Are We Learning The Wrong Lessons From Spanish Flu?

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24
Are We Learning The Wrong Lessons From Spanish Flu?

The coronavirus disease is bringing many comparisons to the Spanish Flu. Of course history can be instructive, but you always have to remember each event in its own context. I find that many people make blind comparisons to this pandemic not mentioning that this one happened near the end of WWI, which played out in a specific way as to amplify all the problems that the pandemic would cause, and is used to justify measures that may not be necessary now. Here are a few examples:

The second wave was more deadly than the first: Why was this the case? Generally when a disease makes it through the population, it tends to be milder because of natural selection. The more severe cases are genearlly pulled away from society, either to receive medical treatment or these people die. The milder cases are not so much, and thus has an advantage in spreading. During the war, this was reversed. Seriously ill patients were taken from the trenches and moved in crowded trains and field hospitals, thus allowing the more lethal strain to spread. This also relates to timing. The second wave was said to have started around the Fall. Can someone better versed in history than me confirm if this is when soldiers started to come home?

Cities that eased lockdown restrictions early were hit hard later on: Was this related to the lockdown, or was it just coincidence? Per Wikipedia:

Quote:
In January 1919 a third wave of the Spanish Flu hit Australia, then spread quickly through Europe and the United States, where it lingered through the Spring and until June of 1919.[109][2][3] It primarily affected Spain, Serbia, Mexico and Great Britain, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.[110] It was less severe than the second wave but still much more deadly than the initial first wave. In the United States, isolated outbreaks occurred in some cities including Los Angeles[111], New York City[112], Memphis, Nashville, San Francisco and St. Louis.[113] Overall American mortality rates were in the tens of thousands during the first six months of 1919.[114]

Winter time is generally when flu season picks up because people are stuck inside in close quarters (where health experts ironically tell us we need to hide from the coronavirus). Was it really the easing of the lockdowns, or was it merely that the lifting of lockdowns coincided with the general time of the year when flu season generally happens?

It can be informative, but should we really be drawing definitive conclusions about how coronavirs is going to play out when the specific conditions that made the Spanish Flu bad are not influencing the pandemic today?

NDPP

Should 'Spanish Flu' Have Been Known as 'American Flu'?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-spanish-flu-have-been-known-a...

First known case was reported at a military base in Kansas in March, 1918.

josh

The war wasn't over till November.  The second wave's deadliest month was October.

https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence

The war made the second wave particularly deadly.  

josh

NDPP wrote:

Should 'Spanish Flu' Have Been Known as 'American Flu'?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-spanish-flu-have-been-known-a...

First known case was reported at a military base in Kansas in March, 1918.

Should have been.  But don't tell the flag wavers that.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
The war wasn't over till November.  The second wave's deadliest month was October.

https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence

The war made the second wave particularly deadly.

Looking at the article above:

Quote:

In late August 1918, military ships departed the English port city of Plymouth carrying troops unknowingly infected with this new, far deadlier strain of Spanish flu. As these ships arrived in cities like Brest in France, Boston in the United States and Freetown in west Africa, the second wave of the global pandemic began.

“The rapid movement of soldiers around the globe was a major spreader of the disease,” says James Harris, a historian at Ohio State University who studies both infectious disease and World War I. “The entire military industrial complex of moving lots of men and material in crowded conditions was certainly a huge contributing factor in the ways the pandemic spread.”

Thank you for posting that article, Josh. It gives more information that helps properly put the pandemic in the context of the time it happened. That helps to support my suspicion that movement of troops around the world was responsible for the second wave.

Bacchus

Now it would be the movement of Tourists and Businessman

Aristotleded24

Bacchus wrote:
Now it would be the movement of Tourists and Businessman

I don't think tourists and businessman move around in the same kind of tight, confined conditions that the soldiers of WWI were moving in. Plus, most of the movement of tourists and businessmen has come to a stop. Soldiers were moved around while the pandemic was still going on.

Aristotleded24

The limits of historical analysis:

Quote:
Historical perspective helps us appreciate the scale of today’s disaster and the extraordinary response it demands. Yet history—particularly the glib, unexamined kind—can lead us astray as often as it illuminates.

The lessons of 1918, once you start to survey the claims, are so open to interpretation as to seem nearly meaningless. One writer argues strict lockdowns worked best in 1918; another claims the key to success was leaving some schools open. One authority refers to 1918 as a "cataclysmic" crisis; another stresses the economic fallout was "surprisingly mild." Subtle shifts in point of view can completely change the takeaway.

...

In 1976, American policymakers feared they were on the verge of an outbreak of swine flu. Like today, government officials turned to what they knew, recalling the lessons of the 1918 Spanish flu, which had claimed more victims than World War I.

In the ’70s, many Americans had lived through that earlier pandemic; their memories survived as dinner-table folklore. Fearing the worst, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, David Sencer, crafted an ambitious mass immunization plan.

It failed. Part of the problem was questionable medical history. Some scientists postulated that dangerous pandemics arrived in 11-year cycles. That suggested that the 1976 swine flu would be severe—a mistaken assumption that was magnified by the attention it got in the mass media. Ordinary Americans believed the experts on the news, failing to realize how little the epidemiologists then knew about the actual disease they were facing.

In the end, the swine flu fizzled, sickening few Americans and killing almost nobody. The government’s response, however, became a legitimate scandal. The Ford administration had pledged to inoculate all Americans and rushed a vaccine into doctors’ offices that ended up sickening more than 450 people with a neuromuscular disorder called Guillain-Barré syndrome. In the end, 45 million got the shot, around one-fifth of the total population. Once Americans realized a pandemic was not imminent, even those few vaccinations seemed risky and wasteful.