Posted on 07/28/2020 6:12:53 AM PDT by Kaslin
PITTSBURGH -- Six months after a private staggered into the Fort Riley Army base infirmary in Kansas with a raging fever, chills and a sore throat, this city braced for the impact as the first wave of the 1918 flu pandemic made its way here.
It had already traveled from Kansas to Europe as troops shipped off to war and then headed back to the United States, first in Boston, then Philadelphia and finally landing here in Pittsburgh the last week of September.
Within days, the newspaper obituary page became obituary pages, and this city would go down in history books as having the highest death rate of any major city in the U.S., fully 1% of its population felled by the pandemic.
A dispatch in the New Castle Herald in the first week of October read: "Considerable increase in Spanish influenza in Pittsburgh was reported this morning by the department of health, 659 new cases being recorded in the last 18 hours. The total number of cases reported to date is 4,291."
The warning was clear for their readers from the neighboring county: Stay away from the big city.
Viewed through the prism of today's culture, this city, like many cities across the country, got few things right and a lot of things wrong, not just in their elected officials' approach to the pandemic but how it was covered by the local media. At the time, there were dozens of newspapers here, not just in English but in the languages of the numerous "old countries" of Pittsburgh's robust immigrant population.
Most of the flu reports in hundreds of newspaper archives from the time were below the fold and matter-of-fact.
At the onset, hospitals curtailed visitations; jury trials were canceled; there was limited elevator occupancy; and church services were not initially closed, with faith leaders instead being asked by the health department to limit attendance. Eventually, they did shutter for a month.
The public and parochial schools rarely closed, only when the attendance dropped down so far that it made no sense to keep them open. And even when closed, reports show the closings were only temporary.
Civic leaders and businesses cooperated. So did the people. The balking began the day liquor was no longer allowed to be served. Much like today's limiting of alcohol at restaurants and bars, people complained, and people snitched. A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story on Oct. 18 read, "Complaints were made to the department of health that some saloons were selling liquor with meals," adding that those cases will be investigated.
One month later, things rapidly changed. The headlines went from "All Theaters Agree to Obey Influenza Ban" to "Schools in City Will Reopen" and, three days later, "All Theaters in City open Today."
By February, the numbers had drastically decreased, and on April 22, the Pittsburgh Daily Post headline read, "City Influenzaless; No Cases Reported."
It is impossible to compare what happened 102 years ago with what is happening today, but perhaps not for the reasons you think. Using Pittsburgh as an example, this city was filled with industry at nearly everyone's front door. Pollution was the norm. So was poor drinking water and living with boarders or multiple generations of families. Not working was not an option. There were no social services and no unemployment checks from the government; there was no health insurance, no one to give you the ability to stay home until the pandemic passed.
We were also tougher then, and again, not for the reasons you may think. In 1918, there were still plenty of people around who remembered the Civil War; who knew what it was like to have battles in their backyards; who knew and understood and faced a loss of health, home and the ability to provide.
With the exception of the brutal attacks on Sept. 11, there are generations who have not had to face a major national emergency without access to some sort of "relief" from the government.
That is both a good thing and not.
It's good the vulnerable can get government help, but the bad thing is our coping mechanisms are failing. All you need to do to be convinced is spend three seconds on social media or 15 minutes watching a cable-news meltdown.
Most of the flu reports in hundreds of newspaper archives from the time were below the fold and matter-of-fact.
At the onset, hospitals curtailed visitations; jury trials were canceled; there was limited elevator occupancy; and church services were not initially closed, with faith leaders instead being asked by the health department to limit attendance. Eventually, they did shutter for a month.
The public and parochial schools rarely closed, only when the attendance dropped down so far that it made no sense to keep them open. And even when closed, reports show the closings were only temporary.
Civic leaders and businesses cooperated. So did the people. The balking began the day liquor was no longer allowed to be served. Much like today's limiting of alcohol at restaurants and bars, people complained, and people snitched. A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story on Oct. 18 read, "Complaints were made to the department of health that some saloons were selling liquor with meals," adding that those cases will be investigated.
One month later, things rapidly changed. The headlines went from "All Theaters Agree to Obey Influenza Ban" to "Schools in City Will Reopen" and, three days later, "All Theaters in City open Today."
By February, the numbers had drastically decreased, and on April 22, the Pittsburgh Daily Post headline read, "City Influenzaless; No Cases Reported."
It is impossible to compare what happened 102 years ago with what is happening today, but perhaps not for the reasons you think. Using Pittsburgh as an example, this city was filled with industry at nearly everyone's front door. Pollution was the norm. So was poor drinking water and living with boarders or multiple generations of families. Not working was not an option. There were no social services and no unemployment checks from the government; there was no health insurance, no one to give you the ability to stay home until the pandemic passed.
