1889 Flu Pandemic As Lethal as the 1918 Pandemic

robertp6165 · Jul 7, 2009

It is a little known fact that in 1889 a virus known as the Russian Flu caused a pandemic which killed at least a million people worldwide. But what if the virus had been as deadly as the 1918 Spanish Flu, which killed anywhere from 40,000,000 to 100,000,000 people worldwide? How would such a catastrophic pandemic have affected the history of the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Does World War I still occur, for example?

proximefactum · Jul 7, 2009

It's important to add that those that contracted the pandemic flu in 1889 were often inoculated against the 1918 flu.

robertp6165 · Jul 7, 2009

proximefactum said:
It's important to add that those that contracted the pandemic flu in 1889 were often inoculated against the 1918 flu.

Actually, it is now thought that additional antibodies left over in the systems of children who were exposed to the 1889 virus contributed to the extreme death rate among young adults as a result of the 1918 pandemic by causing cytokine storms. If we assume the more virulent virus posited here leaves behind even more antibodies, it is possible that the 1918 pandemic, if it occurs, will also be even more deadly.

arctic warrior · Jul 7, 2009

Those children would have to be at least 29 years of age when contracting the 1918 flu for them to have been born in 1889!

So the cytokine storm would not affect those less than 29 years old and indeed in much of europe rationing if not outright famine or perhaps rather malnutrition would also be a prohibiting factor in this equation.

Rather those having contracted the Russian flu of 1889 would be in their forties to eighties according to this when the Spanish flu hit and those were the ones not so much affected according to statistics (what little a quick search is able to bring about - figures mostly from the US, would have liked to have some from war and ration ridden Europe).
Interesting the immune ones to the Asian flu of 1957 was those above the age of 65 who had been 26 in 1918! Looks like some kind of pattern!

robertp6165 · Jul 7, 2009

arctic warrior said:
Those children would have to be at least 29 years of age when contracting the 1918 flu for them to have been born in 1889!

The group hardest hit in 1918 was people between 20-40 years old. People between 29 and 40 clearly fall in that category.

arctic warrior said:
So the cytokine storm would not affect those less than 29 years old and indeed in much of europe rationing if not outright famine or perhaps rather malnutrition would also be a prohibiting factor in this equation.

Not sure I am understanding your argument here. People who are malnourished are generally more susceptible to disease, not less.

arctic warrior said:
Rather those having contracted the Russian flu of 1889 would be in their forties to eighties according to this when the Spanish flu hit and those were the ones not so much affected according to statistics (what little a quick search is able to bring about - figures mostly from the US, would have liked to have some from war and ration ridden Europe).

The quote in your source referring to people who contracted the Russian flu of 1889 being in their 40s to 80s is referring to the people who died. The virus infected people of all age groups...and created antibodies in them. The young children of 1889 were part of the 20-40 year old group which died in droves in 1918.

arctic warrior · Jul 7, 2009

robertp6165 said:
The group hardest hit in 1918 was people between 20-40 years old. People between 29 and 40 clearly fall in that category.

They do but those 1918 age 20-29 would not have suffered the 1889 outbreak and as such would not have antibodies which would not add to cytokine stroms. This would of course be the case for the 29-40 years old.

robertp6165 said:
Not sure I am understanding your argument here. People who are malnourished are generally more susceptible to disease, not less.

Just my arguement - you were argueing that those well nourished in their prime were those hardest hit because of cytokine stroms; but in Europe peoples were suffering from rationing and malnourishment if not famine; hardly then the group to suffer from cytokine stroms.
But those hit it seems were generally male in the fighting age so of course they should be hit badly, as they were. Antibodies and cytokine stroms or not.
I'm just lacking figures for areas like Central Europe; the German army wasn't as well fed as the Allies.
On the other hand malnourishment could be the end of the scale - BOTH contributing to the mortality rate. But if malnourishment is as bad as good health which is serving to cytokine stroms both making for increased mortality then other age groups would be just as badly affected in Europe - but numbers are lacking.

robertp6165 said:
The quote in your source referring to people who contracted the Russian flu of 1889 being in their 40s to 80s is referring to the people who died. The virus infected people of all age groups...and created antibodies in them. The young children of 1889 were part of the 20-40 year old group which died in droves in 1918.

No it says:

In 1889, the Russian flu pandemic struck those who, by 1918, were in their 40's to 80's.

Counting back 29 years the affected group in 1889 would have been 11-51 years of age.

Those would be 40-80 in 1918 and thus not in the range of those with the highest mortality rate.

***

It seems like - from what I've been able to glimpse (and as noted I lack some figures from Europe) that

a. antibodies could have an innoculating effect on the older victims.

b. cytokine stroms could have an increasing effect on the mortality rate within the most affected groups in 1889 and 1918.

c. you cannot treat the World according to US statistics!

robertp6165 · Jul 7, 2009

arctic warrior said:
They do but those 1918 age 20-29 would not have suffered the 1889 outbreak and as such would not have antibodies which would not add to cytokine stroms. This would of course be the case for the 29-40 years old.

