Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Medicine

US COVID-19 Death Toll Surpasses That of 1918 Pandemic (thehill.com) 228

Posted by BeauHD from the compare-and-contrast dept.
The U.S. death toll from COVID-19 has surpassed that of the 1918 flu pandemic, according to a tracker from Johns Hopkins University. The Hill reports: The U.S. has passed 675,000 deaths, the estimated toll from the 1918 pandemic, which for a century had been the worst pandemic to hit the country. "The number of reported deaths from Covid in the US will surpass the toll of the 1918 flu pandemic this month," Tom Frieden, the former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tweeted earlier this month. "We cannot become hardened to the continuing, and largely preventable, tragedy."

Deaths from COVID-19 are also far from over. The U.S. is averaging about 2,000 more deaths from the virus every day, according to a New York Times tracker. Those deaths are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated, though, highlighting that the continuing toll of COVID-19 is now largely preventable now that vaccines are widely available in the U.S. In 1918, there was no vaccine to help stop the flu pandemic. Still, the U.S. population was far smaller a century ago, meaning that the death rate from the 1918 pandemic is still higher than for COVID-19. E. Thomas Ewing, a Virginia Tech history professor, wrote in Health Affairs earlier this year that the death rate from the 1918 pandemic was about six in every 1,000 people, given the U.S. population at the time of around 100 million. The death rate from COVID-19 in the U.S. is about two in every 1,000 people. A disproportionate share of COVID-19 deaths are also in the United States. Worldwide, the 1918 flu killed far more people than COVID-19 has so far, at about 50 million compared to about 5 million.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US COVID-19 Death Toll Surpasses That of 1918 Pandemic More

US COVID-19 Death Toll Surpasses That of 1918 Pandemic

Comments Filter:

  • anybody have per-capita #'s? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tora ( 65882 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @05:31PM (#61815009)

    they are more relevant.

    • Re:anybody have per-capita #'s? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @05:33PM (#61815021)

      About 1/3rd. The US populaton in 1918 was ~103m, vs ~328m today.

    • Re:anybody have per-capita #'s? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Known Nutter ( 988758 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @05:35PM (#61815031)
      I mean... it's in the fucking summary for Christ's sake.

      Still, the U.S. population was far smaller a century ago, meaning that the death rate from the 1918 pandemic is still higher than for COVID-19. E. Thomas Ewing, a Virginia Tech history professor, wrote in Health Affairs earlier this year that the death rate from the 1918 pandemic was about six in every 1,000 people, given the U.S. population at the time of around 100 million. The death rate from COVID-19 in the U.S. is about two in every 1,000 people.

      • the death rate is higher even though we have much, much better treatments (not to mention a vaccine available since April, earlier if you were high risk or in healthcare).

        • the death rate is higher even though we have much, much better treatments

          Last I checked, 2/1000 is not higher than 6/1000. The fact that we have much better treatments today is a contributing factor in why the death rate today is 2/1000 today vs. 6/1000 a century ago. The infectiousness of the disease is the other major factor.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jmccue ( 834797 )
        True, but medical tech in 1918 does not even compare to what we have now. So in reality the article and thread is really comparing oranges to apples.

    • No, it isn't. What is relevant is that they didn't have the medicines or technology to treat people back then. We do now. First figure out how many people would have died from COVID-19 if we didn't have modern treatments, then figure out per capita. Per capita differences likely won't be significant even though we have roughly 3.5 times more people on earth now.

    • Forget covid, they did not have Ivermectin to protect people from horse STDs back then. What was the death rate from horse STD in 1918 vs. today? Why is that not being celebrated as a trump of modern medicine?

    • we have vastly superior medical treatments, and we've had vaccines widely available since April. So per capital isn't really a good comparison.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Right there in the summary?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      The US had a third the population in 1918, so the per capita is 1/3 what it was then.

      However, I suspect most of that difference is a century of medical advances, a generally healthier population, and people being more educated on how to respond to being sick, rather than a difference is the mortality rate.

    • they are more relevant.

      Keep moving the goalposts. But, since you asked, if Mississippi was a country, it would have the second highest per capita deaths [businessinsider.com] in the world due to covid. And their governor has this to say about it [businessinsider.com].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jsrjsr ( 658966 )

      The article states 2 per 1000 for Covid-19, 6 per 1000 for 1918 flu.

    • they are more relevant.

      Yes. The USA shares the top spot with 4 other first world idiots, a bunch of 3rd world shitholes, and a few countries with populations so low that the statistics don't make much sense.

      Feel better now?

  • Have we got the numbers in from Africa and India?

    • Have we got the numbers in from Africa and India?

      Would you trust them?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

        In hindsight. I wouldn't expect them to be up to date while the crisis is still in progress, but eventually I do expect they'll be able to take a decent count.

    • Numbers from Africa... well, either google them or make up your own, there ain't a big difference in accuracy.

