Covid-19 pandemic compared to other pandemics

[MattA7]

Why are we reacting to this pandemic so differently to all other pandemics we have experienced?

Throughout history there has been hundreds of pandemics some far more contagious and deadly Than Covid-19 but we didn’t shut down the entire country and have the restrictions we have with this one.

 

[Richard Scott]

Why are we reacting to this pandemic so differently to all other pandemics we have experienced?

Throughout history there has been hundreds of pandemics some far more contagious and deadly Than Covid-19 but we didn’t shut down the entire country and have the restrictions we have with this one.

Social media? Seems the Government responds to whatever the opinion is on social media. Also other countries have backed themselves into a corner and not one wants to make the first move admitting they've over reacted. That's how it appears to me so may not be fact.

 

[brad465]

I wonder if the high prevalence of asymptomatic cases has something to do with this. While it's debatable how much those with this can spread it, with flu, symptoms are much more prevalent and when they occur isolation is done by default of the effects.

I do believe though there is an overreaction in many areas.

Social media? Seems the Government responds to whatever the opinion is on social media. Also other countries have backed themselves into a corner and not one wants to make the first move admitting they've over reacted. That's how it appears to me so may not be fact.

China locked down Wuhan, but given their regime that may not be a surprise. It was when Italy did it (and got praise from the WHO for doing so), that I think other countries (except the likes of Sweden) in Europe essentially copied each other.

 

[mattdickinson]

Why are we reacting to this pandemic so differently to all other pandemics we have experienced?

Throughout history there has been hundreds of pandemics some far more contagious and deadly Than Covid-19 but we didn’t shut down the entire country and have the restrictions we have with this one.

I think that without the existence of broadband internet working from home would not have been possible in the way that it has happened, so this is a difference from anything in previous centuries. Widespread jet travel has also been a factor in the rate of spread.

 

[Bantamzen]

I blame Karen....

 

[Richard Scott]

I wonder if the high prevalence of asymptomatic cases has something to do with this. While it's debatable how much those with this can spread it, with flu, symptoms are much more prevalent and when they occur isolation is done by default of the effects.

I do believe though there is an overreaction in many areas.


China locked down Wuhan, but given their regime that may not be a surprise. It was when Italy did it (and got praise from the WHO for doing so), that I think other countries (except the likes of Sweden) in Europe essentially copied each other.

I expect that was the original cause then the social media issue took over?

 

[adc82140]

The asymptomatic issue is no different to flu. Three quarters of flu cases are asymptomatic. Therefore I really don't get the hysteria, given that a few dozen children died of flu last year, half of whom had no underlying health conditions.

Three-quarters of people with flu have no symptoms

"Over three-quarters of flu infections contracted last year did not have any symptoms, researchers found," ITV News reports. While this may be good news for people free from symptoms it raises concerns about controlling the spread of any future epidemic…

www.nhs.uk

Three-quarters of people with flu have no symptoms
Monday 17 March 2014

“‘77% of flu infections’ have no symptoms, say experts,” reports ITV News.
The news is based on a large community-based study carried out in England, which found that most people with influenza (“flu”) don’t have symptoms, and even if they do, only a small proportion go to a doctor.
The study was part of Flu Watch – a larger, ongoing study to assess the impact of flu on public health in England – and analysed five groups of people over six periods of influenza transmission, between 2006 and 2011.
Participants provided blood samples before and after the influenza season, so that the amount of antibodies in the blood could be measured. They were then contacted every week so that cough, cold, sore throat, or any “flu-like illness” could be noted down. If any of these were experienced, participants were asked to complete a symptom diary and to take a nasal swab to test for the influenza virus.
Approximately 20% of people had an increase in antibodies against influenza in their blood after an influenza “season”. However, around three-quarters of infections were symptom-free, or so mild that they weren't identified through weekly questioning.
This is very much a “good news, bad news” story. It is good news in that so many people with a flu infection are spared the burden of a nasty infection. However, limiting the spread of a future pandemic could be challenging, as it would be unclear who is infected.
This reinforces the importance of practising essential hygiene habits to stop flu spreading, such as frequent hand washing and cleaning surfaces so that they are free of germs – especially if there is an ongoing flu pandemic.

