I don't know why there would be any reason to believe that would be the case. Generally viruses become less deadly over time, not more. The Spanish flu was an outlier.

Viruses generally become milder because of selective pressure to do so. If it kills the host, it doesn't get to spread as much.

Plus, of you get slightly sick, you probably continue your life and infect others. If you get horridly sick, you stay in bed and encounter no one.

WWI made the Spanish Flu have it's second wave. Mildly I'll soldiers stayed where they were. Really sick ones were sent in overcrowded trains far from the front lines back to overflowing hospitals with inadequate sanitation.

These lockdowns we are doing are encouraging a deadly second wave.

I'm pretty sure the Spanish flu did become less deadly over time. I'm sure the virus didn't go away after the second wave, however humanity started developing an immunity to it.

No, from what I’ve read the second wave was the deadliest by far. The first wave being mild. There is anecdotal evidence that sick soldiers spread a virus that became stronger with soldier to soldier spread and then infected more venerable people when returning home. How this would extrapolate to the current outcome I’m not sure.

SARS (including this new Coronavirus) does not mutate as fast as the flu, so it's even less likely to become more deadly than the common flu.

> But SARS has a molecular proofreading system that reduces its mutation rate, and the new coronavirus’s similarity to SARS at the genomic level suggests it does, too. “That makes the mutation rate much, much lower than for flu or HIV,” Farzan said. That lowers the chance that the virus will evolve in some catastrophic way to, say, become significantly more lethal.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-cor...

Right, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 was basically a descendant of Spanish Flu. It continues to circulate, particularly in the last couple years - a majority of flu cases this last couple months have been the H1N1 strain that descends from Spanish Flu. We don't hear about it because newer and more deadly pathogens like COVID-19 have cropped up since.

I think most people in this thread are talking about 1918-1919, though, since that time period's a little more relevant for predicting what COVID-19 will do.

If only optimism could kill viruses.

Humans are wired for doomsday scenarios. Our brains love to imagine the worst case scenarios.... probably how we survived as a species for so long.

Our brains have not evolved to deal with 24/7 media coupled with social media, HN, Reddit, YouTube and every other information source feeding us a nonstop stream of raw unfiltered data.

Dunno where I’m going with this but our brains latch onto stuff like this and run wild. Multiply by billions of brains doing the same thing and there is a massive social and political pressure to “do something”.

Who the fuck knows what is really happening. We have plenty of “facts” and “information” floating around but no way to make any sense of it. All we can do is imagine the worst and replay “prepare for the worst, hope for the best” or “better safe than sorry”. Except unchecked that attitude can make things worse.

And, in short, that is why I’m not in the office today and pretending to work at home just like everybody else here.

Perhaps this is a side effect of subscribing to unhealthy number of true crime podcasts and listening to police radio.

The people in the saturated hospitals know what's going on. HN or Reddit had nothing to do with that.

> saturated hospitals

citation needed.

PS: you should easily be able to cite that statement in favor or in disfavor of your statement. Both citations will be equally valid and invalid.

> An anesthesiologist at a hospital in Bergamo, one of the cities with the most cases of Covid-19, the illness caused by the new coronavirus, told the paper that the intensive care unit was already at capacity, and doctors were being forced to start making difficult triage decisions, admitting people who desperately need mechanical ventilation based on age, life expectancy, and other factors. Just like in wartime.

> The hospital in Bergamo was not the only hospital in the area dealing with a lack of capacity and rationing of care. The same day, I heard from a manager in the Lombardy health care system, among the most advanced and well-funded in Europe, that he saw anesthesiologists weeping in the hospital hallways because of the choices they are going to have to make.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/13/opinion/coronavirus-c...

That article is five days old. Find something from today suggesting the same. And make it relevant to the entire world. Italy is not a model for how this is going down in other countries. Every region is different (and more important has different data collection methods, making it hard to compare two areas)

Again, nobody knows what the fuck is going on. Chill out, stop spreading panic and think critically about things. It’s okay to question stuff.

I am sad to say, official sources say that the Bergamo hospital ran out of intensive care units yesterday.

This is one of the articles in Italian, there are plenty if you look for the last 24h news.

https://it.notizie.yahoo.com/coronavirus-bergamo-terapia-int...

You are right that every country and region is different, but collection methods have nothing to do with the hospitals being flooded with sick people, that would be true if there were 1 or 1 million tests being administered.

> citation needed

It would be ridiculous to copy here the URL of all newspapers and TV channels in Europe. You can also easily find doctors and other personal in hospitals saying they are over capacity. You can also see how in China they had to build new hospitals.

If you need me to give you a citation to understand that this is a huge shitstorm for our health systems you are just stupid.

Not to mention if pessimism could kill viruses!

I don’t know any reason that wouldn’t be the case, and many/most experts are already predicting a second wave - we don’t know the reasons that the 1918 pandemic mutated to become more lethal, so I don’t know how someone can say that it won’t happen again. Good planning would dictate that we not write off worst case scenarios without reason.

I have heard that the reason 1918 was so bad was because, among all the soldiers in the trenches, it could be virulent and still be able to spread effectively, so it had no selection pressure to not be virulent. (If an illness is too virulent, it usually dies out before it spreads too far.)

Covid is a bit different, because it has a longer incubation time, and therefore has more time to spread before the spreader knows not to infect others, but that wasn't the issue with the 1918 influenza outbreak.

(Note well: I am not an epidemiologist.)

I’ve heard that as well and certainly hope that’s the case. But I’d think it’d be irresponsible for planners to just assume that’s what would happen, and not ask themselves what happens if the pandemic becomes worse.

As I understand it (please correct me someone if I'm wrong), this was a freak mutation. Not to suggest it couldn't happen again. And we 100% should be prepared. But the concept of a virus leaving, mutating to be more deadly, and coming back, isn't on the 'expected' path.

And when people talking about leaving, they mean that the mass transmission stops and it continues to transmit, and mutate, among some small subset population (e.g. remote island, etc). Eventually it recurs in the main population, whether hitting people who never got it, or because it has mutated enough that prior protections don't defend against it.

Which is exactly what happens with the flu and the cold. Lots of viruses, constantly mutating. So much so that when the next season comes around it's like an entirely new virus to your body.