  • Percentage is more useful than absolute numbers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @05:34PM (#61815027) Homepage Journal

    Given the population in 1918 was around 103 million people, using absolute death counts is the wrong way to compare both pandemics. On the other hand basing it as relative percentage of the population in each time period would be more valid.

     

    • Given the population in 1918 was around 103 million people, using absolute death counts is the wrong way to compare both pandemics. On the other hand basing it as relative percentage of the population in each time period would be more valid.

      ...which is why the summary included it? It's had about a 1/3 the death rate.

      Still, the U.S. population was far smaller a century ago, meaning that the death rate from the 1918 pandemic is still higher than for COVID-19. E. Thomas Ewing, a Virginia Tech history professor, wrote in Health Affairs earlier this year that the death rate from the 1918 pandemic was about six in every 1,000 people, given the U.S. population at the time of around 100 million. The death rate from COVID-19 in the U.S. is about two in every 1,000 people.

      • '...which is why the summary included it? It's had about a 1/3 the death rate."
        Not in the headline. And guess who will repeat the headlines. Stupid people and those that do not bitch about the headline.

    • Given the population in 1918 was around 103 million people, using absolute death counts is the wrong way to compare both pandemics. On the other hand basing it as relative percentage of the population in each time period would be more valid.

      In one sense yes, in another sense a life doesn't become less valuable just because the person lived in a larger country.

      Of course, the 1918 flu was famous for killing otherwise healthy people in their prime. So if you look at years of life lost [wikipedia.org] the 1918 epidemic is probably still far worse on the scale of tragedies.

      Still, it is important to step back and realize the just how many people have died and are still dying of COVID-19.

    • Neither are very useful (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @06:02PM (#61815183)
      since medical science has advanced in 100 years, meaning vastly better treatment options. What's interesting/terrifying here is that despite of all those advances we still hit the #s from 1918.

      And we're not done by a long shot. Best case things start to peter out in November as the people who are gonna die... well die. But there's some who don't think that's going to happen (the petering out, the dying is definitely happening). And all that assumes no new variants, which given 1/3rd of our population (and most of the rest of the world) is currently acting as a breeding ground out of some deluded view of freedom isn't unlikely. That nonsense is how we got Delta (e.g. India opened back up and did massive religious festivals in the lead up to an election).

  • And This Is With Modern Medicine (Score:4, Insightful)

    by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @05:35PM (#61815033) Journal

    If we didn't have modern medicines, respirator machines, and properly trained medical professionals it would have been much, much worse. Think New York City in March, April, and May of 2020 where up to 800 people a day were dying from it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by crow ( 16139 )

      Yup. Almost certainly anyone sent to the ICU (let alone intubated) wouldn't have survived with 1918 medical care. Most people who were hospitalized wouldn't have made it either. That's a whole lot of people.

      • And with winter comes drier air and more people indoors, the conditions it spreads more easily in. Unless we get the case load under control we’re headed toward such massive shortages in ICU beds, supplies, and staff that we won’t have to guess what the quality of care was like without modern improvements.

    • in 1918, germ theory was still new, and knowledge of viruses was extremely sparse as they had only been discovered less than 30 years previously. Washing hands by doctors was newish still. In some sense that time was still in a medical revolution towards understanding what really causes a disease and what to do about it.

    • If we didn't have modern transportation methods, transoceanic airplanes, and regular long-distance travel between states there would have been much, much less spread. A ship leaving China in 1918 with Covid aboard would have likely not arrived unscathed after weeks at sea.

      If there wasn't a world war going on in 1918, there would likely have been much less spread then.

      It's interesting to compare numbers and is especially useful for clickbait titles. There are a lot of differences between now and th
    • Most of the people who died of Covid are above the age of 80. In 1918 these people did not exist as people died of other things before reaching 80. An 80 year old was a rare thing. If Covid had hit the 1918 population there would have been very few deaths. So you can thank modern medicine for creating a large population of 80 yr olds and thus a large covid body count.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        There's a lot of younger people who with some oxygen came out of it OK, without oxygen, perhaps not. And most of the people dying here are now 30-50 year olds who are unvaccinated. The old people are mostly vaccinated otherwise the numbers would be much higher. Just like the first wave of the Spanish flu mostly killed old people and later waves killed young people, Covid now has Delta which is way more infectious and somewhat deadlier and who knows about new variants, Mu sounds like it can evade vaccination

  • Confessions of an Insane Conspiracy-Theorist (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CoolDiscoRex ( 5227177 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @10:26PM (#61815937) Homepage

    So, I'm one of the few people I know who will openly admit to any concerns about the vaccines. My views are genuine, but these days, it doesn't matter. You're a troll for merely having thoughts which stray from the consensus. I'm insane, though, and can't help but have these thoughts, and all the people who call themselves "tolerant" and "diverse" like to point out what a piece of crazy shit I am. They like to say I''m a Troll and I deserve to die. It's empathetic and morally superior, or so I'm told. I'm pretty sure it's true, or the media's fact-checkers would have said something by now.

