.md/BzVSx](https://archive.md/BzVSx)

~~~
politelemon
Thank you

------
burlesona
This is a really good article, and the contrast in the outcomes between
Philadelphia and St. Louis is such a clear example why aggressive social
distancing is so crucial right now. Thanks for sharing!

------
melling
I was watching this clip of Michael Osterholm on Joe Rogen:

[https://youtu.be/B6IgMdsZHbM](https://youtu.be/B6IgMdsZHbM)

He said the covid-19 would eventually slow once enough people get it then
we’ll have sufficient immunity that it won’t spread.

Of course, he also said a lot of people are going to get it and we’re at the
very beginning of a multi-year problem.

~~~
the6threplicant
In other words it's following a logistics curve. This is what every pandemic
does: the problem is that we can't know when the inflection point is.
Sometimes it's quite early on, and sometimes it isn't. Plan for the latter,
hope for the former.

~~~
shadowprofile77
Unless Chinese officials are still lying about their cases, and international
observers are being fooled despite now knowing to look carefully, it seems
(only tentatively, not saying it's the case at this point) that China is
already reaching an inflection point. The number of new cases has dropped
heavily and the death count is shrinking too apparently. That this is possibly
already happening in such a densely populated region could bode well for the
rest of the world for the initial surge in cases leveling off sooner than some
are predicting.

I've seen a surprising amount of panic and unfounded assumptions towards the
worst from many commentators here on HN and though it's perhaps to be expected
from a crowd with a notable number of visible hypochondriacs, it's
disappointing to see too. This isn't to say that concerns about the virus
should be neglected or that people shouldn't take practical precautionary
measures seriously but someone leaping to cataclysmic conclusions based on
early figures is no more substantive than another person dismissing the whole
thing as nothing major. Both are based on notions without backing and
impossible foreknowledge.

~~~
kjakm
>> Unless Chinese officials are still lying about their cases

Is/was there a whole lot of evidence of this? Was it a local problem in some
parts of China? Or was it unfounded? It seems to me there's been just as much
of this going on in the west + we're doing a much worse job of handling the
epidemic than China has done. I don't have any personal opinion on China
generally but the amount of China bashing + hypocrisy in the last few weeks
has been astonishing. Supposedly they are even at the point where they are
shipping supplies they no longer need to Italy (masks + other equipment) and
considering sending people to help too.

~~~
shadowprofile77
I in no way intended my comment to be seen as China bashing for its own sake,
but in the early days of the epidemic in Wuhan, there were noted incidents of
at least local officials claiming false information about how contagious COVID
was and how far it had spread. It's difficult to generally trust any
authoritarian regime that has a vested interest in downplaying things which in
part worsened because of its own bad initial response but no, nothing right
now gives a solid reason to doubt the current numbers on cases, fatalities,
recoveries from China and if indeed they are true as they likely are, the
reduction in new cases is visible, and even if that's being achieved through
strict measures, it's heartening to see, because it shows that COVID spread
can indeed be mitigated to some extent through social measures while medical
resources brace themselves

------
aaron695
The Spanish Flu was previous to really having cars or dual incomes.

I'm not sure you can learn the same lessons.

I don't shop in the same stores as any of my friends for instance. I only
occasionally see acquaintances at the shops.

H1N1 case study in Texas is interesting.

Italian Grandparents Step in as Schools Close Amid COVID
[https://time.com/5797637/italian-grandparents-coronavirus-
ba...](https://time.com/5797637/italian-grandparents-coronavirus-babysitters/)

~~~
squarefoot
About the grandparents caring for the children: it's true that this could pose
a risk, however it also keeps the risk confined to a single family circle,
which wouldn't be the case with a nanny who could then potentially spread the
infection to her own family or other families kids.

------
ktr
For a fascinating, in-depth look at the Spanish flu of 1918 check out John
Barry’s “The Great Influenza” [1]. The book was amazing and gives you a real
sense of what one of the worst pandemics in history must have been like.

[1] The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143036491](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143036491).

~~~
francisofascii
FWIW, I recently ordered a Spanish Flu book by Gina Kolata, and it took more
than a week to arrive instead of the normal two days. Kindle version might be
a better bet.

------
Stevvo
If it spreads to infect a large proportion of the world's population, it way
be beneficial to get it now, before the healthcare services are overwhelmed.

~~~
sigstoat
might've been an option a month and a half ago. but: exponential growth. most
western countries are _days_ behind italy. if you're destined to downturn,
it'll take you a week or more to need the ventilator, and you'd be on it for
some time.

------
baby
Paywall

------
alex_young
I know about archive.org etc, but it’s really striking to see public health
reporting behind a paywall.

~~~
o_____________o
Yeah, and FTA:

> In the face of highly variable responses from public officials, the media
> served as an essential ally of the public health community in fighting the
> pandemic.

~~~
CaptArmchair
This can be true in this particular context.

However, the difference between private media outlets, such as WSJ, and the
public health administration is that the latter is being paid for by taxes.
Your taxes.

The only "free" media are public media such as public broadcasters. Even so,
those aren't "free" as in "free beer", they are part of a fiscal budget and
the only reason why you can consume them with little restrictions is because
that's foundational to public policy.

It's perfectly acceptable for private ventures, such as WSJ, NYT or WaPo, to
put their articles behind a paywall. Put differently, even during the 1918
pandemic, you would still pay the paperboy on the corner of the street a few
nickles to get a copy of the daily.

