Do You Remember?

[Bootsie]

Do you have any recollection of the 1968 Hong Kong flu pandemic?  Or, do you know anyone who does?  I am old enough to remember other things from the late 60's but I have no recollection of the pandemic.  My husband was in college and he does not have any memory of it.  I asked my mom and she does not either.  That was very striking in that she was pregnant at the time, putting her at higher risk, and my father was an infectious disease investigator for a state health department in a state that was hard hit at the time.    

Over 1 million people died worldwide, with approximately 100,000 deaths in the US.  Adjusting for population changes, this would be equivalent to about 2 million deaths worldwide and 150,000 deaths in the US on an adjusted basis.  I haven't talked to anyone who really remembers any disruptions from it.  

[klmama]

I was quite young, so I don't remember any disruptions, but I definitely remember having it.  My family was visiting Hong Kong, and two of us caught it.  We had to stay in the hotel while the rest of the family enjoyed the city.   

[katilac]

57 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

 Over 1 million people died worldwide, with approximately 100,000 deaths in the US.  Adjusting for population changes, this would be equivalent to about 2 million deaths worldwide and 150,000 deaths in the US on an adjusted basis.  I haven't talked to anyone who really remembers any disruptions from it.  

About 100,000 deaths in the US total, yeah. That's counting  from the start of the outbreak in the states, September 1968, to the winter of 1969-1970. So roughly 18 months (none of my sources define 'winter,' lol, I counted January and February of 1970). 

So 100,000 deaths in the states over about 18 months for 1969 pandemic. Thus far, Covid-19 sits at about 88,000 for about 3 months and one week. 

In 1969, the second wave was far deadlier than the first, which we certainly hope won't be the case now. 

I'm finding it really hard to find articles talking about disruptions or changes. If anyone has a Wall Street Journal subscription, this one looks promising but is behind a paywall. From what I can see, they have a photo of a nurse with a sign saying that the hospital has restricted all visitors. The visible text says that it started in Wuhan, that New York City was in a state of emergency, that Berlin was stacking corpses in subway tunnels, and London's hospitals were overwhelmed. I hope someone can read and tell us more! The visitor restriction is one clear similarity. 

This link shows an ad saying to listen to the radio for government information (no country listed but it's in English), and also has some photos showing that clinics in Hong Kong were clearly not concerned with social distancing, lol. 

That's all I can find. No one in real life has ever mentioned it to me. 

 

[Bootsie]

12 minutes ago, katilac said:

About 100,000 deaths in the US total, yeah. That's counting  from the start of the outbreak in the states, September 1968, to the winter of 1969-1970. So roughly 18 months (none of my sources define 'winter,' lol, I counted January and February of 1970). 

So 100,000 deaths in the states over about 18 months for 1969 pandemic. Thus far, Covid-19 sits at about 88,000 for about 3 months and one week. 

In 1969, the second wave was far deadlier than the first, which we certainly hope won't be the case now. 

I'm finding it really hard to find articles talking about disruptions or changes. If anyone has a Wall Street Journal subscription, this one looks promising but is behind a paywall. From what I can see, they have a photo of a nurse with a sign saying that the hospital has restricted all visitors. The visible text says that it started in Wuhan, that New York City was in a state of emergency, that Berlin was stacking corpses in subway tunnels, and London's hospitals were overwhelmed. I hope someone can read and tell us more! The visitor restriction is one clear similarity. 

This link shows an ad saying to listen to the radio for government information (no country listed but it's in English), and also has some photos showing that clinics in Hong Kong were clearly not concerned with social distancing, lol. 

That's all I can find. No one in real life has ever mentioned it to me. 

 

Here are a few excerpts from the WSJ article:

"The novel virus triggered a state of emergency in New York City; caused so many deaths in Berlin that corpses were stored in subway tunnels; overwhelmed London's hospitals; and in some areas of France left half of the workforce bedridden. " 

"In 1969, the British postal and train services and French manufacturing suffered large disruptions from flu-induced absenteeism. In West Germany, garbage collectors had to bury the dead because of a lack of undertakers.

