WI: Spanish Influenza hits the United States much harder?

I was reading a new history book when I stumbled upon the section about the Spanish Influenza during the 1920s. Apparently, 20 to 40 million people died as a result of the disease, but only 700,000 of the deaths were Americans. While that is a huge number, I couldn't help but think about how little the subject is mentioned in terms of long term affects. My first reaction when I hear the phrase "Post-WWI" is not Spanish Influenza.

So what if the disease had struck the United States considerably harder? Say a death toll in the millions.
 
Much of the US was already stretched to the breaking point even with the 700 000 death toll figure. For every person that died of the 1920 avian flu, there were twenty or thirty more who were infected and admitted to a hospital but managed to survive. With a death toll in the millions, the hospitals will be utterly swamped and inundated with tens of millions of the sick and dying, and there was literally nothing that could be done to aid them. Considering US population was 106 million in 1920, that's a pretty big chunk of the population incapacitated or dead from the flu.

Individual states and cities would probably have to impose some sort of quarantine system in order to cope with the influenza's spread, but it's quite the logistical nightmare to say the least.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
If it is the millions, it cause real problems for the US mobilization. I would guess months of delays to the deployment schedule compare to OTL.

Do you mean for the flu to only be more deadly in the USA or world wide?
 
Spanish flu in the US wasn't Captain Trips

The biggest issues w Spanish flu that caused massive casualties in Europe (especially Germany) were:

Much higher population density,

Much more population displacement during and after the war

Much more malnutrition due to the Allied blockade making the population much more vulnerable to an epidemic of anything.

Much more censorship about the epidemic spreading vs the US.

So, for the Ft Riley Flu (to be more accurate) to be much nastier in the US, we'd need:
(a) a lot more soldiers/sailors/etc. moving around, (roughly 5-10X OTL #'s)
(b) have them crammed into barracks for extended periods, so everyone swaps bugs until a bug emerges that infects everyone and sickens a good number before becoming less virulent.
(c) a massive disruption in food supply that dwarfed even the Dust Bowl, so a huge chunk of the populace (20-30%) is actually missing 25% of their daily calories (and 70-80% of their micronutrients) of a subsistence diet for months as the Germans were.
(d) have the infection simmer for a few weeks so huge number of folks get infected before the word to quarantine gets out.
(e) have lousy to nonexistent public health authorities (or good public health authorities with no funding or supplies helpless to do anything).
 
Much of the US was already stretched to the breaking point even with the 700 000 death toll figure. For every person that died of the 1920 avian flu, there were twenty or thirty more who were infected and admitted to a hospital but managed to survive. With a death toll in the millions, the hospitals will be utterly swamped and inundated with tens of millions of the sick and dying, and there was literally nothing that could be done to aid them. Considering US population was 106 million in 1920, that's a pretty big chunk of the population incapacitated or dead from the flu.

Individual states and cities would probably have to impose some sort of quarantine system in order to cope with the influenza's spread, but it's quite the logistical nightmare to say the least.

Ouch. If there is any sort of Great Depression analogue, the country would really be taking a beating over the next couple of decades.

If it is the millions, it cause real problems for the US mobilization. I would guess months of delays to the deployment schedule compare to OTL.

Do you mean for the flu to only be more deadly in the USA or world wide?

USA. I'm not sure if it could get considerably worse worldwide without upping the virus itself to a more deadly strain.

The biggest issues w Spanish flu that caused massive casualties in Europe (especially Germany) were:

Much higher population density,

Much more population displacement during and after the war

Much more malnutrition due to the Allied blockade making the population much more vulnerable to an epidemic of anything.

Much more censorship about the epidemic spreading vs the US.

So, for the Ft Riley Flu (to be more accurate) to be much nastier in the US, we'd need:
(a) a lot more soldiers/sailors/etc. moving around, (roughly 5-10X OTL #'s)
(b) have them crammed into barracks for extended periods, so everyone swaps bugs until a bug emerges that infects everyone and sickens a good number before becoming less virulent.
(c) a massive disruption in food supply that dwarfed even the Dust Bowl, so a huge chunk of the populace (20-30%) is actually missing 25% of their daily calories (and 70-80% of their micronutrients) of a subsistence diet for months as the Germans were.
(d) have the infection simmer for a few weeks so huge number of folks get infected before the word to quarantine gets out.
(e) have lousy to nonexistent public health authorities (or good public health authorities with no funding or supplies helpless to do anything).


(a) and (b) would be more probable if the United States joined the war earlier.

(c) is the most unlikely. That would take a giant shift in weather, though a longer war could lead to rationing, which contributes to the malnutrition issue.

(d) is very possible. The rate viruses mutate make them very susceptible to the Butterfly Effect.

(e) With Harding in office, I could see it happening.
 
...But weren't the poor areas of New York pretty bad?

Instead of looking at an overall number, could it have been much more localised (NY, ... other embarkment points) and thereby much more deadly in a US context?

Ivan
 
Much of the US was already stretched to the breaking point even with the 700 000 death toll figure. For every person that died of the 1920 avian flu, there were twenty or thirty more who were infected and admitted to a hospital but managed to survive. With a death toll in the millions, the hospitals will be utterly swamped and inundated with tens of millions of the sick and dying, and there was literally nothing that could be done to aid them. Considering US population was 106 million in 1920, that's a pretty big chunk of the population incapacitated or dead from the flu.

Individual states and cities would probably have to impose some sort of quarantine system in order to cope with the influenza's spread, but it's quite the logistical nightmare to say the least.

Individual cities and states did impose quarantines. In many places, public gatherings were banned. Schools, churches, theaters, public parks were all closed. In many places it became illegal to be out in public without a surgical mask. Coughing, sneezing or spitting in public could subject a person to a fine or even jail time. The cities and states had to do something, because the Federal government was doing little during the crisis, since Wilson thought it wasn't the job of the Federal government to act during an epidemic that killed more Americans than died in all of the Wars that the United States fought in the 20th century and the USA got hit with the Spanish Flu twice. It's believed to have started here in the first place in Kansas and spread to Europe from there.

Read John Barry's book The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Greatest Plague in History about the subject. It's a good review of what happened, as well as an excellent insight into Medicine in the United States at the period of time. The USA was very close to adopting single payer Health Insurance in the early part of the 20th century.

Now, if the Spanish Flu were more deadly, it would probably force the US government to do something and that could have some positive implications for Public Health issues in the US.

Torqumada
 
Top