We were also tougher then, and again, not for the reasons you may think. In 1918, there were still plenty of people around who remembered the Civil War; who knew what it was like to have battles in their backyards; who knew and understood and faced a loss of health, home and the ability to provide.
With the exception of the brutal attacks on Sept. 11, there are generations who have not had to face a major national emergency without access to some sort of "relief" from the government.
That is both a good thing and not.
It's good the vulnerable can get government help, but the bad thing is our coping mechanisms are failing. All you need to do to be convinced is spend three seconds on social media or 15 minutes watching a cable-news meltdown.
there was also the lack of the cdc and other entities with somewhat questionable motives.
I'd also venture the Spanish Flu (how racist is that!) wasn't politicized either. There was no crying about the name of the stupid thing like we have over the China/Wuhan/Covid-19 virus.
People were more used to disease then and accepted that life had risks. The adults of that time had seen mothers and children die during childbirth and childhood diseases.
“It’s good the vulnerable can get government help”
During a crisis maybe. But almost half get some kind of government “help” when there is no “crisis”.
Many are here illegally and shouldn’t be in this country to begin with?
Government help allows people to be helpless. Many have lost their survivor instincts?
How did they survive without Dr Fauci telling them what to do?
No: toughness was responsible.
Americans today are obsessed with being safe, with making things from the past right and seeking amelioration for all injuries and hardships In the present (why we on average abuse insurance by seeking assurance, and paying dearly for the privilege) ... many are wusses plain and simple.
But the business of America should not be being safe any more than it should be having a great culture or being kind. The business of America is business (I would actually prefer proprietorships over legal entities) ... not for the world’s sake but for its own, for its own (flesh and blood) citizens and its own posterity.
Frankly, being united with a cesspool like the Left is should be undesirable. We’ve too much unity of that sort and compromise with evil in the name of such unity still ends up being evil, more evil with every compromise in fact.
Unity without righteousness is suicide.
“Spanish flu”
And unlike the Chinese virus, Spanish flu did not even originate in Spain.
It sure is.
My Grandfather, as a young man, had the Spanish flu. Family lore says it was quite serious, as it affected the young much more than our present Covid19
A girl he was courting went to church for nine days to pray a Novena to ask God to protect make him well. God did, my Grandfather converted to Catholicism, and they were married shortly thereafter.
And was not a biological weapon!
Nothing mentioned about the great tuberculosis epidemic occurring at that time as well. When special facilities were constructed to contain victims of that pandemic.
ealgeone wrote: “there was a higher degree of trust in government in 1918.”
The government actively suppressed information on the flu to avoid interfering with the war effort. The government actively encouraged war bond rallies, etc.
My father was isolated in a TB sanitarium when he died........1938.
.
What this article fails to recognize is that with the Spanish Flu, just like Covid-19, regardless of anything done to curtail the disease, it ultimately ended when enough people had been exposed and the channels of communication/transmission were closed.
All you achieve with all these lock downs, shut downs, masks, distancing, is a delay of the inevitable. Once 50 - 90% (depending on how contagious it is) of the population has been exposed, the disease disappears. That happens every year with the flu, cold, and most other contagious viruses that are transmitted like this.
That is why once the lock down ended, Covid-19 started right back up.
You cannot shut down society indefinitely. The true consequences of such would be worse than the disease itself. Specifically, we are only doing things for a show (masks) but if we wanted to contain this disease we would have to take actions so draconian that the consequences would outweigh the disease. We are pushing masks which makes everyone feel good “I’m doing my part” and in control, but accomplishing little (as the disease continues to spread).
About two-three weeks ago we were half way. You’re going to see things begin to slow down soon. Then everyone will pat themselves on the back for a “job well done” even though the outcome would have been the exact same had we done absolutely nothing. I am not in the medical field, I’m just an Electrical Engineer, but I’m really good with math (I played with the numbers a bit in MATLAB) and what is happening seems pretty obvious/self evident despite the political and media chatter.
Never said the government was above board....but I’d say there was a higher trust in government then than now.
The world had just concluded what was up to that time the most horrible war Mankind had ever seen. People were already used to lots and lots of death. And in 1918, it was not at all unusually for people to die of diseases. Syphilis and Tuberculosis among them.
“...The government actively suppressed information on the flu to avoid interfering with the war effort...”
US males were used to dying young {by today's standards}.
Hell, if you were going to die {on average} before you were 50, the spanish flu was not going to worry you too much.
Go out, get drunk, get laid, get the flu and die happy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.