In affected countries, some schools had to close as teachers fell ill. In less than two years, over 30,000 people died in France and Britain, and up to 60,000 in both parts of divided Germany, according to recent estimates"

"Yet governments and the media didn't call for restrictions on public life and economic activity. The disease was allowed to run though communities virtually unhindered until a vaccine became available to stop it about four months after it surfaced."

It does go on to say that the although a vaccine was developed quickly, it was not widely available.  

And one of the most memorable events of the time is not the flu pandemic... it is Woodstock (and it doesn't sound as if social distancing was happening there.)

 

[Pen]

I remember it.  Concern, more care. Kids were to stay home if any symptoms where I was.  

It was not a particularly bad problem in my geographical area.  I don’t know deaths numbers.  This says 38,000,  but idk.

The first wave deadlier in USA it says.

I don’t recall anything about stacking corpses from it.  

Nightly news I recall from the time had war in Vietnam and  other problems.  

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=26429

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, klmama said:

I was quite young, so I don't remember any disruptions, but I definitely remember having it.  My family was visiting Hong Kong, and two of us caught it.  We had to stay in the hotel while the rest of the family enjoyed the city.   

Wow--that would be memorable. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Was in Japan at the time.  Don't remember anything really about it.  But looking at Wikipedia, it says that it wasn't too widespread there.  Should ask my older siblings. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Just asked older siblings. They don’t remember anything. 

[Jaybee]

I don't remember anything about it. I don't think I've ever heard it referred to, either.

[katilac]

33 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

 "Yet governments and the media didn't call for restrictions on public life and economic activity. The disease was allowed to run though communities virtually unhindered until a vaccine became available to stop it about four months after it surfaced."

 

Thanks! 

This part is very interesting. Does it go into why at all? Did they not think it would make a difference, or was it a more fatalistic attitude, or . . . ?? 

My family has a sad story about a great aunt whose toddler, an only child, died from getting into household cleaners that were in a low cabinet. I know they didn't have child locks and so forth, but they had high shelves, an awareness that toddlers get into things, and knowledge that the chemicals could kill him. Even as a kid, I was like, why? What thought process has you keep dangerous chemicals in reach of a child and hope for the best? So, I do think that a more fatalistic attitude may have come into play. Go about your business and hope for the best. Changing your actions based on danger was seen as too fear-based, perhaps? 

[Bootsie]

9 minutes ago, katilac said:

Thanks! 

This part is very interesting. Does it go into why at all? Did they not think it would make a difference, or was it a more fatalistic attitude, or . . . ?? 

My family has a sad story about a great aunt whose toddler, an only child, died from getting into household cleaners that were in a low cabinet. I know they didn't have child locks and so forth, but they had high shelves, an awareness that toddlers get into things, and knowledge that the chemicals could kill him. Even as a kid, I was like, why? What thought process has you keep dangerous chemicals in reach of a child and hope for the best? So, I do think that a more fatalistic attitude may have come into play. Go about your business and hope for the best. Changing your actions based on danger was seen as too fear-based, perhaps? 

It isn't a long article, but it suggests that people were much more accepting of illness as part of life; there had been a flu pandemic a decade earlier (my mom would have been a junior in high school for that one and DH would have been in elementary school and neither remember that one either), a measles outbreak a few years earlier, and many other illnesses.  Also, people were not bombarded with 24/7 coverage of how bad it was.  People were focused on landing on the moon, civil rights issues, and Vietnam.  

 

[PrincessMommy]

I saw the article about Woodstock and asked my dad and aunt. 

My dad remembers the HongKong flu.  I think it informs his way of dealing with this new pandemic - he goes out.  And, to his credit - he hasn't gotten sick.  My aunt had no memory of it and even checked her diary from that time-frame.  She said there was no mention of it.   She was 19-20.  My dad was probably 32ish. 

