.jpg)
In my last posting of late March, I focused on how Cleveland reacted to the Pandemic of 1918.
Basically, the City assertively imposed the same social distancing that public health officials have ordered today. And although such measures were unpopular at the time, they worked.
We know by simple comparative analyses. For example, in the last four (4) months of 1918, 4,400 Clevelanders died – while 13,000 died in Philadelphia, which was slow to impose assertive measures.
A recent article in the New York Times entitled “Cities That Went All In On Distancing in 1918 Emerged Stronger for It” offers proof of further benefits. The article is based on a study published by the US Federal Reserve in early April entitled “Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu.”
The article noted that “In 1918, cities that committed earlier and longer to interventions like banning public gatherings and closing schools didn’t fare worse for disrupting their economies for longer. Many of those cities actually had relatively larger gains in manufacturing employment, manufacturing output and bank assets in 1919 and into the next few years.
“For cities with the most aggressive interventions, there’s no trade-off apparent in this data between saving lives and hurting the economy,” the article continued.
For example, it noted that “Pittsburgh delayed closing its schools longer than other Eastern industrial cities like Cleveland, and it fared worse.” As demonstrated below, Pittsburgh had 1,244 deaths per 100,000 people – while Cleveland had 591 deaths per 100,000. Longer term, Pittsburgh had 18% employment gains – while Cleveland had 42% gains.
So, the central finding of the Federal Reserve study is that assertive social distancing results in lower mortality rates and healthier economies, as well.
Be well.
Z
