Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Covid: the 10th worst disaster in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll in recorded history

editor

hiraethified
I thought this was worth a thread of its own because it gives some perspective to the 'it's not that bad' loonery.

Here's the criteria:
The following list of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland is a list of major disasters (excluding acts of war but including acts of terrorism) which relate to the United Kingdom or Ireland, or to the states that preceded them, or that involved their citizens, in a definable incident or accident such as a shipwreck, where the loss of life was forty or more.

1602533894354.png

 
Would probably make more sense to list them by proportion of the population, although that may just give credence to the "it's not so bad" crowd because we're certainly a lot better at healthcare than we were in the 17th century.

Also, I think we'll end up with a much higher total, especially when they eventually factor in all of the avoidable deaths that occurred due to Covid but which weren't actually caused by Covid, iyswim.
 
I can only imagine how the Third Cholera Pandemic would have been dealt with nowadays - on the one hand the papers and Twitter filled with claims that John Snow knows nothing, on the other groups of statue-protectors posting guards at their local water-pump so "antifa" don't steal the handle.
 
I'd take a lot of these numbers with a pinch of salt but it is certainly indicative. Back at the start of lockdown I (like a lot of people) had time on my hand and I spent a fair amount of time reading up on the spanish flu. One thing that became very clear is that no one really knows how many people it killed.

Granted it was during the chaos of the great war but record keeping was better than then say in the 17th century. Its probably fair to say that in most cases the death toll is under estimated by some margin.
 
Last edited:
oh: and the greatest disaster of all isn't listed altho over the past several centuries it's led directly to millions of deaths, indirectly to many millions more, and shortened the lives of pretty much everyone in the british isles (not to mention elsewhere) - namely, work

Surely ageing is the greatest - lots of people don't work, but everyone ages and there's no cure.
 
Surely ageing is the greatest - lots of people don't work, but everyone ages and there's no cure.
oh dear

'lots of people don't work'

what? in the sense of 'lots of people don't do things they don't want to do' or 'lots of people do work but don't get paid for it'? or some other nonsense which ignores unpaid labour in terms of housework or caring for relatives or whatnot?

apart from the people who are in formal employment there are, as i have hinted, lots of people in unpaid support roles who take a great hit (and all too often literally) from the people who do work, in terms of their time not being free for example, that they have for example to keep the dwelling tidy, take care of children and so on

the organisation of society around wage labour means that there are no parts of society immune from the malign influence of work, from sex to birth to death and everything in between

remove this appalling and unnatural focus on creating profit, this iniquitous invention, and while people will still die they will at least have life before death rather than spending decades of their existence preparing for work, working, recovering from work, supporting people who work and so forth.

at the moment if people found a way to prevent aging it wouldn't be used for the benefit of humanity but of capitalists who would force their workers to toil for years more than they do now.
 
1602588541870.png
There's The Black Death causing a sharp drop in 1350. It looks like roughly half the population! I'm suspicious though; if the numbers after 1700 are for the UK and for England before you'd expect some kind of jump at that point.
 
View attachment 234181
There's The Black Death causing a sharp drop in 1350. It looks like roughly half the population! I'm suspicious though; if the numbers after 1700 are for the UK and for England before you'd expect some kind of jump at that point.
not to mention that the population of the uk in 2016 was 65.4m
1602589464625.png
in addition i don't know what they do for the period 1700-1706 when there was no united kingdom. there should be a couple of jumps, namely 1707 with the union of england and scotland and 1801 with the purchased accession of ireland
 
Where will Covid end up on that list by this time next year I wonder? Clearly higher than the Third Cholera pandemic, but hopefully not higher than the 1889-1890 flu pandemic.
 
The age of people a disease / virus kills is pretty important for any species. iirc The Spanish Flu was very bad for killing the the people who were supposedly young and fit - late teens and 20's. That's pretty catastrophic for any population.

So far Covid-19 has overwhelmingly killed the elderly. Every life is important as the next but from a purely species / population perspective not taking out your youngest, strongest and most fertile is preferable.
 
View attachment 234181
There's The Black Death causing a sharp drop in 1350. It looks like roughly half the population! I'm suspicious though; if the numbers after 1700 are for the UK and for England before you'd expect some kind of jump at that point.
No, that happened. Look it up. Scary times - sobering to imagine, terrifying to imagine, within a couple of years, nearly half the people you knew lying dead. And the graph is just for England.

There can be a tendency to react to those downplaying c19 by upplaying it in equally invalid ways. It's not at all like the plague in terms of devastation, nor Spanish flu for that matter, both due to the numbers and the fact it hasn't been killing young people.
 
Would probably make more sense to list them by proportion of the population, although that may just give credence to the "it's not so bad" crowd because we're certainly a lot better at healthcare than we were in the 17th century.

Also, I think we'll end up with a much higher total, especially when they eventually factor in all of the avoidable deaths that occurred due to Covid but which weren't actually caused by Covid, iyswim.
In absolute terms it looks like #Covid will soon take 6th place on that list. :(
 
The age of people a disease / virus kills is pretty important for any species. iirc The Spanish Flu was very bad for killing the the people who were supposedly young and fit - late teens and 20's. That's pretty catastrophic for any population.

