lol, a I was just going to say we are using similar numbers I just rounded. becuase i was too lazy to look it up tonight. and our meant US, which did't have as many "pandemics" as Europe... so my math was also a little manipulated... Because statistics. Most of the rigt win talking points are that Covid was nothing compared to the Spanish Flu, but yet it might actually end up worse. Its pretty damn close compared to 2 years of the spanish flu is about the same rate of 1 year of COVID.
Covid may or may not of "gone global" as quickly 100 years ago. Our numbers are high, and im not saying it isn't bad, becuase I truly (and sadly) believe that when everything is said and done and history looks back on us, it will be worse than the Spanish flu...
But covid is spread out a few cases everywhere, rather than entire towns decimated. I think that makes it "seem not so bad". Dispersed pockets don't seem as much as a concentrated center, but over 500,000 dead is a lot.
Though our local hospital (the small county one by my house, not the level one trauma center) treated and released 470ish cases. They didn't have a number that were not sucessfully released, as it was supposed to be an inspirational sign.
(my Husband ended up doing a week in the hospital again last month, not COVID related, but it was still impacting all of their procedures as they had active cases. We even hit a point where we hit emergency, yes we can turn someone away if we can't save them, over the winter, luckily those orders expired before, my husband got septic. He didn't require ICU this time, but only because I called 911 with an hour of the fever, instead of the typical 2-4 hours it takes when I'm not working at home. We did a lot more home health this time, becuase it seemed safer, even though I'm like the worlds s***tiest nurse/caregiver.
Yeah that’s a good point about travel being a lot slower back then, so it’s hard to compare the two really - different times play in a lot of factors.