Older folks around here, imagine if the Coronavirus had hit us in 1977

It would have been amazing as you would just self isolate with a nice bit of crumpet and shag your way through it.

No razor required and certainly no need for protection.

Good times.

I'm really wondering how it would have gone. I grew up in a Midwestern city of a half-million, and to call it isolated is not a strong enough word. We weren't aware of anything outside of our city, really.

I think news of this would have been 'somewhere else,' and not even noticed once it took hold. Even now, I can see places like where I grew up with maybe a few dozen cases. During flu season. We wouldn't even notice. I bet it would just be a herd immunity thing, but eventually we'd notice that lots of old people were dying. "A bad year for the flu," something like that.

In fact, I'd bet we have faced something exactly this dangerous at some point since the Spanish Flu. Without a raging world war, and the comparatively lower volume of travel, and world travel in the 50s or 60s, say, there's no way something like this could have gone worldwide before it mutated or died or fizzled out. I think it's probably today's always-connected world that made this what it is now.

Just think of the folks born in 1900. Someone born then who lived to their mid-70s would have lived through WWI, the Spanish flu, the Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War, Korea and Vietnam. Must have been some tough old bast@rds. The current epidemic would hardly seem noteworthy to them.

ircthis wrote:

Pappy wrote:

I think as a whole this would of been handled a lot better. You have to figure everyone older than 50 lived through the Spanish flu, WW1 and or WW2. Sure WW1 and the Spanish flu were before 1920 but everyone over 50 in 1977 felt hardships from those events. They lived through the depression also. Social distancing for them would have been nothing. They'd of just done what was required and dealt with it.

If you’re implying that somehow your generation would be more willing to social distance than millennials or other younger generations I’m going to call BS on that. Went for a run today and there were tons of older people (I’m 30), often in groups, going for walks, runs, bike rides, etc.

I'm not implying my generation at all. I'm talking about my grandparents generation or close to it. People born between 1910-1925. They would of been between 52 and 67 years of age in 1977. That group of Americans would of not have had a big issue with what is going on today. They'd of just stayed at home. I doubt you seen any of them today because so few are left. You might have seen older baby boomers.

zoomx83 wrote:

Just image we had a global pandemic in 1977. Before cable, the WWW, cell phones, smart phones.

Sure, that was how it happened during the Spanish Flu, but can you imagine how different things would be ? I almost thing getting information on AM radio, during Special News Bulletins on the networks, and in the newspaper daily would have been better.

I don't know if it would have been any better, but I do know there would have been a lot more toilet paper left on the shelves.

Pappy wrote:

ircthis wrote:

If you’re implying that somehow your generation would be more willing to social distance than millennials or other younger generations I’m going to call BS on that. Went for a run today and there were tons of older people (I’m 30), often in groups, going for walks, runs, bike rides, etc.

I'm not implying my generation at all. I'm talking about my grandparents generation or close to it. People born between 1910-1925. They would of been between 52 and 67 years of age in 1977. That group of Americans would of not have had a big issue with what is going on today. They'd of just stayed at home. I doubt you seen any of them today because so few are left. You might have seen older baby boomers.

I still don’t know if I agree with that. I would actually assume the exact opposite. A generation that lived through various more deadly diseases, fought the Nazis and stared down the Soviets (and the constant threat of nuclear war with those Soviets) would probably not be cowering like a bunch of emasculated sheep in their homes because they have (currently) a .000003 % chance of getting a virus and dying from it.

Precious Roy wrote:

I was snowed in during the Storm of the Century in New England during 1978. As a kid, it was amazing because we got to play in the snow all day. But we were out of school for about two weeks before they could dig out all the snow. We just dealt with it. A neighbor had a 4x4 Jeep and did trips to the grocery store to get everyone supplies. We were used to having crappy network TV and played lots of board games.

yeah-I remember that '77/78 winter as a kid and making snowcaves out of the snowbanks! Boardgames and network TV!

In 1977 we had Son of Sam in NYC and it was very creepy to be out alone or in small groups. Its always something.

Everyone was a sub 2:30 marathoner in 1977. People were so healthy back then they would of thought the corona virus was a sniffle.

They would have been really sad if it killed Elvis. Instead it was a 30 pound turd.

lol Who said cowering? Doing what needs to be done is not cowering.

Pappy wrote:

ircthis wrote:

I still don’t know if I agree with that. I would actually assume the exact opposite. A generation that lived through various more deadly diseases, fought the Nazis and stared down the Soviets (and the constant threat of nuclear war with those Soviets) would probably not be cowering like a bunch of emasculated sheep in their homes because they have (currently) a .000003 % chance of getting a virus and dying from it.

lol Who said cowering? Doing what needs to be done is not cowering.

You’re right. At least cowering is usually harmless to everyone but the coward. What many are proposing (stop the economy for 1-6 months) is actually harmful to millions. It’s being a harmful coward. You say “you’re doing what needs to be done” I assume you mean staying home so the virus doesn’t spread and thus causing a Depression.

However, if this is your argument, why not ban the use of cars? Cars cause 35,000 deaths every year and we know for a fact despite taking safety precautions tens of thousands will continue to die every year because of cars. If members of the “Greatest Generation” had a vehicle they were willingly ignoring this well known fact because the convinence of having a car outweighed the trade of off thousands of people dying every year. Maybe not the same amount of people died every year due to car crashes in the 50s as today but many people did die due to vehicles even in the 40s and 50s.

