jeep_daddy wrote:
I think your comparison is skewed a tad. First off, your HK flu stats aren't for just 2 or 3 months. It's for the entire time the HK flu was k*****g people. We've only been in this COVD19 p******c for maybe 3 months or so. Also, we have been doing something about it, as you say, we've been social distancing, closing non essential businesses, borders, etc., so our numbers for this p******c might be 10x higher if nothing had been done like the HK flu.
Now, go back to 1918 and check out the stats for the Spanish flu. They estimated between 20m and 40m people died globally from this flu. Yes, the m is for "millions".... And . . . in some areas, they did practice social distancing, masks, and sheltering in place and in those areas the number of cases were much lower including lower death rates. While almost every country was affected at the same time, Australia wasn't hit hard at first because they refused entry when they got word of the Spanish flu. But people complained that they couldn't get imports and goods so after a few months they started allowing entry in their ports and immediately they were hit with the Spanish flu and people started dying.
I think your comparison is skewed a tad. First of... (
show quote)
This was a good read. It suggests that a fair number of people (children) literally starved to death and may not have died from the flu but died because of it.