Interesting spin. But
Economic consequences
The immediate economic consequences of 1918 stemmed from the panic surrounding the spread of the flu. Large US cities, including New York and Philadelphia, were essentially
temporarily shut down as their populations became bedridden. As in
Italy now, businesses were closed, sporting events cancelled and private gatherings – including funerals – banned to stem the spread of the disease.
The long-term consequences proved horrific. A surprisingly high proportion of adult health and cognitive ability is determined
before we are even born.
Research has shown the flu-born cohort achieved lower educational attainment by adulthood, experienced increased rates of physical disability, enjoyed lower lifetime income and a lower socioeconomic status than those born immediately before and after the flu pandemic.
Of course, there are also reasons to think that the Spanish flu had less economic impact than a big pandemic would have now. For one thing, we were on a war footing and that meant there was plenty of work for everyone even though certain industries suffered big losses. In fact, the combination of a war footing with the outsize death of prime-age workers meant that wages went up for everyone who survived.
It’s also arguable that the American economy was less centralized in 1918, which reduced the long-term damage. I’m not sure that’s actually true, though, nor am I sure it would have a big effect on recovering from a pandemic anyway.
On the flip side of the coin, health care is far better now than it was in 1918, and the government’s ability to stimulate the economy is considerably greater. Our transportation network also makes it easier to replace lost production in hard-hit areas with increased production in lightly hit areas.
www.rawstory.com
www.spiegel.de
www.theguardian.com
www.cbsnews.com
paxsims.wordpress.com
www.thedrive.com
Entire Crew Of A Russian Nuclear Submarine Is In Quarantine After COVID-19 Exposure