It is an interesting article for sure.   I don't know that 24/7 news has helped us.  People are so unforgiving and tense.  It's really rather sad to see.  But, i'll refrain from saying more.  

Edited May 12, 2020 by PrincessMommy

[PrincessMommy]

35 minutes ago, katilac said:

Thanks! 

This part is very interesting. Does it go into why at all? Did they not think it would make a difference, or was it a more fatalistic attitude, or . . . ?? 

My family has a sad story about a great aunt whose toddler, an only child, died from getting into household cleaners that were in a low cabinet. I know they didn't have child locks and so forth, but they had high shelves, an awareness that toddlers get into things, and knowledge that the chemicals could kill him. Even as a kid, I was like, why? What thought process has you keep dangerous chemicals in reach of a child and hope for the best? So, I do think that a more fatalistic attitude may have come into play. Go about your business and hope for the best. Changing your actions based on danger was seen as too fear-based, perhaps? 

The article only mentions that by the 1960s we were much more scientific and they didn't want to be like "the middle ages" when people would quarantine away from diseases.  They felt that science was showing the herd immunity was best.  Funny how things change.  

But, read the article.  It's been almost a week since I read it, and I may have forgotten a point or two.  

[katilac]

3 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

 And, to his credit - he hasn't gotten sick. 

I don't think you can say it's to his credit, lol. Some people will get sick, some will not. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by katilac

[katilac]

Just now, PrincessMommy said:

They felt that science was showing the herd immunity was best.    

But, read the article.   

Interesting! 

I can't, it's behind a paywall, I'm not a subscriber. 

[Bootsie]

6 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

The article only mentions that by the 1960s we were much more scientific and they didn't want to be like "the middle ages" when people would quarantine away from diseases.  They felt that science was showing the herd immunity was best.  Funny how things change.  

But, read the article.  It's been almost a week since I read it, and I may have forgotten a point or two.  

This must be in a different article than the "Forgotten Pandemic Offers Contrast to Today's Coronavirus Lockdowns; In the late 1960s, the Hong Kong flu was allowed to run rampant until a vaccine was introduced" WSJ article.  

[Selkie]

I didn't know about this. My mom would have been pregnant with me in 1968/1969 (and also had two young kids at the time) and neither she nor my dad ever mentioned it at all. 

[PrincessMommy]

11 hours ago, katilac said:

Interesting! 

I can't, it's behind a paywall, I'm not a subscriber. 

Yes, I was referencing a different article about the same subject.  Sorry.  It is an interesting snap shot but it is low on data:

https://www.aier.org/article/woodstock-occurred-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic/

Edited May 12, 2020 by PrincessMommy

[PrincessMommy]

16 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

This must be in a different article than the "Forgotten Pandemic Offers Contrast to Today's Coronavirus Lockdowns; In the late 1960s, the Hong Kong flu was allowed to run rampant until a vaccine was introduced" WSJ article.  

yes, I was talking about a different article but the same subject.  Sorry, my bad. 

[PrincessMommy]

1 hour ago, Jaybee said:

I don't remember anything about it. I don't think I've ever heard it referred to, either.

I remember hearing about the Hong Kong flu but that is it.  I would have been about 4-5 when it hit.

[katilac]

7 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

Yes, I was reference I different article about the same subject.  Sorry.  It is an interesting snap shot but it is low on data:

https://www.aier.org/article/woodstock-occurred-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic/

Thanks! 

I'm not surprised that Woodstock organizers didn't think twice about the pandemic. The festival was in August (so not flu season), the first wave was relatively mild, and there had been a vaccine available for 9 months or so. Not to mention, the Woodstock organizers - to use the term very loosely - didn't think twice about much of anything. 

