"I would expect that a significant factor is that we both have better treatments nowadays and treatment is much more accessible."
If, by "treatment", you mean access to clean water, sanitary conditions and decent rest, then I would agree: we're certainly better off than rural populations circa 1918. I suppose access to IV fluids could be helpful if you're elderly, or otherwise immune-compromised.
Beyond that, not much has changed since 1918.
The flu is a virus and is not affected by antibiotics. Further, the two antivirals associated with influenza either do nothing[1] or almost nothing[2].
Very much like there is no such thing as "cold medicine" (contrary to what TV says) there is also no such thing as a broadly useful flu treatment. What you're most likely to receive from a doctor is relief of superficial symptoms.
Going to a hospital for the cold or the flu will potentially expose you to much more serious bacterial infection.
[2] "These drugs (M2 inhibitors) are sometimes effective against influenza A if given early in the infection but are ineffective against influenza B viruses" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#Treatment)
I hope you are not involved in public health because you are dangerously misinformed.
A major cause of flu death in otherwise healthy people is secondary bacterial infections and high quality home care would really help.
Your statement re: antibiotics is accurate re: the primary problem but not in terms of actual cause of death which is very often secondary infection.
I would choose hospital care over home care any day of the week, but if there were a serious outbreak then government paid time off for carers plus basically universal antibiotics would be a logical response.
I think you are being too directly logical and not thinking systemically.
I am in complete agreement. Not only would high quality home care help, it is, largely, the only thing that helps.
"I would choose hospital care over home care any day of the week..."
I think that's a very bad heuristic that is widespread in the US - across a broad spectrum of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. If you just have the flu a visit to the hospital is useless at best. At worst, that secondary bacterial infection you're (rightly) worried about is alive and well at the hospital. Hospitals are breeding grounds of such infections.
"I think you are being too directly logical and not thinking systemically."
I am indeed thinking systematically - as I have witnessed emergency rooms full of kids with colds and flu who will be given comfort and/or placebos and who are racking up healthcare costs and displacing actual emergencies. And then there's the exposure to bacterial infections ...
If, by "treatment", you mean access to clean water, sanitary conditions and decent rest, then I would agree: we're certainly better off than rural populations circa 1918. I suppose access to IV fluids could be helpful if you're elderly, or otherwise immune-compromised.
Beyond that, not much has changed since 1918.
The flu is a virus and is not affected by antibiotics. Further, the two antivirals associated with influenza either do nothing[1] or almost nothing[2].
Very much like there is no such thing as "cold medicine" (contrary to what TV says) there is also no such thing as a broadly useful flu treatment. What you're most likely to receive from a doctor is relief of superficial symptoms.
Going to a hospital for the cold or the flu will potentially expose you to much more serious bacterial infection.
[1] "Overall the benefits of neuraminidase inhibitors in those who are otherwise healthy do not appear to be greater than the risks." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#Treatment)
[2] "These drugs (M2 inhibitors) are sometimes effective against influenza A if given early in the infection but are ineffective against influenza B viruses" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#Treatment)