Why Didn't the 1958 and 1918 Pandemics Destroy the Economy? Hint: It's the Lockdowns

Media pundits and politicians are now in the habit of claiming it was the pandemic itself that has caused unemployment to skyrocket and economic growth to plummet. The claim is that sick and dying workers, fearful consumers, and disrupted supply chains would cause economic chaos. Some have even claimed that economic shutdowns actually help the economy, because it is claimed allowing the spread of the disease will itself destroy employment and economic growth.1

Leaving aside the fact there's no evidence lockdowns actually work, we can nonetheless look to past pandemics—where coercive government interventions were at most sporadic—we should see immense economic damage. Specifically, we can look to the the pandemic of 1957-58, which was more deadly than the COVID-19 pandemic has been so far. We can also look to the 1918-19 pandemic. Yet, we will see that neither produced economic damage on a scale we now see as a result of the government mandated lockdowns. This thoroughly undermines the claims that the lockdowns are only a minor factor in economic destruction, and that the virus itself is the real culprit.

Economic Reactions in 1957–58, and in 1918–19

The CDC estimates that as of May 18 this year approximately ninety thousand Americans have died of COVID-19. Adjusted for population size, that comes out to a mortality rate of 272 per million.

This is (so far) less than half the mortality rate for the 1957–58 flu pandemic...

Maybe America’s “economy” was a lot stronger back then.

1918 was the end of WWII and America was going to enter the “Roaring Twenties”.

1958 was the height if the post-war 50’s. Only one income was needed for a prosperous lifestyle.

In both cases, America’s economy largely centered around itself.

Today, we apparently can’t have prosperity unless Uyghur slaves are doing our production under a totalitarian, anti-religious government.

Mortality is not measured deaths divided by population. It’s deaths divided by proven infected cases.

If you spend time reading about Spanish Flu, you’ll find that even 100 years later the numbers are zero confidence. Global death totals number . . . phrased like this . . . 5 - 70 million people. With a range like that, you might as well not have a number at all.

Spanish flu had lockdowns. Many. Varied state to state just like now. But comparisons are difficult. We have locked down restaurants this year. They did not lockdown for Spanish Flu, but the situation was different in 1918. People did not have refrigerators in their homes. That technology had not become mainstream. They cost way too much.

A home cooked meal in a city was a symbol of great wealth in 1918. Restaurants were how people ate. Prices much lower than home cooked. They were essential businesses in 1918.

Lockdowns in 1918 had people completely bored. They emptied magazine stands for reading material, and the magazine stand worker getting paid by the hour had to shut the stand early and lose pay. Unemployment exploded from these lockdowns and self-lockdowns.

So . . . don’t think there is anything horribly worse today than 1918. If you look, you can find photos of 1918 baseball players with masks.

Indeed, according to D.A. Henderson, et al in "Public Health and Medical Responses to the 1957–58 Influenza Pandemic, "Humans under 65 possessed no immunity to this H2N2 strain."1 This meant that the "highest attack rates were in school-age children through young adults up to 35 or 40 years of age."

[From article] The 1957–58 pandemic was such a rapidly spreading disease that it became quickly apparent to U.S. health ofﬁcials that efforts to stop or slow its spread were futile. Thus, no efforts were made to quarantine individuals or groups, and a deliberate decision was made not to cancel or postpone large meetings such as conferences, church gatherings, or athletic events for the purpose of reducing transmission. No attempt was made to limit travel or to otherwise screen travelers. Emphasis was placed on providing medical care to those who were afﬂicted and on sustaining the continued functioning of community and health services….there were no reports that major events were canceled or postponed except for high school and college football games, which were often delayed because of the number of players afﬂicted.

the Asian flu pandemic of 1957-1958 resulted in a estimated 116,000 deaths in America (followed by the Hong Kong flu with about est. 100,000 American deaths in 1968–69), when at about 173,000,000, the population size in 57-58 was close to half of what it is now (330,541,000, rounded figures). Meaning that not only was the infection death rate much higher than for COVID-19, but there would have to be about 200,000 COVID-19 est. deaths to be comparable to the Asian flu. Yet that would simply make it basically equal as concerns the numbers of deaths in proportion to population size, but to justify the "CovidCaptivity," one would have to argue that the Asian flu should have necessitated a response like that to COVID-19. The Soviets would have favored that for sure.

The question then is, where was the COVID-19 comparative response in 57-58 in proportion to its threat? Yes, the 116,000 deaths in America to the Asian flu was for the whole year, yet even if we reach about 200,000 deaths (we pray not) for COVID-19 then that type of equality would still mean that the extremely restrictive all-ages long-term response to COVID-19 simply has no precedent in American history, except to a degree with the far more deadly (550,000 to 675,000 Americans, or 0.66% of the population) 1918 flu.

And yet we read ,

So . . . don’t think there is anything horribly worse today than 1918. If you look, you can find photos of 1918 baseball players with masks.

This was not how most baseball teams addressed the flu. While the MLB season was cut a few weeks short in 1918, that was due less to the outbreak and more to World War I, and it started back on schedule in 1919. But MLB went without any formal protocol about how to handle the outbreak, with no serious talk of canceled games or empty stadiums, and baseball went on, even as the illness came for some of its key figures. - https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/03/09/coronavirus-baseball-history

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.