I do find it interesting that they reference another article that talks about 23 states facing school and college closures, regardless of government intervention, with all states having elevated absenteeism in schools and 31 at work (unfortunately, I don't see precise numbers). It talks about delayed deliveries and billions in costs. Another article I linked specifically referenced hospitals restricting all visitors and government advice being given daily. So, I don't see the response as completely different, other than much of the current response being mandated by government rather than recommended. I would love to get a look at some of those government briefings from back then! 

1968 was hella busy. I'm guessing the flu pandemic might not be the thing that would stick in my memory, either. 

[katilac]

6 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 On another note, if this one killed 100,000 people without any restrictions, then it was maybe twice worse than a bad flu season, right?  

And that appears to be a total number over the entire pandemic (which was two full flu seasons, not one). 

[Ausmumof3]

Maybe not going out was less possible then than now.  
 

at the same time there was also probably much less global travel 

[Corraleno]

100,000 US deaths spread over 2 winters is equivalent to two really bad "regular" flu seasons. For example, there were an estimated 61,000 US flu deaths in the 2017-18 season, and there weren't unusual disruptions during that season either. But to put those numbers in perspective, CV19 has killed 75,000 Americans in the last 5.5 weeks alone — and that's with severe lockdown measures. We're likely to hit 100,000 by the end of May, equivalent to two years worth of Hong Kong flu deaths compressed into about 2 months — and it's just getting started.

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

100,000 US deaths spread over 2 winters is equivalent to two really bad "regular" flu seasons. For example, there were an estimated 61,000 US flu deaths in the 2017-18 season, and there weren't unusual disruptions during that season either. But to put those numbers in perspective, CV19 has killed 75,000 Americans in the last 5.5 weeks alone — and that's with severe lockdown measures. We're likely to hit 100,000 by the end of May, equivalent to two years worth of Hong Kong flu deaths compressed into about 2 months — and it's just getting started.

 

Yup. Over five months we’ve gone over 4 million deaths worldwide with this pandemic and we are not done with this wave, let alone seen what would happen in a new COVID19 season (if it turns out to be seasonal). And this is with a LOT better healthcare than was available in 1968 and 1969. So already this pandemic is over 4x deadlier than the 1968 Hong Kong Flu. 
 

I frankly find the insinuation that we’re blowing this out of proportion because we’re out of touch with the “circle of life” to be offensive. This is not a strain of flu. It affects people’s organs with long term damage in a way not seen in the flu.  It is deadlier. Stealthier. And we don’t even have the whole story yet. 

[Shoeless]

6 hours ago, katilac said:

My family has a sad story about a great aunt whose toddler, an only child, died from getting into household cleaners that were in a low cabinet. I know they didn't have child locks and so forth, but they had high shelves, an awareness that toddlers get into things, and knowledge that the chemicals could kill him. Even as a kid, I was like, why? What thought process has you keep dangerous chemicals in reach of a child and hope for the best? So, I do think that a more fatalistic attitude may have come into play. Go about your business and hope for the best. Changing your actions based on danger was seen as too fear-based, perhaps? 

 

My step-mother was a pediatric ICU nurse in the late 70s/early 80s, who should have known better, but kept the household cleaners in the cabinet under the sink.  My half-sister drank most of a bottle of Mop-N-Glo and got carted off to the ER to have her stomach pumped. Even as a 10-ish year old kid, I was confused how the whole thing could have happened. (Half-sister was fine, by the way, but continued to get into scrapes that could have been mostly avoided). 

I do think attitudes about risk, health, and death have changed since I was a young child. I don't know exactly what was driving it in my corner of the world, but there was this attitude like "Oh well, what can you do?" about risks that we avoid taking now. 

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Yup. Over five months we’ve gone over 4 million deaths worldwide with this pandemic and we are not done with this wave, let alone seen what would happen in a new COVID19 season (if it turns out to be seasonal). And this is with a LOT better healthcare than was available in 1968 and 1969. So already this pandemic is over 4x deadlier than the 1968 Hong Kong Flu. 
 

