Much less deadly. No mass troop movements, better nutrition, less secrecy, more international cooperation, far fewer large camps at cetera. Less (and slower) international travel would reduce the spread.
The press story is true,and it is also true that troop concentrations mattered a lot. In particular the coinfections mattered to a degree that arriving to the front in 1914 or 1918 made little difference in survival. The influenza and coinfections made up for the battle related mortality and be then the class of 1914 had experienced most of the coinfections.Between the mass movement of troops and some of the mass public meetings in the USA this meant more opportunities for spread. The poor condition that soldiers lived in, malnutrition, and the situation of the refugees all contributed. IMHO it will spread worldwide but not as extensively, fewer infected. Assuming the same virulence, probably some decrease in case mortality, and due to that and fewer folks infected, fewer deaths.
The most "popular" theory for this was it started in the USA (Kansas specifically) as a an ordinary flu, went to Europe where some further mutation occurred making it the killer it was. It was called "Spanish" because Spain, as a neutral, did not have the sorts of censorship the warfighters had, so the extent and severity was suppressed by both sides, but when it crossed in to Spain details were made freely available. Hence "Spanish Flu".
. . . The most "popular" theory for this was it started in the USA (Kansas specifically) as a an ordinary flu, went to Europe where some further mutation occurred making it the killer it was. It was called "Spanish" because Spain, as a neutral, did not have the sorts of censorship the warfighters had, . . .
If one variant of flu makes a person really sick so much that they stay in their home trying to recuperate and recover, and another variant makes a person moderately sick so that they’re out trying to do their normal activities as part of the walking wounded, well, which one is going to spread more readily?The Great Influenza, John Barry, 2004, 2005, pages 105-106.
https://books.google.com/books?id=B...new viruses that burst out of a cell”&f=false
“The influenza virus mutates so fast that 99 percent of the 100,000 to 1 million new viruses that burst out of a cell in the reproduction process are too defective to infect another cell and reproduce again. But that still leaves between 1,000 and 10,000 viruses that can infect another cell.”
And in terms of preventing disease spread, that’s a big problem.Effect of Travel on Influenza Epidemiology
Belderok, Rimmelzwaan, et al.
[study from Oct. 2006 to Oct. 2007]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3713810/
‘ . . . with adults most infectious from 1 day before symptom onset to ≈5–7 days after symptom onset. . . ’