Okay, I worry this might ignite some bitter argument, but here we go: while I enjoyed the themes and ideas of this story, and I thought it was delivered reasonably well - a little list-heavy sometimes, but good - I couldn't get past the constant paternalistic misogyny.
I know we're supposed to look at history in the context of its time, not judge it by modern ethical standards, and obviously this was a product of Victorian-era (Russian equivalent, I suppose) notions of personal restraint as the basis of civilization. I get that. For that reason, I could pretty easily just accept it the first few times "promiscuity" and "half-naked"ness were offered as grievous consequences of this terrible event and the breakdown of society.
It only got worse, though, to the point where every time it came up it would just yank me right out of the story with a laugh or a cringe. I think the definitive point was at the absolute nadir of events, when all order had broken down, and people were killing one another, hoarding for no reason, the lights were out, and absolute anarchy reigned, and where any reasonable student of history, indeed anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the human condition, might then have braced himself for the next item in the list of ills to be "rape," instead it was... sluts. All the young ladies and dignified grandmas just tearing off their clothes and turning into sex-crazy she-fiends, while the men were, presumably, completely defenseless against their depredations.
What?
The absurdity of this completely fantastical misogyny aside - rape is as close as there is to a universal consequence of social breakdown, and the real percentage of female rapists is vanishingly small, and so the omission of men perpetrating it was pretty glaring - it was also delivered with a deeply awkward prurience that made its regular reiteration particularly unfortunate.
I'd put it right about on par with Lovecraft's virulent racism, except that in Lovecraft's case, that xenophobic tendency stayed mostly in the background, serving to fuel the paranoid dread that made his stories so good, and surfacing only occasionally in moments that were narratively consistent and only jarring upon a moment's pause and consideration. It's unforgivable, but also low-profile, and doesn't feature in a significant way in most of his stories. This was pretty offensively backwards too, but it was also front-and-center and presented without an ounce of subtlety, pounding on my modern sensibilities like hammer. It also had no particular purpose or redeeming value through commentary; this was not a Huckleberry Finn scenario.
Anyway, I'll close off the rant. I did really like the premise of the story, even more so after Al's outro made me think back on a few particularly choice pieces. The narration was well done, too - just enough of the old-style newsman persona to give it the right tone without it being gimmicky. I just think maybe this particular piece of fiction could stand a rewrite by a contemporary author before it's ready for presentation to a modern audience.