HeadlessBlue .... I don't think this virus is particularly virulent on a historical scale ... I think its impact is a combination of social rather than epidemological factors .... our modern health services have been very successful in prolonging the life of significant numbers of people .... however, they are old, have (often many) co-morbities .... and we have the organisation and understanding to at least partially protect them .... our level of social development means we feel morally and politically obliged to try our best to protect them in spite of the social costs of doing so .... even a hundred years ago that vulnerable group would have largely already passed on and death was more of a day to day reality, even for the young (witness the ages on victorian tombstones) .... also it wouldn't have been seen as the business of government to intervene to any great extent .... the disease would have run it's course through the population and the increased death rates would have been hardly noticed against a much higher background level.
It was a different world, even when our parents were young, let alone a few hundred years ago
K
