Cable Forum - View Single Post

**Hugh** · 14-09-2020, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are speculating yourself, and you are also, as ever, stretching what other people say to suit your strange views of what is happening.

Let's get one thing clear. I am certainly not saying there won't be a second wave. I have merely said that if it is true that if the late lockdown resulted in our reaching the same peak of the virus that we would have reached anyway, we may avoid a second wave anywhere near as extreme as the first one. That makes sense.

However, equally, it may not be so, and in fact although there was no lockdown with the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, there was still a devastating second wave.

I have been consistent in saying that this virus is going nowhere, and if we have not yet reached herd immunity, it will be back, lockdowns or no lockdowns.

Your solution is to lock us all up and hide ourselves away. For years! What kind of nonsense is that? If you want to lock yourself up, be my guest!

[EDIT]
Oh, so now you are not saying that we should lock down until a vaccine is found! I'm glad we've sorted that out.

So, what is your solution to this problem, jfman? If you are not going for the herd immunity solution and you are not going for a long lockdown, then what are you saying?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/h...c-coronavirus/

Quote:

(In Philadelphia) Flu cases continued to mount until finally, on October 3, schools, churches, theaters, and public gathering spaces were shut down.

Quote:

Shortly after health measures were put in place in Philadelphia, a case popped up in St. Louis. Two days later, the city shut down most public gatherings and quarantined victims in their homes.

Quote:

Of course, getting citizens to comply with such orders is another story: In 1918, a San Francisco health officer shot three people when one refused to wear a mandatory face mask. In Arizona, police handed out $10 fines for those caught without the protective gear. But eventually, the most drastic and sweeping measures paid off. After implementing a multitude of strict closures and controls on public gatherings, St. Louis, San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Kansas City responded fastest and most effectively: Interventions there were credited with cutting transmission rates by 30 to 50 percent. New York City, which reacted earliest to the crisis with mandatory quarantines and staggered business hours, experienced the lowest death rate on the Eastern seaboard.

Quote:

In 2007, a study in the Journal of the American Medial Association analyzed health data from the U.S. census that experienced the 1918 pandemic, and charted the death rates of 43 U.S. cities. That same year, two studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences sought to understand how responses influenced the disease’s spread in different cities. By comparing fatality rates, timing, and public health interventions, they found death rates were around 50 percent lower in cities that implemented preventative measures early on, versus those that did so late or not at all. The most effective efforts had simultaneously closed schools, churches, and theaters, and banned public gatherings. This would allow time for vaccine development (though a flu vaccine was not used until the 1940s) and lessened the strain on health care systems.

The studies reached another important conclusion: That relaxing intervention measures too early could cause an otherwise stabilized city to relapse. St. Louis, for example, was so emboldened by its low death rate that the city lifted restrictions on public gatherings less than two months after the outbreak began. A rash of new cases soon followed. Of the cities that kept interventions in place, none experienced a second wave of high death rates.