ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive
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/peoplepopulation ... 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.
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
This (in bold font, below) is absolutely and demonstrably untrue.
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
…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.