I frankly find the insinuation that we’re blowing this out of proportion because we’re out of touch with the “circle of life” to be offensive. This is not a strain of flu. It affects people’s organs with long term damage in a way not seen in the flu.  It is deadlier. Stealthier. And we don’t even have the whole story yet. 

where are you getting the number of over 4 million deaths worldwide?  I am seeing numbers that are under 300,000

[Bootsie]

10 hours ago, square_25 said:

Ah yeah, so really not that bad. If that's 150,000 nowadays, then it really is like 2 normal flu seasons, especially since I assume they didn't vaccinate as much for flu back then and probably had more deaths, if anything? (I'm just guessing, though. Let me know if I'm wrong.) 

It IS an interesting question what kind of risk freaks people out. I do think it depends on the level of risk we're used to in day to day life. 

I always think of reading old British novels, and lots of characters saying matter-of-factly, "Oh, I had 5 kids, and 2 of them made it to adulthood." That was just... normal. You expected kids to die. We don't live that way anymore, and frankly, I'm glad. But it does mean we have more fear of disease and other risks. 

I have trying to find numbers that break down the deaths across the 1968-1969 period, and have not come across them yet.  But, if there were more deaths during the second wave in 1969 than during the first wave, that is a bit alarming because a vaccine was developed about 4 months into the pandemic.  That would indicate that things were worse months after the vaccine was available rather than before.

This article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12517228 doesn't address the 1968 pandemic, but it addresses the flu over the next couple of decades and says that flu deaths were rising.  It says:

Our results indicate that US influenza-associated deaths have increased substantially from the 1976-1977 through 1998-1999 seasons. We believe this is explained in part by the aging of the US population. Between 1976 and 1999, the number of persons aged 85 years or older doubled in the United States.²⁹ We found that persons in this age group were 16 times more likely to die of an influenza-associated all-cause death than persons aged 65 to 69 years during a period in which all-cause age-specific death rates have remained stable. Other studies have also shown that influenza-attributable mortality rates increased rapidly with age among persons aged 65 years or older.^30-32 For example, Nordin et al³² found that persons aged 75 years or older were 3 to 9 times more likely to die from influenza infections than persons aged 65 to 74 years.

As we have a larger percentage of the population living past 70 than we had in 1969, it would suggest that if we had a flu pandemic equivalent to that of 1968 as far as contagion and age-adjusted death rates, we would expect a higher number of deaths per population today than we had then.  

[Bootsie]

11 hours ago, katilac said:

Thanks! 

I'm not surprised that Woodstock organizers didn't think twice about the pandemic. The festival was in August (so not flu season), the first wave was relatively mild, and there had been a vaccine available for 9 months or so. Not to mention, the Woodstock organizers - to use the term very loosely - didn't think twice about much of anything. 

I do find it interesting that they reference another article that talks about 23 states facing school and college closures, regardless of government intervention, with all states having elevated absenteeism in schools and 31 at work (unfortunately, I don't see precise numbers). It talks about delayed deliveries and billions in costs. Another article I linked specifically referenced hospitals restricting all visitors and government advice being given daily. So, I don't see the response as completely different, other than much of the current response being mandated by government rather than recommended. I would love to get a look at some of those government briefings from back then! 

1968 was hella busy. I'm guessing the flu pandemic might not be the thing that would stick in my memory, either. 

I started looking at the discussion records of the Federal Reserve during the 1968 and 1969 period, and so far I have only come across a couple of cursory mentions of the flu pandemic and nothing that would indicate it was impacting their policy.  

[Lady Florida.]

16 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Do you have any recollection of the 1968 Hong Kong flu pandemic?  Or, do you know anyone who does?  I am old enough to remember other things from the late 60's but I have no recollection of the pandemic.  My husband was in college and he does not have any memory of it.  I asked my mom and she does not either.  That was very striking in that she was pregnant at the time, putting her at higher risk, and my father was an infectious disease investigator for a state health department in a state that was hard hit at the time.    

