My grandmother died last year, well over 100 years old. She easily remembered the event. Whole families would get sick, practically under quarentine. You could tell when everyone in the family was dead because all the corpses except one would be pushed out the front door. I can't imagine walking down the road and seeing piles of dead neighbors and knowing that it was a vain suicide to try to help the sick.

I'm rather bemused by the people that say "oh, something like that can't/won't happen again because we have advanced medical technology". Sure, medical technology is a great thing. I'm a big believer in pills. However, medicine is not perfect or we'd have cures for AIDS and cancer. Assuming medicine IS perfect, the logistics of covering large populations quickly is mind-boggling.

For example, most people that die from WestNileVirus die from complications of dehydration or freakishly high fevers. I doubt most people have enough supplies on hand to handle all members of their families being sick for a week without leaving the house (you know: Gatorade, Motrin, Tylonal, crackers, applesauce, etc) What would YOU do if the stores were closed and everyone you knew was sick too? The time to learn from history is BEFORE you repeat it.

There is good documentary on this subject "Influenza 1918" put out by PBS Home Video and book by Gina Kolata, "Flu: The Story Of The Great Influenza Pandemic".

Apparently the 1918 plague killed more people around the world than all the wars in the history of mankind combined. At least that's the statistic put forth by the documentary I watched once.

Unless I missed it though, did they explain WHY that strain made that jump (or HOW)? I think that's the important point.

Also, why (at least in America) did it kill so many young adults, the population that normally is least at risk for fatality from influenza? It's hard to imagine an entire hospital ward of 20 year olds dying of the *flu*. I think that contributed to the terror it inspired- it defied normality in that regard.

Regarding the 1928 flu being fatal to younger people, one of the researchers cited in the Kolata book theorized that an lesser influenza epidemic in the late 1890ies may have been just enough alike--- as well as being somewhat milder--- to afford older people a degree of immunity. That was the most awful part, that it was fatal to those who normally have a better chance of recovery.

Funny you bring this up. Two weeks ago, I read in J&MC Quarterly a study of magazines from the time period that attempted to explain why this event, which killed a huge number of people - the numbers given were 600,000 in America and 25 million worldwide, was not more a part of our national consciousness.

The writer surmised that the lack of a clear enemy (a virus rather than the huns), the failure of trusted societal organizations to deal with the epidemic, and the lack of a clear beginning and end to the story all meant the event didn't fit into our needs as a nation at the time. we were just coming out of world war 1 and ready for times of prosperity.

Fascinating readings. For instance, the major weekly newsmagazines of the time - saturday evening post, ladies home journal, others - had very few stories about the flu, but lots about the end of world war 1.

Anyone who is a cemetery buff, as we are, has noticed the huge number of tombstones from that one year.

Gina Kolata's book is in the current active stack in the bathroom, and there are a couple of other books out about the pandemic.

I have enough Gator-aid powder within sight of me at this moment as to keep us from dehydration. A similar, but more complete blend has recently been shown to greatly reduce the death rate from cholera outbreaks.

Brian,

Disease at that time was not the bogeyman it is today. Other than treatment of the symptoms there was really nothing you could do for someone who was ill. Recovery or death was in the hands of God. People died, and there was nothing you could really do about it.

War was under our control. We could do something about it. We decided to go to war. We decided to end war. The Great War ended because we 'talked' the Germans into giving up.

Disease you couldn't 'talk' into giving up. Disease did what it did and none could say it nay. then we discovered antibiotics and life changed.

Another facet of our lives was under our control. We could end illness, and in our glee any warnings regarding viruses (which antibiotics are useless against) and drug resistence (which was showing up in the lab at a very early date) were ignored.

Now we are learning that disease is still not as amenable to control as we had thought. New, more virulent viruses and virus strains of old diseases are showing up. As are drug resistent strains of bacterial and eukoryotic diseases. There are people being imprisoned for being sick, and not following their drug regimen, because their illness could lead to a widespread epidemic of a drug resistent disease.

We think of disease as a crime against humanity. Something to be railed against for its awful unfairness. Our ancestors saw disease as something that happened, to good and bad. Something you lived with. So where we get all up in arms over a disease (SARS) that's killed a few hundred, they pretty much took in stride an epidemic that killed millions. Stories were published, but mostly along the line of precautionary tales; the sort of thing one could do to minimize getting the Spanish Flu, and what you could do to treat the victims when they caught it.

Different times, different worldviews.

Influenza is a fascinating virus. Unlike most virii it has distinct chromosomes. That's what gives it its major advantage. It allows a kind of poor man's version of sexual reproduction, sort of. With sexual reproduction a species can create fairly well regulated genetic variation by mixing together different genes from the parents. This greatly facilitates natural selection because it doesn't rely on waiting around for just the right random mutation, nor does it waste as many organisms through harmful mutations (which are the majority).

However, sexual reproduction is way too complex for a tiny virus to manage. But Influenza does the next best thing, by spreading it's few genes over eight chromosomes it creates a great deal of genetic diversity when two different Flu strains (or species) infect the same cell. When this happens finished virii can be assembled with a mixture of chromosomes from either strain. Increasing genetic variation radically, but without having quite as many dead or defective virii as would result from high mutation rates. This is why you can catch the Flu more than once whereas you only catch Mumps, Chickenpox, etc. only once. You retain immunity to most virii after infection because for any given virus the one going around now is almost identical genetically to the one going around when you got it 5, 10, 20, or 50 years ago. But the Flu going around today is a frankensteinian hodge-podge of human and animal flus and may be sufficiently different from the strain going around last year, or even last week, to allow them to evade the immunity you gained against some other Flu strain. This is also why Flu shots are often hit and miss. A Flu shot will only work in preventing infection if they guess right as to which Flu strain will be going around during the Flu season. They don't always pick right so people end up getting innoculated against the wrong strain.

Know this story well because of my precous Grandma. Oh she told me how some of her friends & loved ones died of this Dean.

What a sad, sad memory for her. God that lady took my breath away on many occasions. She was my little hero.

The only other person that took my breath away was my beautiful daughter. Man, she did that to me a coule of times, she surely did, man my daughter in Washington is a ravin beauty! Too bad friends & family members were Jealous of her. She is doing great now. Phew...she is beautiful, like My grandma was.

That influenza was a tragic time, grandma was lucky she did not get it like the friends she loved and lost

It was tremendously tragic in the extreme, obviously. It only underscores a point that Camille Paglia wrote in her "Sexual Personae": Nature can be beautiful (flowers, sunsets, the stars and galaxies), but it is not benign (earthquakes, tornadoes, plagues). Nature can kill by sheer accident as many people as Hitler did deliberately. Many speak of "Mother Nature", but if so, then she is a most negligent and cruel mother, and I'm sure glad _my_ Mama wasn't like that! Environmentalists speak of "living in harmony with nature", but nature does not live in harmony with us, nor with herself (exploding stars, colliding galaxies). Watch out!