"In 1918, when we had NONE of the technilogical capabilities of today, had NO ability to communicate, had no real ability to transport goods and services, we lost 40 million people in the world to a flu.
This flu could be "as bad as" that flu. But we are much more capable of isolating and combating things today."
Seriously wrong on both issues. Look at it in a different manner. In 1918 the flu had a mortality rate of about 3-5%. It killed 5% of the total world population. That is 325 MILLION today. If the Flue is more virulent, the number gets bigger. If the USA had identical casualty rates as 1918, we lose over 2 million dead, all in about 6 months, or 4 times our losses in WWII.
AS to your second point, we face a greater problem today. First, the disease can get from China to NY in a day...it used to take weeks. Next, we are vastly less self sufficient either as a country or as individuals. In 1918 people could fort up for weeks in much of the country. How many can today? How much food do you have on hand? How long would it last with no electricity? How about no water? What if the government sets martial law in effected areas and quarantines everyone to their homes? What about prescription drugs? Are you set for a few months? Most folk are not. How about money? How long can you survive without any new money coming in?
No, worse case has most of the country sick at the same time, 10% or so dying of the disease, everyone ordered under threat of being shot, to stay home, and most basic services out of order for a couple of months or so.
Those who make it through that will be more prepared than they are for a weekend blizzard. The rest will be in denial.
panic is foolish....preparation to some level is smart.
Have you ever been in a super market in New England when a snow storm is approaching? It is not pretty. Now imagine ALL the supermarkets all at once over a few days....
I believe you are talking about quarantine here?
Here in North Carolina, they don't plan to shoot you, according to their updated Pandemic Plan. The penalty for breaking quarantine is merely to arrest you without bail (maybe quarantining you in the nearest guarded school gym with 1,000 of your newly acquired, closest, quarantine-breaking friends?) followed by up to two years in prison - if you survive the gym. Hopefully, the disease won't break out there!
But shoot you? No!
I wonder about your statistics from 1918, just because the numbers don't add up. The flu in 1918 killed 5% of those who were infected, but you said it killed 5% of the entire population of the world, which would suggest that every single person in the world was infected.
I read that 40 million people died. Oddly though, in all my (I admit somewhat limited study) of world history, in all my (public school) learning, I never before HEARD of this horrible epidemic in 1918.
I would be tempted to ask how big a deal it could have been if it doesn't make the top 20 list of big events in the last hundred years. But I know that history is not an exact science.
>"In 1918 the flu had a mortality rate of about 3-5%. It killed 5% of the total world population."<
Most flu infections can be attributed to poor sanitation, lack of hand washing, hygiene techniques, etc.
In 1918, many people did not get sick at all.
Flue vaccine immunity is a myth. A vaccine only provides temporary immunity, at best is about 70 - 80 % effective...temporarily. That drops to about 30 - 40 % for people over 65.
There is no reason for someone with a healthy immune system to get a flu shot.
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/immunization/vaccine/influenza/flu_vaccine_facts.shtml
"...70 to 80 percent effective in temporarily preventing the flu of the season in healthy persons less than 65 years old (the efficacy rate drops to 30 to 40% in those over 65 years old but the vaccine is thought to be 50 to 60% effective in preventing hospitalization and pneumonia and 80% effective in preventing death from the flu in the over 65 age group)..."
"One consideration with the mass use of flu vaccine in healthy children is the removal of natural antibodies to flu which are obtained from natural infection. The question of whether it is better for healthy children, who rarely suffer complications from flu, to get the flu and develop permanent immunity to that flu strain or it is better for children to get vaccinated every year to try to suppress all flu infection in early childhood is a question that has yet to be adequately answered by medical science."