Over 1 million people died worldwide, with approximately 100,000 deaths in the US.  Adjusting for population changes, this would be equivalent to about 2 million deaths worldwide and 150,000 deaths in the US on an adjusted basis.  I haven't talked to anyone who really remembers any disruptions from it.  

No, I don't remember that. I turned 13 late that year so I was definitely old enough to remember. I remember many things from then, including Vietnam war protests and the assassinations of MLK, Jr. and RFK. But I don't remember a pandemic. 

ETA: The term Hong Kong flu is familiar but it feels like it's from later than 1968.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Lady Florida.

[Jean in Newcastle]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

where are you getting the number of over 4 million deaths worldwide?  I am seeing numbers that are under 300,000

Worldometer

[Jean in Newcastle]

42 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Yeah, the recorded cases are 4 million, not the deaths.

That being said, I'm sure the 300,000 is a vast undercount, given what the record-keeping is like in much of the world. I'd imagine we're over a million deaths, really. 

Oh sorry. That’s what I did wrong. Looked at cases not deaths. 

[Tanaqui]

Quote

he used to tell me some nursery rhymes were made up during difficult times like "Ring around the roses" and the line "pocket full of posies" during the plague because people carried flowers in their pockets as the smell of death was strong. Her cleaning practices used to amuse me a lot and I used to make fun of her as I found it so over the top. I mean who washed coins in hot water to sanitize ? 

 

This is not true. Ring Around the Rosies is not connected to the plague at all. It first appeared long after the plague was a going concern, and the earliest known versions have nothing about "ashes, ashes" or falling down.

Also, while it is true that people in the past carried flowers during plague outbreaks and disease outbreaks generally, this is not because the smell of death was overpoweringly strong but because they believed that bad smells made you sick. You could stay well by sniffing flowers or spice when going by dirty areas where there was sewage or an unidentified "miasma".

[katilac]

 

12 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Maybe not going out was less possible then than now.  
 

Right, no remote working . . . 

[Bootsie]

16 hours ago, katilac said:

About 100,000 deaths in the US total, yeah. That's counting  from the start of the outbreak in the states, September 1968, to the winter of 1969-1970. So roughly 18 months (none of my sources define 'winter,' lol, I counted January and February of 1970). 

So 100,000 deaths in the states over about 18 months for 1969 pandemic. Thus far, Covid-19 sits at about 88,000 for about 3 months and one week. 

In 1969, the second wave was far deadlier than the first, which we certainly hope won't be the case now. 

This was not the case for the US.  The first wave was more deadly in the US.  About 70% of the deaths occurred in the first wave--concentrated in about the last seven weeks of 1968 and first couple of weeks in 1969. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 192, Issue 2, 15 July 2005, Pages 233–248, https://doi.org/10.1086/431150  

The second wave was more deadly in Europe.  

[kbutton]

The American Experience documentary on the 1918 pandemic had a little ditty that kids used while jumping rope.  

I had a little bird. His name was Enza. I opened up the door, and in flew Enza.    

I have always heard that Ring Around the Rosie was about the plague. Interesting. 

[Tanaqui]

46 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Could be possible.

 

It is not possible. We know that Ring Around the Rosie has nothing to do with the plague. The rhyme first has its origins long after the plague. The plague story has its origins much later than *that*. There is no connection. None.

Quote

My grandmother used to say lots of stories about how nursery rhymes originated. Most of them were apparently about religious persecution and tied to British History

 

SOME nursery rhymes have to do with religious persecution or ethnic strife. Not many. Not "most". Your grandmother may have been a very smart woman, but she is not a valid source. I don't want to keep derailing this, but quite a lot of study has gone into Mother Goose*. You can look up this research whenever you like - much of it is online. People prefer dramatic stories where "Did you know that this innocent nursery rhyme REALLY has a terrible origin?" but those stories are almost never true. They're urban legends, and an interesting bit of folklore on their own, but they're not historically accurate.

