Pandemics in the post 1900 period
The deadly Spanish Flu
Post First World War, when it was a time to celebrate, the world was devoured by the deadly flu of 1918 - The Spanish Flu. The exact origin of the Spanish Flu is debated, the name signifies the reporting of the first case. Though cases had been in other parts of Europe as well, strict media restrictions due to war caused the news to be reported only from Spain.
The second wave of the 1918 pandemic was much more deadly than the first. The first wave had resembled typical flu epidemics; those most at risk were the sick and elderly, while younger, healthier people recovered easily. By August, when the second wave began in France, Sierra Leone, and the United States, the virus had mutated to a much more deadly form. October 1918 was the month with the highest fatality rate of the whole pandemic. The third wave was deadlier than the first but somewhat better than the second. There was also a fourth wave of the flu, in few areas around the globe.
The Spanish Flu and United States of America
The post war times were witness to a new world. This new world was still forming with no clear guidelines for pandemics or say alien contacts. They both seemed equally not important at the time as the world had more practical issues at hand.
However that didn't stop the H1N1 spanish flu virus from finding hosts in the people who had just found some relief from the end of war. Much to no ones surprise, at least not now, the post war conditions with army returning homes and people celebrating together only added to joys of the virus. The Philadelphia Parade of 1918 in honor of the returning soldiers seems like the example to be quoted here. Though medics were strongly against such gathering given the spread of flu, the media did not report the concerns.[1]
A lack of a central and fixed plan to deal with pandemics and lack of scientific knowledge about controlling the disease forced some cities to implement community mitigation measures, such as closing schools, banning public gatherings, and issuing isolation or quarantine orders, but the federal government had no centralized role in helping to plan or initiate these interventions during the 1918 pandemic.
[1]
The response by the U.S. government to the Spanish flu bears many lessons for the current situation. The initial instinct by the American leaders was to downplay the extent of the epidemic.
[1]
When the flu started to spread in the U.S. in 1918, the government and the media tried to "keep morale up" by focusing only on positive stories about the war and portrayed the flu as an "ordinary influenza by another name," as it was called by a top health official.[1]
The Spanish Flu and Europe
The United Kingdom was already holding elections in the 1900s. There were different contesting parties and in 1919 with some restrictions, women above 30 years of age were allowed to vote.
The end of war and first wave of democracy was prominent in the Europe as much as and maybe more in the European region.
A war also means censored press. In an attempt to keep morale high, like in the Americas, Europe too downplayed the seriousness of the virus. News remained censored and there were rarely mentions of the flu claiming lives. Life went on as usual, factories remained open, schools remained open unless they had to be shut down due to lack of staff.
The authorities turned deaf and blind to the virus and the woes of people. This allowed for misleading practices and faux treatments to find foot in the deteriorating economy post war. With no clear communication from the leaders, the people generally clung on the whatever was available to save themselves.
It was not until the third wave of the flu that the political authorities bothered themselves with discussing the flu. Even so, lack of centralized decisions in tackling or a framework to deal with the disease helped in no way. Most towns were left to fend for themselves based on locally available doctors and medical facilities. It was in 1919 sometime that a Ministry of Health was established by then Prime Minister David Lloyd George. This improved public health substantially in the coming years. The Prime Minister himself suffered with the flu in the autumn of 1919.
The Spanish Flu and Australia
In 1901 the Constitution of Australia established a federal system of government. People of Australia believe war made their nation, it did more good than harm and laid the foundations for a stronger Australia. The spread of flu was highly controlled in Australia, at least in the initial wave. Strict maritime restrictions were imposed in the late 1918 and early 1919. Border restrictions were implemented, however was not as effective as expected. Later on it seemed illogical to seal borders of states when both sides were infected. The later waves of virus were not as forgiving to Australia as the initial ones. The precise source of infection in January 1919 was never discovered. Soldiers returning from war did not strictly follow the quarantine measures. Melbourne authorities did not report its first cases, which allowed the virus to firm its grip on the subcontinent. Hospitals were overrun, medics low on availability, national schemes and systems went for a toss and states took the matter to their hands. With very uncompromising lock down and quarantine measures, Tasmania had the best performance among states in terms of cases and mortality. The economy, already fragile due to war, took the burden of flu containment measures. Food shortages, maritime lock down, closed borders and a great loss to booming tourism in the post war world added to the crippling economy. However, the aftermath of flu was an improved healthcare system and long after the flu social distancing had somewhat become the norm of the normal.
The Spanish Flu and India
India was under British colonial rule in the 1900. India is considered worst hit by the Spanish Flu pandemic. There can be many reasons explaining this, lack of proper medical facilities, stark difference in living styles and standards of elite - The British ruling classes in India and the famine struck general population of India. Bombay and Madras were the worst hit of all. Around 12-13 million people are estimated to have died of Spanish Flu in India alone.
The colonial government's response were along the lines of relief and research. There were no disruptions to normal life imposed due to lock downs. Private medical practitioners used the time to mint money.A large section of medical practitioners were themselves struck down by the disease, and were incapacitated at a time when they were needed the most. In Bombay city, as the incidence of the disease began to peak, hospitals were overflowing with patients and crude versions of dispensaries were raised on the roadsides to provide medical relief in an effort that roughly parallels the construction of makeshift hospitals in many parts of the world following the recent outbreak. Facing a paucity of health workers, the Bombay city’s municipal corporation gave a call for volunteers to help, even with its medical relief efforts. It also opened up cheap grain shops, and attempted to provide foodstuff such as milk for free to the patients. Fortunately for India, the pandemic rapidly lost its virulence from December 1918, although, not after claiming millions of lives.
Sources and references :
2. Wikipedia
5. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode [ for the expectancy image ]
Comments
Post a Comment