mind_messing
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
The world was a different place in 1918. Life, to be blunt, was worth less than it is now.
On the bare face of it this statement seems deeply troubling. Around 50 million people died of Spanish Flu worldwide. 70-80M died in WW2. Lets say Covid-19 eventually gets to 5M deaths worldwide (it is currently at 0.18M). Even before we factor in population inflation, would today's deaths be 10+ times more important just because they are happening now rather than a century/80 years ago?
Going a little more towards what I think you were trying to say - was the loss of a life in the early 20th century really 10x less affecting for the family/loved ones of the deceased because people 100 years ago were so much more desensitized to premature death?
Getting closest to what I think you are saying (this relates more to the Spanish Flu deaths than those in WW2) do you think that the governments of the time were so much less caring of the welfare of their citizens that a death toll 10x higher than a deeply pessimistic Covid-19 prediction would have been equally acceptable?
Even that last suggestion is pretty extreme and requiring of further evidencing rather than a simple prima facie statement
You've touched upon many of the key points.
Most obvious is the role of the state. Vastly different from the role of the state of today in its level of involvement in citizens lives.
Then there is the socio-economic aspect of health. Income, living conditions and access to medicine were quite strongly interlinked.
On top of that there is the social aspect.
ONS have a good page explaining it:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/causesofdeathover100years/2017-09-18
Infections dominate the charts for both men and women for all age groups prior to 1955.
In short, premature death via infection was a much more common cause of death for all age groups, effectively normalising it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
This (in bold font, below) is absolutely and demonstrably untrue.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
…
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Most of us love history, so that helps us keep this in perspective. While this is one of the gripping stories of our time it bears no resemblance to what our grandparents and great-grandparents experienced a century ago. They dealt with something like 40 million to 100 million Spanish flu deaths and a world war. Coronavirus mortality, in comparison, is an order of magnitude less, is projected to remain so, and most of us are safely at home or at work with plenty of food, power, entertainment, books, etc.
There's also the fact that originally this was projected to be exponentially more significant than its been or appears likely to be. Early on, as we've noted here many times, an Australian group came up with seven projections, the least of which called for 17 million deaths worldwide. Then there was a US estimate calling for 1.7 million deaths. Then came one for California alone to suffer 200k to 500k. Then the oft-sighted projection that the US would suffer 100k to 240k mortalities three weeks ago. Now, the estimates for the US have stabilized at around 60k to 70k. That's a great deal of death but so much fewer than early estimates and so much less than the Spanish flu...and the world survived that.
People are trying to foresee what the future holds and to get ready. Early projections will probably be about as accurate as they were for this round. But mankind is getting a grip on this, through lots of trial and error and guesswork and deductive reasoning and testing. We flattened the curve, which was the dominant approach advocated early on. And it's good that we'll now test various measures of easing, while many/most hospitals have capacity to deal with flare ups. The knowledge gained will be useful when/if the next round comes.
The world was a different place in 1918. Life, to be blunt, was worth less than it is now.
….
Really? Then demonstrate it.
Sorry mate I'm still not on board with what you are getting at.
Looking first at the graph of deaths - which as far as I can tell is showing base numbers of deaths and not deaths per capita - significant if you take into account that the 1911 census had the UK at 43 million people compared to 67 million today. If you ignore population growth you have a massive drop from the Spanish Flu years to the 'baseline' following years. For what you are saying to hold true I think you would need a graph going another 50-100 years back to show that the Spanish Flu death tolls were not a significant spike in the death tolls of preceding years. Looking at the years that followed they were well out of the ordinary even compared to the spikes around the Great Depression and WW2 and certainly compared to any fluctuations we have had in more 'living memory'.
Forget comparative death tolls between 1918 and today, not what I'm getting at.
What I'm exploring here is
1) What people died of; and
2) When
On point 2, see the chart at the end on child mortality. Remarkably different picture than today.
quote:
In terms of causes of death again I don't think I agree. Say if you look at the infographic of contemporary causes of death for women - overwhelmingly due to cancer. If for whatever reason there was a large spike in total annual deaths of women from cancer do you think that the public and the government would simply shrug their shoulders and say that the increase was no cause for concern as that was what women normally died of anyway?
Cancer only appears as the leading cause after 1945, which happens to coincide with the development of the NHS, and the elimination of the big infectious diseases - TB falls right off the chart after 1945. My medical history is rusty but that's around when the BCG vaccine was rolled out in a big way.
Examining the leading causes of death prior to 1945, you'll find that tuberculosis dominates.
Dying from an infection in the 1915-45 before old age was not a novelty (as Covid is now. For the majority of men and women up to around the 40-50 age mark, it was the biggest killer and just a fact of life.
As for the infant mortality, I'd warrant that there'd be a strong correlation with infant mortality and parental income.
Taken together, hence the "less value" statement. The interlink between British military concerns and public health is interesting reading. Lives and health lost to disease became increasingly more valuable in light of the military requirements of the conscript army needed following 1914.
|
Printable Version
RE: OT: Corona virus - 
The NYT editorial board is a diversity check-list of Lefty lunatics. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread