In 1918 most of the U.S workforce was in the trenches in Europe. If you showed up at a rally with the American flag and signs saying you had a right to work, they would put you to work right off and throw in a free trip to Europe.
The Path to Recovery: How to Re-Open America
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
In 1918 most of the U.S workforce was in the trenches in Europe. If you showed up at a rally with the American flag and signs saying you had a right to work, they would put you to work right off and throw in a free trip to Europe.
There are quite a few more differences between 1918 and today besides "interconnected with fast transport and faster communications". The economy is a bit more interconnected, too.
Regardless, these models you speak of, please.
There are a large number of studies on the health and economic impact in cities for the 1918 flu. Here are some recent articles as a starting point for the economic impact & recovery for the 1918 flu:
The data speak: Stronger pandemic response yields better economic recovery
Study of 1918 flu pandemic shows U.S. cities that responded more aggressively in health terms also had better economic rebounds.
http://news.mit.edu/2020/pandemic-health-response-economic-recovery-0401
Economic Effects of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic
Implications for a Modern-day Pandemic
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/...ment/research-reports/pandemic_flu_report.pdf
Pandemic Economics: Lessons From The Spanish Flu In 1918
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pedrod...ns-from-the-spanish-flu-in-1918/#6ca0836797a8
How can we save lives and the economy? Lessons from the Spanish Flu pandemic
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/pandemic-economy-lessons-1918-flu/
- Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as social distancing can have positive effects on the economy, through limiting spikes in infections and avoiding mass casualties.
- A study of the economic impact of the 1918 Spanish Flu in the US has found those cities that implemented early and extensive NPIs suffered no adverse economic effects over the medium term.
- Cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively actually experienced a relative increase in real economic activity after the pandemic subsided.
Here is an article on the public health impact in cities:
How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic
Social distancing isn’t a new idea—it saved thousands of American lives during the last great pandemic. Here's how it worked.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/
Once again, the comparisons for the periods are great for entertainment purposes. I'm sure they sell a lot of clicks online. But they're essentially worthless for predictive purposes outside of "this is what we guess will happen". I don't need to click on a bunch of articles pushing a narrative from sources who have been known to have forecasting issues in the past. LOL...I just saw you quoted the Fed, too. Oh yeah, great reference. They're a wonderful reference for forecasts. Right up there with Punxsutawney Phil.
These are all great sources with detailed data. Feel free to read them and learn.
The lessons from 1918 are very pertinent to our current pandemic situation.
While you claim the Fed is not a reliable source the reality is that The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis summary was published in November 2007. The IV. Implications for a Modern-day Pandemic section starting on page 21 basically predicted our situation today and is spot on. Here it is:
IV. Implications for a Modern-day Pandemic
The potential financial costs and death tolls from a modern-day influenza pandemic in the United States that were presented at the beginning of this report suggest an initial cost of several hundred billion dollars and the deaths of hundreds of thousands to several million people. The information presented in this report and information provided in two prominent publications on the 1918 influenza pandemic are now used to formulate a list of the likely economic effects of a modern-day influenza pandemic and possible ways to mitigate the severity of any future pandemic:
- Given the positive correlation between population density and influenza mortalities, cities are likely to have greater mortality rates than rural areas. Compared with 1918, however, urban and rural areas are more connected today—this may decrease the difference in mortality rates between cities and rural areas. Similarly, a greater percentage of the U.S. population is now considered urban (about 80 percent) com-pared with the U.S. population at the time of the pandemic (51 percent in 1920).
- Nonwhite groups as a whole have a greater chance of death because roughly 90 percent of all nonwhites live in urban areas (com-pared with about 77 percent of whites). This correlates with lower-income individuals being more likely to die—nonwhite (excluding Asians) households have a lower median income ($30,858 in 2005) compared with white households ($50,784 in 2005).26 Similarly, only 10 percent of whites were below the poverty level in 2005 compared with more than 20 percent for various minority groups (except Asians).
- Urban dwellers are likely to have, on average, better physical access to quality health care, though nearly 19 percent of the city population in the United States has no health coverage compared with only 14 percent of the rural population. The question remains as to affordability of health care and whether free-service health-care providers, clinics and emergency rooms (the most likely choices for the uninsured) are able to handle victims of the pandemic.
- Health care is irrelevant unless there are systems in place to ensure that an influenza pandemic will not knock out health-care provision and prevent the rapid disposal of the dead in the cities (as it did in Philadelphia, which was exacerbated by medical leaves during World War I). If medical staff succumbs to the influenza and facilities are overwhelmed, the duration and severity of the pandemic will be increased. In Philadelphia during the 1918 pandemic, “the city morgue had as many as ten times as many bodies as coffins.”
- A greater percentage of families with life insurance would mitigate the financial effects from the loss of a family’s primary breadwinner. However, life insurance is a normal good (positively correlated with income); so, low-income families are less likely to be protected with insurance than are higher-income families.