Most nursery rhymes in Mother Goose are truncated folk songs, or advertising jingles from days of yore, or play party songs (play party being an alternative to sinful dancing for the not-too-strict who liked to find loopholes) that have been altered through time, or proverbs, or moralizing poems and the parodies thereof, or lullabies or occasionally riddles where the answer is so well-known that we've forgotten they are riddles to begin with (Humpty Dumpty is one of these). They have no deep social, historical, or religious meaning. They don't refer back to plagues and natural disasters and wars** and religious persecution.

Now that I've burst that bubble, though, I will say that the games of jacks and marbles do legitimately appear to have ancient origins.

* I don't consider nursery rhymes to be a closed canon, but I am aware that many people do.

** With the exception of "The Siege of Bellisle".

Edited May 12, 2020 by Tanaqui

[katilac]

21 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

They have no deep social, historical, or religious meaning. 

idk, I would argue that advertising jingles at least actually do have deep social and historical meaning 

you can learn a tremendous amount about what a society feared/longed for/loved/hated via what was advertised and how 

[Joker]

Were people even really aware of how many deaths were occurring as it was happening? I feel like with most pandemics and outbreaks we don’t actually get accurate numbers until well after it is all over. Even with this current one I feel many believe the count will be much higher when we actually have time to review everything. If there was 24 hour news and social media discussing daily death tolls, the reactions might have been different and led to more disruptions. I think it’s too hard to just ignore all the suffering and death and I don’t exactly feel that’s a bad thing.

My grandad lost all his siblings during the Great Depression and it wasn’t that his family accepted death and illness more than we do but they were so poor they had no choice and there was no one to help them. It was something that affected him deeply.

[ktgrok]

People just accept things that we think they never would. 

PLEASE don't turn this into a debate on policy, but the fact is, the US has come to accept, in large part, and get used to, mass shootings. Other areas have constant issues with terrorism, etc. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

 

Interesting... looks like England and France were considerably more severely affected. I wonder if people from those regions remember it, or if it still flew under the radar? 

If I'm calculating correctly, England is over the death toll for that second wave toll already, despite restrictions. If I'm adding right, that winds up at about 50 per 100,000 over the whole second wave, right? Or am I doing that wrong? 

It's hard to tell from their graphic but this https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/uk/history-of-major-virus-outbreaks-in-the-uk-in-recent-times/ suggests that 80,000 died from the pandemic in the UK.  That would be about 1460 per million, or almost 1 in 700 people.  Worldometer is showing 482/million for UK right now for COVID-19.  

[Arcadia]

It’s before I was born. My country of origin was more concerned about leprosy and tuberculosis then.

https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/article/2154925/how-hong-kong-flu-struck-without-warning-50-years-ago-and

“Today, July 13, marks 50 years since the first case of Hong Kong flu was reported in the city. That was in 1968, and over the next six months the disease would claim more than one million lives as it spread to Vietnam, Singapore, India, the Philippines and on to Australia, Africa, South America and Europe.

America wasn’t immune either. The virus entered California via troops returning from the Vietnam war, but didn’t become widespread there until December 1968.

Worldwide, the deaths from Hong Kong flu peaked in December 1968 and January 1969.

Worldwide Influenza Pandemics

	PANDEMIC INFLUENZA	OUTBREAK-FINISH TIME	DEATH TOLL	SUBTYPE INVOLVED
1	Russian Flu	1889–1890	1 million	possibly H2N2
2	Spanish Flu	1918–1920	50 million	H1N1
3	Asian Flu	1957–1958	1.5 to 2 million	H2N2
4	Hong Kong Flu	1968–1969	1 million	H3N2
5	Swine Flu	2009–2010	over 18,209	novel H1N1

”