 

[DB]

This is largely a product of the internet - in whipping up and maintaining hysteria, making home working possible for many, and online shopping. Even 20 years ago it couldn't have happened in this way.

Plus the attitude to risk, both the over estimation of it and the concept that it can always be mitigated. This has really increased over recent decades, as seen in kids not allowed out on their own, a general proliferation of pointless 'safety' measures in many areas, and lots of other things.

 

[Belperpete]

Why are we reacting to this pandemic so differently to all other pandemics we have experienced?
Throughout history there has been hundreds of pandemics some far more contagious and deadly Than Covid-19 but we didn’t shut down the entire country and have the restrictions we have with this one.

As opposed to say, the great plague? Or spanish flu? In the first case, the country did effectively shut down. In the second case, the country didn't shut down, and so there were more deaths than during the immediately preceding war.

The first difference is how much faster a virus can spread these days. Before air travel became common (which is a change that has occurred within my lifetime), most people crossed between continents by boat. Journeys took weeks, if not months, so infections spread much more slowly. And the length of the boat journey meant that effectively the passengers were all isolated for far longer than the virus would take to incubate. Mass air travel means that infections can now be spread across the world in hours. Mass car ownership has likewise significantly increased the distances that people regularly travel everyday.

The second difference is the nature of this particular virus. Unlike say SARS, which was largely contained within asia, this virus has proved much harder to contain, and to suppress. Mainly due to covid having a long period when an infected person can spread the virus to others, but shows no signs of being infected.

A third difference is that we are no longer prepared to accept death on the scale that we once were. "H&S culture" is one example of this, and the ever-increasing litigation against companies and authorities who fail to protect us (sometimes from our own stupidity) another example. When I started working for the railway, I stood a higher chance of being killed at work than if I had been a miner. People are no longer prepared to accept that kind of thing.

Finally, people are less inclined to trust "authority" than they once were. Once upon a time, if you were concerned about giving your child a vaccination, for example, you would talk to your friends and neighbours, your doctor, etc and would be reassured. Nowadays, you talk to a group of on-line nutters who will tell you that it is all government mind-control. Significant numbers of people have been refusing to obey guidance on staying local, distancing, mask wearing, etc on principle, because it is an infringement of their liberties, because of the "hardship" it causes, because this virus is no worse than flu, and other similar nonsenses.

 

[DB]

because this virus is no worse than flu, and other similar nonsenses.

With increased testing showing just how many asymptomatic cases there are, it is increasingly looking like it is no worse thsn a bad flu year.

Spanish flu was a lot worse, and killed a lot of healthy people, which this virus doesn't.

 

[yorksrob]

Significant numbers of people have been refusing to obey guidance on staying local, distancing, mask wearing, etc on principle, because it is an infringement of their liberties, because of the "hardship" it causes, because this virus is no worse than flu, and other similar nonsenses.

There is no guidance to "stay local".

 

[Belperpete]

With increased testing showing just how many asymptomatic cases there are, it is increasingly looking like it is no worse thsn a bad flu year.

Spanish flu was a lot worse, and killed a lot of healthy people, which this virus doesn't.

Comparing the number of deaths for a virus that we didn't lock down for to the number of deaths that have been significantly reduced because we did lock down is like comparing apples with oranges. You will be telling us all that this virus is just hysteria next.

 

[takno]

PCR testing is a factor. Previously we've had to depend on observing actual symptoms, or in tests that detect some kind of immune response. Now we have a test that's sensitive enough to detect passing fragments that are lodged in the airways without meaningfully infecting people at all. This means that we can detect well over 100% of actual cases - possibly even reaching an impressive 1000% of cases.

When you've got cool toys like that it's really your duty as a sovereign government to make everybody stay indoors while you play with them.

 

[DB]

Comparing the number of deaths for a virus that we didn't lock down for to the number of deaths that have been significantly reduced because we did lock down is like comparing apples with oranges. You will be telling us all that this virus is just hysteria next.