- Local quarantines would likely hurt businesses in the short run. Employees would likely be laid off. Families with no contact to the influenza may too experience financial hardships. To prevent spread, quarantines would have to be complete (i.e., no activity allowed outside of the home). Partial quarantines, such as closing schools and churches but not public transportation or restaurants (as done in Philadelphia, St. Louis and Washington, D.C.) would do little to stop the spread of influenza.
- Some businesses could suffer revenue losses in excess of 50 percent. Others, such as those providing health services and products, may experience an increase in business (unless a full quarantine exists). If the pandemic causes a shortage of employees, there could be a temporary increase in wages for remaining employees in some industries. This is less likely than in 1918, however, given the greater mobility of workers that exists today.
- Can we rely on local, state and federal governments to help in the case of a modern-day pandemic? Government has shown its inability to handle disasters in the past (e.g., Hurricane Katrina). Local preparedness by health departments and hospitals, volunteer services (e.g., Red Cross) and private businesses, and responsible actions of the population are likely to mitigate the effects of a modern-day influenza pandemic.
While most of the US is starting to reopen, a new analysis shows that just 10 states have met even pretty basic standards for testing
https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-data-10-states-meet-reopen-threshold-testing-2020-5
The Associated Press published an analysis over the weekend that found just 10 states were conducting the amount of testing experts say is needed to stay on top of the pandemic.
High levels of testing are necessary to spot pockets of infections and contain them before they spread. For this to work, people who don't show symptoms need to be tested too, since they can still carry and spread the virus.
The federal government has shied away from issuing definitive testing standards for a state to reopen, which it says should be left to them.
It has floated a less official ballpark figure, however, and scientists at Harvard also set a different standard, which the AP used to measure the testing regimes of each state. Only 10 passed on both counts, and 19 failed on both.
The federal government figure came from a recent briefing, where senior officials said states should be testing at least 2.6% of their populations each month.
It wasn't clear how they got to that number, though, and later it was changed to 2%.
Thirty-two states aren't meeting the 2% threshold, versus 18 that are.
The researchers at Harvard have said the US needs to be testing about 500,000 people a day overall before easing lockdown restrictions.
When that metric is translated to each individual state, based on their different populations, 23 states are doing enough, and 27 are not.
Overall, just 10 states meet both the federal and Harvard testing minimums. They are North Dakota, New Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Utah, Idaho, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, and Delaware.
Some states meet one standard but not both. For example, Rhode Island is above the 2% federal testing number but below the Harvard metric.
(More info at above url)
https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-data-10-states-meet-reopen-threshold-testing-2020-5
- Experts agree that widespread testing is a crucial part of staying on top of the coronavirus enough to safely reopen society.
- But an analysis by the Associated Press found that just 10 states were at recommended levels.
- The AP measured states on two criteria: one floated (though not formalized) by the White House and a second set out by experts at Harvard.
- Nineteen states don't meet either standard. Nonetheless, they are all starting to loosen restrictions.
The Associated Press published an analysis over the weekend that found just 10 states were conducting the amount of testing experts say is needed to stay on top of the pandemic.
High levels of testing are necessary to spot pockets of infections and contain them before they spread. For this to work, people who don't show symptoms need to be tested too, since they can still carry and spread the virus.
The federal government has shied away from issuing definitive testing standards for a state to reopen, which it says should be left to them.
It has floated a less official ballpark figure, however, and scientists at Harvard also set a different standard, which the AP used to measure the testing regimes of each state. Only 10 passed on both counts, and 19 failed on both.
The federal government figure came from a recent briefing, where senior officials said states should be testing at least 2.6% of their populations each month.
It wasn't clear how they got to that number, though, and later it was changed to 2%.
Thirty-two states aren't meeting the 2% threshold, versus 18 that are.
The researchers at Harvard have said the US needs to be testing about 500,000 people a day overall before easing lockdown restrictions.
When that metric is translated to each individual state, based on their different populations, 23 states are doing enough, and 27 are not.
Overall, just 10 states meet both the federal and Harvard testing minimums. They are North Dakota, New Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Utah, Idaho, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, and Delaware.
Some states meet one standard but not both. For example, Rhode Island is above the 2% federal testing number but below the Harvard metric.
(More info at above url)
The only thing I'll learn is how redundant the same narrative is across a broad range of sources. Which, I already know.
Shocking level of accuracy in what is a very obvious outcome with expected results. "If the government quarantines local or municipal areas, people will lost jobs and businesses will suffer."
Please, by all means, post more in the No Shit, Sherlock category and support it as undeniable evidence.
On a related note regarding opening up the country, Tampa was allowed to have restaurants open today in limited capacity. Went to the local pub for lunch. Was doing great. People out and about in the park across the street with dogs, chatting. Pub was doing well.
People finally getting smart about this.
People finally getting smart about this.