If you think that the WSJ or NYT are mere outlets for public health
administration, you're very much mistaken. The "independence" of the Press
serves one goal in particular: to critically assert public governance. That
independence is a constitutional right, but it's not a guarantee nor an
entitlement.

Good journalism needs to be paid for. The digital age didn't suddenly
deprecate the expense associated with doing research and writing a good piece.

So, the statement needs to be amended:

> the media served as an essential ally of the public health community in
> fighting the pandemic, but it can only do so if the audience is willing to
> pay for the efforts.

Yes, I understand that in modern economics, particular outlets are part of
larger corporations. A newspaper can be a losing proposition if the costs can
be covered through other income channels.

The downside of that is the reduction of quality as media channels devolve in
sheer revenue machines (ads, subscriptions,...) or heavily biased outlets.
Hence why I feel that supporting journalist organisations, who aren't "brands"
bought by larger corporations, is where audiences can really make a difference
if we hope to let a true "free and independent" press survive.

TL;DR: The "free" in "free press" doesn't mean free lunch.

~~~
tuukkah
You don't need to be for-profit to be independent, and you don't need a
paywall to get paid - see Guardian:
[https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/may/01/the-
guardian-...](https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/may/01/the-guardian-
break-even-katharine-viner)

~~~
CaptArmchair
> You don't need to be for-profit to be independent

When I stated "private", I implicitly referred to for-profit and non-profit
organizations a-like.

I could go on a tangent about the merits and differences between public and
private legal entities, non-profit and profit based organizations. I could
even dive into the rabbit hole of private organizations who receive grants
from public endowments and such.

It's an interesting discussion. But that would be splitting hairs.

It should be clear that organizing any media outlet implies incurring costs
and expenses, regardless. Those need to be covered somehow. And the strategic
choices made in picking sources of revenue are going to affect independence in
subtle and less subtle ways regardless.

> and you don't need a paywall to get paid - see Guardian

I didn't say news outlets "need" a paywall. I said that there is no such thing
as a free lunch and someone always pays for putting the news out.

The last paragraph in that op-ed explicitly states how necessary it is to pay
for content:

> In the last three years, more than one million people around the world have
> chosen to support The Guardian financially. Thank you to all of you who have
> supported us and we hope more of you will consider joining us on this
> mission — you can do this through voluntary contributions, subscriptions to
> the Guardian, the Observer and Guardian Weekly, or as part of our patrons
> programme. As we approach the Guardian’s 200th anniversary in 2021, your
> support will help ensure we can keep holding the powerful to account, with
> purpose, for many generations to come.

I was also well aware of the choice made by the Guardian. I omitted the
example because their choice entails taking a calculated but huge risk:
politely asking their audience to pay for free content could have gone
horribly wrong. The audience of the Guardian was willing to follow suit, but
another audience might simply indulge in freeloading without limits.

~~~
tuukkah
Thanks for elaborating! I think we mostly agree. Perhaps the biggest question
is whether it's ok to profit from the pandemia? I would say in general it's ok
as long as your prices are reasonable and there is no surge pricing, but media
outlets can have a conflict of interest between reliable reporting and
attention-seeking. For WSJ, the middle ground might be to fund their pandemia
coverage from their profits elsewhere, and to profit indirectly via new
readership.

~~~
CaptArmchair
Exactly! News doesn't "happen", it is "made". Hence the phrase "that made the
headlines!". Reporting is mirroring events as they happen, and in doing so
creating a narrative that explains why things happen and how they unfold.

This is where context matters and Marshall McLuhan's "The medium is the
message" starts to make sense.

> He said that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role not only
> by the content delivered over the medium, but also by the characteristics of
> the medium itself.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message)

> Perhaps the biggest question is whether it's ok to profit from the pandemia?

I think it's hard question to answer because you're implicitly asking "can we
find a universal standard that provides a consistent answer in different
contexts?" and the answer is "no" because ethical and moral standards are
always based on a collective consensus emerging from the interplay between
many individual, contradicting beliefs. This is why moral standards can also
shift and change over time.

It's worth observing that there will always be unscrupulous outlets ready to
profit from a good crisis ("don't let a good crisis go to waste!").

This is where it's up to society to define their own moral standards and give
individuals the leverage through education to critically assert the value of
the news. Is this item truly informative or is it clear fearmongering and not
worth the paper it was printed on? And how much do we value voicing our own
dissent or disagreement with what was printed?

------
allovernow
I've been extremely pessimistic since early January when I started following
this obsessively - and I still think it's going to get far worse before it
gets better.

But there is a silver lining here. This is probably the first time in history
that a disease will have this much attention from so many researchers. There's
a good chance someone will find a cure or prophylactic relatively soon, even
if a vaccine is unlikely.

Also any potential drug will be put on rush evaluation so things should move
quickly - there's Hope yet.

~~~
nkozyra
I agree. And yet there are swarms of people complaining the media attention is
alarmist or that this is no big deal.

Pretty sure public response so far, at least stateside.

~~~
smolder
It's my anecdotal observation that there are more people hysterical _over the
hysteria_ than there are people legitimately hysterical over the virus. But
that's probably not representative. I hope.

------
LilBytes
Link around the paywall: [http://apkmetro.com/what-we-can-learn-from-the-20th-
centurys...](http://apkmetro.com/what-we-can-learn-from-the-20th-centurys-
deadliest-pandemic/)

~~~
war1025
That's a very odd link. It's mostly the same but has many transcription
errors. Maybe to ward off automated takedown notices or something?

~~~
aaron695
I assume they run it through a translator and back. Other ideas?

It's just to wash it for copyright.

It's actually a good business case for GANs (In the underground)

