News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav... by izend on Thursday April 23, 2020 @03:41PM (#22960261)
Making it the worse pandemic in decades but no where near the Spanish Flu.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav... by vladislav on Thursday April 23, 2020 @03:56PM (#22960433)
The Spanish flu had a smaller outbreak in the Spring and came back with a vengeance the following Fall, so hold that thought.

https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurge...

Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav... by dragonwriter on Thursday April 23, 2020 @04:23PM (#22960816)
Well, sure, but the “Spanish” flu (only called that because Spain is the first country severely hit that didn't lie and cover it up because of WWI) was accelerated by both the physical conditions created by WWI and the fact that covering it up to avoid revealing weakness to wartime opponents hampered response in many early-hit countries and obstructed information flow.

It's also nowhere near the HIV/AIDS global epidemic in likely total impact, but it's a lot more acute in it's impact than HIV/AIDS.

Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav... by downerending on Thursday April 23, 2020 @06:54PM (#22962520)
> only called that because...

Also worth noting that a huge number of names in biology are quite arbitrary and/or accidents of history.

Or tech, for that matter. Fewer and fewer "hard disks" involve any actual disk, and more non-floppy floppy disks were made than actual floppy ones. Etc.

Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav... by mrb on Thursday April 23, 2020 @04:26PM (#22960855)
I disagree. It's simply too early to make that determination.

The Spanish Flu had a estimated infection fatality ratio of >2.5% (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-0979_article). As another commenter pointed out, the COVID-19 IFR is 0.9% in NYC. The difference between 2.5% and 0.9% is only 2.8x. However the IFR is not only underestimated due to the lag between case detection and death, but it's also probably a lot worse in many other parts of the world (third world countries, etc). So it's possible the difference is only 2-fold, which would make both pandemics relatively comparable.

Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav... by umeshunni on Thursday April 23, 2020 @11:18PM (#22964285)
Another factor to consider is that healthcare today is much better than when the Spanish flu occurred and that could explain the 2x difference.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav... by rechristened on Thursday April 23, 2020 @04:01PM (#22960501)
Or as bad as the 1957-8 "Asian Flu" that most people haven't even heard of.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav... by mmastrac on Thursday April 23, 2020 @03:48PM (#22960341)
Hard to compare directly against the Spanish Flu as medicine has had 100 years of progress, but assuming you are talking about overall impact, agreed.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav... by glofish on Thursday April 23, 2020 @03:51PM (#22960378)
not to mention the Spanish Flu hit children just as hard as the old.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav... by cozzyd on Thursday April 23, 2020 @06:31PM (#22962310)
The age distribution was also significantly different then.