[Mick]

Funny you mention the Spanish Flu.  In context, I understand you to mean that the "elites" of the day in 1918 stood aside and let the flu pandemic spread without implementing any social distancing measures.  Not only is that false, but it turns out that the regions of the country where more stringent measures were adopted not only had fewer deaths than those who delayed implementing social distancing measures, but also that those regions did better economically.

I don't think I ever said or implied that the authorities in 1918 stood aside. Obviously, they took what steps were available to them to prevent the spread of the flu. But they didn't shut down their economy like we've done.

a big part of actions (or lack thereof) in the 1918 flu pandemic was a desire to not upset the war machine and to not create any havoc in those supply chains or both materials and soldiers.

I'll again recommend reading "The Great Influenza"

Nearly finished with it. The echoes to today are striking. Masks being pilloried as for the weak, or in fact that being scared of the virus actually makes your immune system weaker and more vulnerable. Churches complaining about unequal treatment in closures. Rumors that the virus is getting weaker. Oh its just the flu. The best part of the book though is that it uses some of the leading scientists and doctors of the time as the main characters, which gives the book a good narrative structure. Learned a lot about some of these figures that built modern American medicine, people like Welch, Osler, Flexner.

Also Mick is wrong, many cities closed large segments of their economies to deal with the virus. And the ones that were stricter and longer had less deaths and better economic results afterwards (as has been mentioned multiple times by multiple posters on this board.)

I would imagine that was due to the atypically high mortality rates of working-age Americans during the Spanish Flu epidemic.  The considerable majority of COVID-19 deaths are found in post-retirement age Americans.

[Mick]

Funny you mention the Spanish Flu.  In context, I understand you to mean that the "elites" of the day in 1918 stood aside and let the flu pandemic spread without implementing any social distancing measures.  Not only is that false, but it turns out that the regions of the country where more stringent measures were adopted not only had fewer deaths than those who delayed implementing social distancing measures, but also that those regions did better economically.

I don't think I ever said or implied that the authorities in 1918 stood aside. Obviously, they took what steps were available to them to prevent the spread of the flu. But they didn't shut down their economy like we've done.

a big part of actions (or lack thereof) in the 1918 flu pandemic was a desire to not upset the war machine and to not create any havoc in those supply chains or both materials and soldiers.

I'll again recommend reading "The Great Influenza"

Nearly finished with it. The echoes to today are striking. Masks being pilloried as for the weak, or in fact that being scared of the virus actually makes your immune system weaker and more vulnerable. Churches complaining about unequal treatment in closures. Rumors that the virus is getting weaker. Oh its just the flu. The best part of the book though is that it uses some of the leading scientists and doctors of the time as the main characters, which gives the book a good narrative structure. Learned a lot about some of these figures that built modern American medicine, people like Welch, Osler, Flexner.

Also Mick is wrong, many cities closed large segments of their economies to deal with the virus. And the ones that were stricter and longer had less deaths and better economic results afterwards (as has been mentioned multiple times by multiple posters on this board.)

I would imagine that was due to the atypically high mortality rates of working-age Americans during the Spanish Flu epidemic.  The considerable majority of COVID-19 deaths are found in post-retirement age Americans.