- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
First off then, we had a world war that was being fought in trenches. The flu hit the troops very hard due to the conditions and many historians and experts actually say that the Spanish flu had more to do with the German surrender than anything else. These troops were sent to the rear when sick, which spread the flu even more.
World War I was mostly fought in Europe, yet the flu pandemic afflicted the entire world.
PeteEU said:Secondly our understanding of the flu was no where near as good as it is today. Back then we did not know how it was spread for one.
Yes we did. We just couldn't stop it. Likewise, it's unlikely that we would be able to contain a pandemic today...we aren't even able to contain the normal seasonal flu outbreaks.
PeteEU said:Thirdly back then we did not have any medicine to combat flu. We do today.
This is true. Tamiflu helps treat the symptoms, and there should be a vaccine within a few months. However, it may not be soon enough to contain it, and even with those things there could still be a lot of fatalities from a bona fide pandemic.
PeteEU said:And finally, sanitation back then was no where near as good as it is today. Most houses did not have indoor plumbing and such back then.
Plumbing is not really a big factor in whether or not the flu spreads. Granted, we have hand soap nowadays...but most people don't use it as much as they should anyway. Additionally, we have a lot more people working in closed office spaces today where they can catch it from one another.
PeteEU said:There are more differences of course, but those are the key differences that will probably mean that this new swine flu will be no where near as bad as the Spanish flu of 1918.
I think this is a false comfort. The main reason that we haven't yet seen an outbreak as bad as the 1918 pandemic is that we have just been lucky.