There is no evidence that the lockdown measures have made much difference, other than prolong the situation. It's still gone through at least half this country's care homes, and Sweden has a lower death rate with much less draconian measures. Meanwhile in Spain, which has had some of the most draconian measures in Europe, cases are increasing again.

You also need to look at the profile of fatalities. As I have already pointed out, Spanish flu killed a lot of otherwise healthy people, which this virus simply doesn't do.

 

[Richard Scott]

Comparing the number of deaths for a virus that we didn't lock down for to the number of deaths that have been significantly reduced because we did lock down is like comparing apples with oranges. You will be telling us all that this virus is just hysteria next.

It mostly is, that's why. It hardly affects anyone younger than 70/80 unless they are obese or have underlying health conditions. Spanish flu caused more problems with younger people than this virus. Remember we didn't have effective cancer treatment back then but we do now and people who would otherwise survive are not getting life saving treatment because we're more concerned about keeping people alive who, realistically only have a short time to live anyway. There may be a handful that are affected who would have lived but that's true of flu.

 

[Ken H]

PCR testing is a factor. Previously we've had to depend on observing actual symptoms, or in tests that detect some kind of immune response. Now we have a test that's sensitive enough to detect passing fragments that are lodged in the airways without meaningfully infecting people at all. This means that we can detect well over 100% of actual cases - possibly even reaching an impressive 1000% of cases.

When you've got cool toys like that it's really your duty as a sovereign government to make everybody stay indoors while you play with them.

PCR has quite a high rate of false positives, where it says someone has COVID when they dont. I found this on the internet just now which suggests 14%. Other sources suggest different %ages.
https://thehill.com/changing-americ...false-positive-and-false-negative-coronavirus

ID NOW, the countertop machine that health professionals use for testing for flu and strep, may miss about half of the patients who have low levels of virus, according to reporting by NPR. Overall, it detects the coronavirus in 85.2 percent of positive samples, meaning it has a false negative rate of 14.8 percent.

Quest Diagnostics has an antibody test that it reports has specificity of 99 to 100 percent, meaning it has 1 percent or less false positives. The test also has a “clinical performance of approximately 90 percent to 100 percent (assessed as percent agreement of serology results on known COVID-19 PCR positive cases),” according to its website. This means there could be up to 10 percent false negatives. To note, getting a positive result from an antibody test does not mean the patient has immunity. The amount of detectable antibody in the blood may decrease over time after the infection has passed.

That means that if I test 100 people, and get 50% back as positives, then that suggests 14 are false and 36 are actual positives. But if i get 20% positives, that means 14 are still false and only 6 are real positives. So the false ones become more statistically relevant that the actual results.
People are quoting the number of cases, but are not saying how many tests done. If the number of positives is close to the false positive threshold, then the number of cases is a silly number.

 

[takno]

PCR has quite a high rate of false positives, where it says someone has COVID when they dont. I found this on the internet just now which suggests 14%. Other sources suggest different %ages.

False positive and false negative coronavirus test results explained

Some tests give a higher rate of false negatives than others.

thehill.com

That means that if I test 100 people, and get 50% back as positives, then that suggests 14 are false and 36 are actual positives. But if i get 20% positives, that means 14 are still false and only 6 are real positives. So the false ones become more statistically relevant that the actual results.
People are quoting the number of cases, but are not saying how many tests done. If the number of positives is close to the false positive threshold, then the number of cases is a silly number.

It gets complicated depending on what you count as a false positive. It's a very sensitive test and can quite easily be contaminated, but also catches really small fragments which realistically might not turn into an infection, or cause the patient to become infectious themselves.

If you are testing people to determine whether to tell them to isolate then it's a pretty valuable result, since it's probably best to err on the side of caution. If you are trying to determine the spread of the disease (through the ONS survey for example), or cause of hospital admission or death, then something with a lower false positive rate and tighter link with actual illness is more appropriate.

Comparison with previous diseases, even quite recent ones such as SARS, where no forms of accurate testing were available is a bit of a fool's errand.

