01-31-2020, 11:40 PM
(01-31-2020, 12:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: It was far more complex then that, It wiped out 675k people in the U.S. many of which had plenty of access to basic heath care ,although it wasn't very good it was the same care they received for other Flu's of the time, and clean water. In fact it originally started with U.S. soldiers it is believed who essentially spread the virus across the country and eventually into Europe when they crossed over to France for the war. What made the Spanish Flu so deadly was that it was not only deadly to the young or elderly but ravished the 20-40 year old demographic at almost the same rate as the more at risk groups. It was unique because it went after the upper and lower respiratory system. By infecting the upper tract it was very easily transmittable but by infecting the lower tract as well it became far more dangerous. This was somewhat unique because most flu viruses are an either or, not necessarily both.
Coming back full circle to this strain of coronavirus, it's how easily it can be transmitted that has scientist worried. It doesn't appear the mortality rate is especially high when treated for non at risk groups but there is a certain amount of degradation in healthcare overall if the system gets over run.
People generally don’t die of the flu. The generally die of complications from the flu. Like the pneumonia they got as a result of getting the flu first. Usually, these complications affect high risk groups; under age 2, over age 65, chronic diseases, such as asthma or diabetes, they take medicines which can suppress their immune system like methotrexate, or they’ve had a surgery which can affect their immune system such as a splenectomy.
Most healthy adults with a normal working immune system usually feel terrible for about a week, but recover. With the information you provided it makes me suspect the Spanish Flu most likely caused pneumonia in these usually low risk patients. I wonder if they got a community acquired pneumonia which could be treated with an antibiotic which wasn’t available then? If so, I would expect a lower mortality rate during a similar outbreak today. Or did they get a viral pneumonia in which case an antibiotic wouldn’t have been effective if it was available? If the leading cause of mortality was a viral pneumonia as a complication of the flu what would the mortality rate be like today?