    Anyway, despite eventually going through with it, my vaccine concerns had nothing to do with conservatives or liberals, or Trump or Biden, or religion or politics, or horse de-wormer, or monkey sperm, or a public hair from the taint of a pot-belly pig, or all of the things people assume it's related to.

    Quite simply, my hesitancy grew out of my distrust for big pharma, because I'm crazy. I mean, Pfizer has been fined for fraud more than any other US company, and they are still, to this day, doing incredibly cruel and greedy things ... even after taking huge wads of our tax dollars to develop the vaccine, but it's ignorant and crazy to actually know this. If the develoeprs-of-consensus don't care, neither should I. And see, that's the crux of my insanity. Despite knowing that I should not care, I can't help it. I still do.

    Certain things nag me. Things like:

    https://www.pharmaceutical-tec... [pharmaceut...nology.com]

    Pfizer asked for liability protection not only against civil claims from citizens who suffer serious adverse events after being vaccinated, but also for cases brought due to Pfizerâ(TM)s own negligence, fraud or malice.

    Whoa. That doesn't sound right. I mean, it sounds right to sane people, but to kooks like yours truly, it sounds patently bizarre that people would just shrug it off and not worry about it.

    I mean, Pfizer demands to to have no liability even if in the event they purposely and willfully commit fraud (which they've been fined for doing numerous times already)? Yikes!

    Now, whether you're left-wing, right-wing, or chicken-wing, that should concern you. At least that's how things seem to my, admittedly messed up brain.

    Or this article from a conspiracy-theory peddling website that I read sometimes:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0... [nytimes.com]

    " In some instances, countries are prohibited from donating or reselling doses, a ban that could hamper efforts to get vaccines to poor countries."

    Damn! When it comes to evil corporations, they don't get much more evil than big pharma, and any notion that they might have changed and actually somehow care about people, has been pretty soundly obliterated by the shenanigans they've been up to over the past few months.

    At least that's how reality appears to me.

    In the United States, the government serves big corporate interests as a priority. Here you have big corporations taking billions of dollars from the government to whip out some vaccines,, and then they say "so here you go, but here's the thing, we;'re not liable for anything that goes wrong ... even if it went wrong via our negligence or fraud. Oh, an we get to charge insurance for it, and get more tax dollars for every dose injected. You promise to promote people getting these vaccinations, and you cannot promote any other potential treatment, much like only our drugs can cure scurvy (no cheap oranges allowed!), only our vaccines can save people from COVID. and we get to strong-arm all the poor countries before we let them buy any of it ... deal?"

    And the US government says ... "deal? You had me at "negligence or fraud"! Of course it's a deal! U complete me!"

    T

    • I don't believe you are insane - or maybe not totally :)

      With the example you cite on how Pfizer has behaved in the past and the limitations they put on providing the vaccines for free to poor countries just to maximize their profit, mistrust towards big pharma is totally warranted!

      Regarding the vaccine itself and the science behind though I personally believe its safe and sound.

      It was not actually big pharma who developed the technology (mRNA), but a small company in Germany that was initially working on a

    • Being hesitant about vaccines was reasonable until they reached widespread use and we had enough data to show that they are a lot safer than not getting them. Now it's just foolish.

    • My views are genuine, but these days, it doesn't matter. You're a troll for merely having thoughts which stray from the consensus. I'm insane, though, and can't help but have these thoughts, and all the people who call themselves "tolerant" and "diverse" like to point out what a piece of crazy shit I am. They like to say I''m a Troll and I deserve to die.

      If it quacks like a gaslighting alt-right troll....

      And boy do you quack a lot.

      BTW, Pfizer didn't get blanket immunity for fraud and negligence, just some civil liability protection. The company could still be fined and the officers sent to jail. If any serious malfeasance ever came to light everybody on both sides of the red-blue divide could make serious political bank by crushing them. It would be literally suicidal on so many levels to engage in such a conspiracy at this moment in history.

  • In 1918 was 53 years.
    Today more like 78 years.

    All covid deaths except about 37k of them have been in people over 50.

  • Back then, people were more isolated to their communities.

    You didn't have nearly as many people traveling the country and the world by train, car, plane, and ship, like we can now.

    This left each region isolated and able to handle the pandemic according to their own local laws and opinions.
  • The COVID-19 crisis is setting a new standard concerning inveterate human stupidity. Despite our big brains and what have so far achieved, there is plenty of evidence now to support the view that we are the stupidest animal species in the planet.

  • This is what the "fact checkers" call misinformation -- technically true but misleading. US population in 1918 was 103 million; today it is 333 million. So the per capita rate for Covid is still far below what is was for the Spanish Flu.

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Close