The argument the scientists are making is not that the previous exposure to the 1889 virus caused the 1918 pandemic. It is that it intensified it. Nothing you say here denies that.

arctic warrior said:
Just my argument - you were argueing that those well nourished in their prime were those hardest hit because of cytokine stroms; but in Europe peoples were suffering from rationing and malnourishment if not famine; hardly then the group to suffer from cytokine stroms.

This is a strawman argument. I said nothing about people being well nourished in my original post on this subject.

arctic warrior said:
But those hit it seems were generally male in the fighting age so of course they should be hit badly, as they were. Antibodies and cytokine stroms or not.

Well, scientists seem to think otherwise. If I have to choose between your opinion and theirs in this case, I think I'll choose theirs.

arctic warrior said:
No it says: "In 1889, the Russian flu pandemic struck those who, by 1918, were in their 40's to 80's."

That does not mean that only people from 40-80+ contracted it. If that were the case, scientists today would not be arguing the cykotine storm theory with regard to the 1918 epidemic. The reason the 40-80+ age range was mentioned is because that was who died, for the most part.

arctic warrior said:
It seems like - from what I've been able to glimpse (and as noted I lack some figures from Europe) that

a. antibodies could have an innoculating effect on the older victims.

Only if the flu strains are similar, and the strains which caused the Russian Flu of 1889 and the Spanish Flu of 1918 were not.

arctic warrior said:
b. cytokine stroms could have an increasing effect on the mortality rate within the most affected groups in 1889 and 1918.

Which, in essence, is what I argued in the first place.

arctic warrior said:
c. you cannot treat the World according to US statistics!

Nobody has done that. Partial to straw men, are we?

W.W.A.F.T. · Jul 7, 2009

Medical statistics might as well be written in chinese for all the sense I can make of them, but long term effects I am good with. WWI would most likely still happen, but fewer young men to run through the meat grinder it would pobably end sooner and be more liklly reasult in a return to the status quo or at least something similar.

by the present day, it would be reasonable to assume 2 billon fewer peole on earth.

DTF955Baseballfan · Jul 8, 2009

Hmm, it's a couple years later than the Russian Flu, but I won't if this is where this came from. http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/ootp-dynasty-reports/112914-p-l-a-g-u-e.htm Would you believe a baseball dynasty around an AH? ctually, a few people have done AH like this on the OOTP site.

Sadly, the author lost the baseball stuff and never continued. but it was an interesting way to do AH; maybe someone on here could offer to put up the history part and continue with Metsgeek.

Edit: Hmmm, sorry, can't get the link to work. Just search for PLAGUE (or with spaces between the letters) and updated 4/1/09 (or mroe recently if someone has updated it).

arctic warrior · Jul 8, 2009

robertp6165 said:
Partial to straw men, are we?

Actually no - just trying to get to the bottom of this. Can only do so by searching or asking. (don't have any books on subject - only periferically treatment of subject)

Thande · Jul 8, 2009

Ah, AH.com, where an interesting scenario is quickly bogged down by endless arguments about a very unimportant aspect of it

How about we look at the immediate and direct effects of up to 100,000 people dying worldwide in 1889 rather than arguing about what effect it may or may not have on the 1918 flu - which most probably won't even happen thanks to butterflies anyway!

Joseph K. · Jul 8, 2009

If the Spanish flu doesn't stop WWII, why would this stop WWI?

Although I guess it's possible that some random officials die, treatys don't get signed, etc...

bobbis14 · Jul 8, 2009

Wasn't the 1918 influenza so big because all the troops went home to all cornors of the globe after WW1?

robertp6165 · Jul 8, 2009

Joseph K. said:
If the Spanish flu doesn't stop WWII, why would this stop WWI?

Although I guess it's possible that some random officials die, treatys don't get signed, etc...

Good Point. The deaths, in and of themselves, may not stop World War I, unless, say, Kaiser Bill or somebody else important (Gavrilo Princip's parents, perhaps) dies of it.

W.W.A.F.T. said:
WWI would most likely still happen, but fewer young men to run through the meat grinder it would pobably end sooner and be more liklly reasult in a return to the status quo or at least something similar.

That's an interesting point too. Exactly how would the loss of 100,000,000 people affect the ability of nations to wage war in the 1914-1918 period. Of course, a lot would depend on where those deaths occur. If Africa and South America get hit especially hard, but Europe not so much, for example, there may be little impact at all. China could have absorbed all 100,000,000 deaths and not affected the course of World War I at all. It all depends on who gets infected.

It would be interesting to see a map of the OTL 1889 epidemic showing density of mortality in each region to try to figure out the likely course of the pandemic in this alternate scenario.

robertp6165 · Jul 8, 2009

bobbis14 said:
Wasn't the 1918 influenza so big because all the troops went home to all cornors of the globe after WW1?

That was a factor in the transmission of the 1918 epidemic. However, the 1889 epidemic, from what I read of it, seems to have spread over the world just about like the 1918 one did, using other means of transmission.