Its a shame we dont properly understand why the 1918 pandemic influenza had a very particular affect on quite a specific age range.

This theory I find especially interesting:

Using historical records from Canada and the U.S., we report a peak of mortality at the exact age of 28 during the pandemic and argue that this increased mortality resulted from an early life exposure to influenza during the previous Russian flu pandemic of 1889–90. We posit that in specific instances, development of immunological memory to an influenza virus strain in early life may lead to a dysregulated immune response to antigenically novel strains encountered in later life, thereby increasing the risk of death. Exposure during critical periods of development could also create holes in the T cell repertoire and impair fetal maturation in general, thereby increasing mortality from infectious diseases later in life.


Screenshot 2020-10-13 at 15.44.19.png
 
maybe modern science and healthcare, and an understanding of previous SARS coronavirus’ might have a thing or two to do with that :confused:
Not really. It is true that they had no treatment for the plague, and if you got it, you mostly died, and quickly, within a few days. With Covid-19 in the first wave, around a third of those hospitalised died, so you could perhaps triple the death figure for no treatment available at all. It still doesn't come close to the plague.

Again, not seeking to downplay it, but it really isn't anything like the Black Death.
 
There can be a tendency to react to those downplaying c19 by upplaying it in equally invalid ways. It's not at all like the plague in terms of devastation, nor Spanish flu for that matter, both due to the numbers and the fact it hasn't been killing young people.

On the other hand, there is also a tendency to think we understand the full impact of this virus, including longer term issues and interplay with other viruses and conditions, when in fact it is far too early to judge that side of things.
 
On the other hand, there is also a tendency to think we understand the full impact of this virus, including longer term issues and interplay with other viruses and conditions, when in fact it is far too early to judge that side of things.
True enough. Time will tell. It's now suspected that Spanish flu was linked to the subsequent encephalitis lethargica epidemic.
 
One of the things I dislike about such tables of death is that they dont do justice to specific influenza strains death impact beyond their initial pandemic introduction.

For example the H3N2 pandemic of 1968 didnt break any records at the time compared to other known influenza pandemics, but the H3N2 strain is still around and is often responsible for the influenza epidemics with notable levels of death ever since.
 
True enough. Time will tell. It's now suspected that Spanish flu was linked to the subsequent encephalitis lethargica epidemic.

Its such a shame our understanding of so many vital areas is still relatively modest. I groan whenever I look into our knowledge of existing human coronaviruses, we didnt even know some of them existed until really quite recently. In great part because the burden to humanity of all the viruses that get lumped together as 'the common cold' is widely considered in terms of 'hours of work lost' instead of 'number of deaths', and more severe consequences are off the radar since they arent considred statistically significant at any moment in time. But perhaps there is more significance that is missed, and if we had been more curious about that perhaps we'd know some things that could of helped in this pandemic.
 
Its such a shame our understanding of so many vital areas is still relatively modest. I groan whenever I look into our knowledge of existing human coronaviruses, we didnt even know some of them existed until really quite recently. In great part because the burden to humanity of all the viruses that get lumped together as 'the common cold' is widely considered in terms of 'hours of work lost' instead of 'number of deaths', and more severe consequences are off the radar since they arent considred statistically significant at any moment in time. But perhaps there is more significance that is missed, and if we had been more curious about that perhaps we'd know some things that could of helped in this pandemic.
tbh at the start of this, when I was looking into the (lack of) research into the SARS virus, it showed this folly all too clearly. No money in it, so it didn't attract the attention it should have and we lost 15+ years. It's not like it hadn't been identified as a potential threat. It had. It's just that most of the world more or less ignored it.
 
tbh at the start of this, when I was looking into the (lack of) research into the SARS virus, it showed this folly all too clearly. No money in it, so it didn't attract the attention it should have and we lost 15+ years. It's not like it hadn't been identified as a potential threat. It had. It's just that most of the world more or less ignored it.
most of the world ignores pretty much everything
 
tbh at the start of this, when I was looking into the (lack of) research into the SARS virus, it showed this folly all too clearly. No money in it, so it didn't attract the attention it should have and we lost 15+ years. It's not like it hadn't been identified as a potential threat. It had. It's just that most of the world more or less ignored it.

My view on that is only slightly different, I think SARS did capture world attention & research/funding interest, but the problem was this waned very quickly once the outbreak was contained.

Unfortunately I should be careful what I wish for since I also get nervous when a certain kind of interest is shown, because of potential resulting lab accidents or vaccine problems with consequences (I usually mention 1976 USA swine flu vaccine disaster and 1977 H1N1 influenza pandemic via result of lab accident as examples).
 
Regarding potential unknown long-term effects, clearly 'long covid' is the prime candidate here. Latest Zoe Covid findings suggest as many as 2 per cent of all people infected still have symptoms after 90 days. BBC link here, but I can't find the Zoe report itself. Doesn't seem to be a link between severity of initial symptoms and long covid either.
 
Back
Top Bottom