Now let’s fast forward to today. If you’re telling me the ”greatest generation” was unwilling to give up their vehicles year in and year out knowing vehicles caused thousands of deaths every year what makes you think they would plunge themselves into a Great Depression and make many of them destitute because they had a .00003 % chance of dying from a virus. I say the chance of them doing that is very slim, as it should be.

Nice arguments. I go to work. Essential/expendable worker about the same thing. After work I just go home. I have limited my exposure to people only slightly. I haven't gone out much for awhile. Not really an issue and not really much sacrifice for others to do the same.

Your car argument is an irrelevant straw man. I knew a guy that was walking along a river. He tripped and hit his head on a rock. He landed face first in about 2 inches of water and drowned. Should people not walk, go by a river or should we remove all rocks from rivers? I never said they would give up their vehicles.

.00003%, .000003% which is it? I don't know either and doubt anyone knows yet. What I do know is that it is spreading still fairly quickly and it causes death in some people. I don't know but I think this will not be as bad as the Spanish flu. The Spanish flu was not a big issue it's first go around. The Spanish flu did come back and killed 5 times more people than the first world war however. The only thing that slowed it down was self isolating and quarantines. It did not end well for people and places that chose to ignore preventative measures.

Russian roulette may be a good analogy. If a person did not limit their exposure it was like playing Russian roulette would it be acceptable? Let's say the gun had 60 chambers instead of 6. So, .016 odds of losing their life. Would that be worth the risk? The more people that spread this the worse any one persons odds of getting it are. How would death effect a persons household economy? The world economy will bounce back from this fast when things get rolling again.

There’s a lot to unravel in your last post. My “straw man” argument is relevant because it shows we make decisions every day that often include risks. Every time you leave the house, drive to work and drive back home you run a risk of death. Actually statistically compared to the Corona virus it’s a very high risk (35k car deaths in USA vs 900 COVID deaths).

I’m relying on stats for my corona death rate, you are relying on assumptions. 20k people in the world have died of Corona and the population of the world is 7.7 billion. Do the math.

The Russian Roulette argument is absurd because there is no upside to playing Russian Roulette. The upside to not shutting down the economy is to avoid another Great Depression.

I don’t know what how the Corona death rate would affect the economy. Right now the death rate is negligible. I know if we shut the economy down for 3 months it will effect the economy drastically in a negative way

Your math is off. My assumptions even though it is not correct it is closer than you taking the amount of deaths by the amount of people in the world. Your math would only be correct if everyone in the world was exposed to the corona virus already. BTW I never gave you a death rate. We can not calculate a death rate with the data at hand. Most of the countries death rates are suspect at best. .00095% would be my guess on a death rate now but that does not include the people that will die that are known to have it. That would be 7.3 million people world wide which also includes having the medical equipment to treat everyone. Without the medical equipment the death rat will go up.

The Russian roulette is not really absurd because like cars they both have a risk. Russian roulette is also good because you know what the odds are while playing the game. Kind of like your cars but with worse odds. The more the corona virus spreads the more peoples odds of getting it are.

Yeah, 3 months off will be bad. So will a few thousand to tens of millions of deaths. There is no good solution. One thing for sure though is the economy can and will come back. Peoples lives will not. Personally I don't care to much about the economy. I'd rather lose as few people as possible.

One thing with the generation I brought up. Most of them did not live in debt. They almost all lived without in their lives at one point. They all made sacrifices because they had to. Almost all of them experienced the effects of death at an early age. That is why I said they would handle this better. They would have just got through it like all the other crap they dealt with.

.095% on the guesstimated death rate

I don't understand the stats at all.

But I do think this is right: If you get the regular flu that's out there, it's a .4 percent chance you'll die. Maybe .04, something like that.

With coronavirus, it's 4% that you'll die.

That's why it's a fairly big deal. That, and that it's spreading fast, spreads easily, and there's no cure.

Currently, the dying aren't saved in hospitals, and they're trying basically with those near death. Fairly crazy stuff. But watch - it's going to warm up next week on the West Coast, and I bet it calms down, rather than looks like NYC.

I hope Trump has parades and such for the big opening day on Easter. Should be something.

Oh god, don’t even joke about this. I would’ve missed shows by Zeppelin, Springsteen, The Ramones, Kiss, and Tom Petty.

ircthis wrote:

I still don’t know if I agree with that. I would actually assume the exact opposite. A generation that lived through various more deadly diseases, fought the Nazis and stared down the Soviets (and the constant threat of nuclear war with those Soviets) would probably not be cowering like a bunch of emasculated sheep in their homes because they have (currently) a .000003 % chance of getting a virus and dying from it.

Buzz Aldrin is a bit younger (born 1930). This is what he says:

Amidst the coronavirus outbreak, I spoke with Aldrin on Tuesday by telephone. He is at home, hunkering down, and doing fine health-wise. Aldrin turned 90 years old in January, and at this age, he is in the very highest of risk categories for COVID-19.

"Buzz, what are you doing to protect yourself from the coronavirus?" I asked.

"Lying on my ass and locking the door," he replied, without hesitating.

Buzz Aldrin, ladies and gentlemen. A national treasure.