One note of caution about extrapolating too much from this statistic (and related studies): The U.S. economy is balanced very differently compared to 1918--much more dependent on service sector now. Also, many city "lockdowns" in 1918 were less stringent than today. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1247501472159465472

LA as cited as an example of a city that had an effective lockdown to counter the 1918 flu. But, according to the Influenza Encyclopedia, the lockdown was pretty targeted--schools, poolhalls, theaters, etc. Efforts to implement broader lockdowns failed. http://www.influenzaarchive.org/cities/city-losangeles.html#

If you look at the 1918 policies in the cities praised by the NYT above, you'll notice that they leave many businesses open and focus mostly on closing entertainment venues, schools, and churches. Again, the Influenza Encyclopedia is a good resource. http://www.influenzaarchive.org/index.html 

Now, what you do with that is up for debate. You could argue that these cities would have saved more lives if they had implemented more sweeping closures, for instance.

In any case, two big differences stand out to me:
*The coranvirus seems like it could be rather different than the flu (maybe more contagious and/or deadly--but we need more data to see how much).
*The economic dislocations of current lockdowns are bigger than those of 1918 ones.

Again, what policy consequences you derive from those differences are up for argument. But I just think we should be wary about drawing too many conclusions from those studies of 1918.