Response to Paul

Overall I would agree with the post, but I would have to say that I think there are some things missing that could make it a stronger (or weaker) argument.

When one thinks of a killing machine, they would most likely think of a high powered gun or a couple megaton bomb. Rarely would most people think that something small could kill millions of people. That is however, the truth as can be seen from the influenza pandemic in 1918. Bullets can be dodged, and people can hide from bombs, but how do you fight something that is too small to be seen, and that can be carried by a pet, a friend, or a family member?

Good point, most people do think of killing by means of mechanical weapons.

This was the problem that the world faced in 1918. The Great War was beginning to come to a close and then a virus erupted in parts of the world. Normally this would have only effected pockets of the globe, but the world was at war. Troops were being mobilized and traveling across the globe as countries sought to spread their influence over new territories. What they did not realize, is that they were also spreading a virus that was more deadly than the Bubonic Plague. As soldiers marched through towns they spread the virus throughout the entire world. "Rampant overcrowding in the nations bases worried U.S. Surgeon General Gorgas... Gorgas warned that widespread overcrowding was creating conditions ripe for the spread of infectious disease." (Iezzoni)The world was not ready to handle such a deadly outburst, especially since people were still dying by the thousands from the Great War.

You may want to include the fact that the virus had already had its outbreaks before the nearing end of the war. The outbreaks had been seen especial in Spain, but also had been seen in some small American towns. I am not eactly sure the timing as far as the US. Although I do know that the first outbreak occured in Sebastian Spain in March-April (Early Spring)...Hence the name the Spanish Flu.

This strain of influenza was much more aggressive than previously observed viruses. It had a mortality rate of 2.5%. "not a single chemotherapy regimen had ever been shown to prolong their lives for one day" (Barry)This may have been attributed to the close proximity of the soldiers living in trenches, and from the use of mustard gas on the front lines. 28% of Americans by the influenza virus, and 675,000 Americans are estimated to have died due to the pandemic. The disease was most deadly to people between the ages of 20 and 40.

I agree with your information but I do not think that the 2.5% was the biggest attribute to the number of deaths. I agree with you that "This may have been attributed to the close proximity of the soldiers living in trenches"...but I am really not to sure on how the mustard gas would add to the number of deaths from the virus. Was it that mustard gas caused respiratory problems?

Although the deaths in America happened on a gruesome scale, it is not much compared to the effects of the virus in more densely populated regions of the planet. Spain is said to have lost 8 million of its citizens to the influenza virus. Over one-fifth of the entire planet was infected with the influenza virus, many of which suffered its deadly consequences.

About how many people lived in America at the time, and about how many people had lived in Spain? The reason why I ask is because this could beimportant to understanding what this mean population wise. If Spain only had 9 million people...but if they had 25 million, there are huge differences in population per area/community/city.

With the Great War continuing to be fought throughout Europe, the response to the epidemic was not nearly as good as what it should have been. When Influenza first appeared in America, the outbreak was ignored to concentrate on fighting the war in Europe. When it was brought back for a second wave, the outbreak could no longer be ignored. Even though it was not being ignored, the world was still ill-equipped to deal with the outbreak. Doctors were in short supply thanks to the war. This meant that the epidemic was allowed to continue, which in turn meant that America could not dig graves fast enough. The entire world was hit with the same problem of not being able to keep up with the massive death toll due to the Great War and the virus. However, now it seems that with advances in technology people would be able to more quickly isolate a virus such as this and immunize the population.

I do agree with this. Despite what is said in class about the fact that it would be just as deadly I would agree with you. We would have a way better chance of fighting it off becasue we have a much better knowledge of microbiology than we did 90 years ago.

See the original post...
My "1918 Influenza Pandemic"