This article explains some of it:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2253069/posts
It is a killer, but mostly in the third world.
...but I still say things are much more advanced medically, technologically, sanitization, etc.
Yes, and no. We have tremedous medical advancements, but the ability to use them is based on how many machines are available. For those with pulmonary complications, this means a mechanical respirator to get ventilation. The number of available respirators is not that great, and a widespread need for them would overwhelm the system.
(Hospitals pretty much have to show a profit, or at least break even, so there are not a lot of these devices just sitting in the back room waiting to be needed, nor the personnel to run them.)
So while we are significantly more advanced (than 1918), there is a limit to how many people can be treated at any given time. If that limit is exceeded people will die in greater numbers.
As for sanitation, before antibiotics, people recognized that infection was a killer. We have become more complacent, despite our greater knowledge, and are more likely than ever to take something which will mask symptoms and go out in public.
In addition, we rely on both antibiotics and technology to save lives, but if there were no hospital beds open, no available respirators, and demand even doubled or tripled for specific antibiotics (for opportunistic bacterial pneumonia--the major killer complication) or antivirals to try to head off the flu itself, the stocks of drugs would run out.
Keep in mind the pharmaceuticals have an expiration date, and that while no one wants to run out, no one wants to be left holding a lot of out-of-date inventory, either. So those stocks are based on projected need.
In limited outbreaks, the localized need can be covered, but in a truly widespread (pandemic) outbreak, there is no surplus to shift around.
We have not reached that point, and hopefully will not, but hope is not a viable plan of action.
So far, this flu has not reached that critical mass where the medical establishment here is overwhelmed. Although people in the US have died, they have been relatively few in number because even the most severe cases in the US still have access to the resources we have.
Two things could make this far worse.
One, that severe cases become so widespread that there is no slack in the system.
Two, that the current virus may recombine with other variants to produce a more lethal strain which is readily communicable. The more people infected, the more opportunities for such recombination exist.
“It is a killer, but mostly in the third world.”
I have said, ALL flus (and almost all diseases) are killers; but we’ve so far outpaced them that many are simply not considered such here, anymore. Flu is 1 that is at heart a killer, but has largely been tamed here.
“(Hospitals pretty much have to show a profit, or at least break even, so there are not a lot of these devices just sitting in the back room waiting to be needed, nor the personnel to run them.)”
I can appreciate the idea that there could be an overrun - but again, why assume it’s so bad that people go to a hospital for it? Or even bother with OTC medicines, because most flus aren’t at all cured by them, just “relieved”.
So while we are significantly more advanced (than 1918), there is a limit to how many people can be treated at any given time. If that limit is exceeded people will die in greater numbers.
“As for sanitation, before antibiotics, people recognized that infection was a killer. We have become more complacent, despite our greater knowledge, and are more likely than ever to take something which will mask symptoms and go out in public.”
Again, I don’t mean just the OBVIOUS direct kind of advancements - I mean EVERYWHERE in the BIG PICTURE. Not just that people obviously ill are sanitary and the people with them, but EVERYTHING is pre-emptively sanitary. Restaurants, hotels, etc; everywhere you go. Compared to 1918, trust me, it’s a bit different.
“Keep in mind the pharmaceuticals have an expiration date, and that while no one wants to run out, no one wants to be left holding a lot of out-of-date inventory, either. So those stocks are based on projected need.”
Pharmacies may deliberately toss them, but how about us? Expiration dates are mainly for “lost effectiveness”, not safety, and usually have a fudge factor to boot. I don’t toss drugs either OTC or prescription (yes, I’ve often not taken all of it) just for an old date.
“So far, this flu has not reached that critical mass where the medical establishment here is overwhelmed. Although people in the US have died, they have been relatively few in number because even the most severe cases in the US still have access to the resources we have.”
2 people have died? 1 a Mexican youngster, another near there with childbirth issues (God rest her child). Are there any others?