 

[adc82140]

The UK government seems to have a fascination with the word "guidance". This muddies the water as to what you can and can't do.

By definition:
Guidance= things you ought not to do
Rules= things you may not do

But in an effort to disguise the fact that there has been a massive assault on liberties, they are using the word "guidance" in place of "rules".

"new guidance has been introduced" actually means "new rules have been decreed"

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Because we, or rather scientists, know so much more now, but there is much more to learn
At the time of the spanish flu there were all sorts of theories but little knowledge, much less than now

 

[adc82140]

Because we, or rather scientists, know so much more now, but there is much more to learn
At the time of the spanish flu there were all sorts of theories but little knowledge, much less than now

The search for a vaccine in my opinion is a sideshow. Finding an effective treatment should be the end game. Let people get the disease, and have a proper treatment available for the very small amount of cases that end up in hospital.

 

[yorkie]

This thread risks covering the same old ground as other threads; so to avoid duplication, can we stick to the question posed in the original thread?

There is no harm in people linking to posts in other threads to raise any particular points already under discussion elsewhere, but let's avoid duplicating existing threads please.

Thanks

 

[Belperpete]

It hardly affects anyone younger than 70/80 unless they are obese or have underlying health conditions. Spanish flu caused more problems with younger people than this virus. Remember we didn't have effective cancer treatment back then but we do now and people who would otherwise survive are not getting life saving treatment because we're more concerned about keeping people alive who, realistically only have a short time to live anyway. There may be a handful that are affected who would have lived but that's true of flu.

I am particularly disappointed that anyone is still peddling this rubbish about the majority of those who died of covid only had a short time to live - this was widely debunked months ago (IIRC, both the second Horizon programme on covid, and More or Less have both covered it).

 

[DB]

I am particularly disappointed that anyone is still peddling this rubbish about the majority of those who died of covid only had a short time to live - this was widely debunked months ago (IIRC, both the second Horizon programme on covid, and More or Less have both covered it).

Depends on how long your definition is, but a look at the average age of fatalities (especially compared with the average life expectancy) and the proportion with existing serious health conditions, is informative.

 

[yorkie]

I think the main reasons are:

1) media reporting and the role of social media; those who shout the loudest and are hysterical can get listened to more. This is what's causing the U-turns ( as discussed in another thread)

2) trying to copy what China did (even though we couldn't fully replicate that)

3) H&S culture which doesn't take into account the bigger picture or look at the longer term impacts

4) prioritising statistics of deaths, even when it doesn't take into account the bigger picture

All the above have combined to create a situation where younger/poorer people are put last. This is unsustainable and is the result of hysterical demands made by shouty people.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The UK government seems to have a fascination with the word "guidance". This muddies the water as to what you can and can't do.

By definition:
Guidance= things you ought not to do
Rules= things you may not do

But in an effort to disguise the fact that there has been a massive assault on liberties, they are using the word "guidance" in place of "rules".

"new guidance has been introduced" actually means "new rules have been decreed"

It's actually been the opposite way around - the guidance has almost invariably purported to "ban" things that are entirely lawful. For example, the guidance still claims that the limit on indoor gatherings is 6 people or 2 households, when it's actually 30 people (and that only in a private dwelling).

The Government has very much made use of the blurred line between these two things in order to enact restrictions that they know they wouldn't be able to defend in Court. For instance, the fact that they merely "advised" schools to close and thus can't be held accountable for that disaster of a decision.

They know that the vast majority of people don't have the time or inclination to read the law and simply rely on the Government and police etc. advising them of the law correctly. What's perhaps worst of all is that most people don't even know how badly they've been hoodwinked...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why are we reacting to this pandemic so differently to all other pandemics we have experienced?

Throughout history there has been hundreds of pandemics some far more contagious and deadly Than Covid-19 but we didn’t shut down the entire country and have the restrictions we have with this one.

Are we?

It isn't as well known, but restrictions of various types and mask mandates were imposed for the Spanish Flu. And because computers weren't a thing, they would have been all the worse.