(1) In 1918, the world was far less interconnected, international travel was slower and less widespread. Not only are a significant proportion of the world’s population now accustomed to jumping on a plane, but the trade networks on which (for example) our food supply depends rely on this new level of interconnection.

(2) Even in western countries, background levels of mortality from infectious diseases – including infant mortality – were far higher in the first quarter of the 20th century. (Not to mention the normalisation to large-scale death of young healthy men in Europe after five years of bloody war.)

Both of these factors suggest that a 1918-style outbreak today would have far greater social and cultural knock-on effects.

Are there other factors which counterbalance these? Better background levels of public health may have reduced vulnerability – though this effect would be invisible, since mortality rates for the current outbreak would already take this into account. Increases in knowledge, both in medicine and in strategies for coping with a pandemic. (Again, this is just amateur speculation, though – I’d be interested in others’ thoughts on this stuff.)

http://pbump.net/?6zz

“Student of history”, the idea that reducing the population will reduce competition for jobs is silly, as the number of jobs in existence is dependent on the population and its ability to spend cash, both of which would be reduced in a flu situation

Further suggestions, for those who want to prepare for loss of utilities: a camping stove (google “Penny Stove” for directions), fuel for it (e.g. gasoline or Heet), and two gallons of water per person per day (say, for a week) might also be worthwhile. You can use the bleach to keep the water from going bad; Google is your friend here.

In the 1918 flu, according to the InSTEDD Pandemic Influenza Citizen’s Guide, the communities that were able to implement social distancing measures were able to maintain lower levels of infection. So if it goes pandemic, you won’t just be saving yourself by staying home — you’ll be saving your city!

And just to be horribly, horribly cynical: A large population cull (on the 1918 model) would make the financial rubbish easier to handle, what with the reduced number of able-bodied people competing for jobs.