This is something we have forgotten that the situation is gradually changing within some hours period and for which we require to view the statistics not on the basis of aggregate statistics instead viewing it on the daily basis, where we analyze the strike rate on daily basis, therefore while analyzing the resonance clearly shows variation especially the last portion where it clearly raises an objection where and what are the basis upon which these statistics are collected, because the variation is certainly unnatural.
As we know, the “Spanish Flu,” so named because initial media reports
suggested that the influenza originated in Spain rather than in U.S.
Army training camps, devastated the United States and Europe in the
final year of World War I. The world of 1918 was far less globalized
than the world of today, with lower levels of international trade and
international travel. Nevertheless, the influenza spread rapidly,
attacking in three distinct waves in countries around the world.
Distance provided little protection. The war itself helped spread the
disease, as U.S. soldiers brought it to Europe, and Europeans spread it
across the rest of the world. The flu made its mark on the great nations
of East Asia as well, although with vastly different effects in each.
Japan
was a co-belligerent of Britain and France in World War I, but had
largely stayed out of intense warfare since the reduction of German
concessions in China in 1914, although intervention in the Soviet Union
in 1918 would bring Japanese troops back into action. Influenza struck
the
Japanese Army in November 1918,
peaking about a month after the flu hit the armies on the Western Front
in France. The death rate was somewhat lower in the Japanese Army than
in its European counterparts, perhaps because operational demands
interfered with treatment in the latter. Still, some 6-8 percent of
victims of the influenza died.
Overall, between 400,000 and
500,000 Japanese died of the Spanish Flu, with the population
displaying the same “W” shape of morbidity that appeared in the West
(the flu killed the young, the old, and a high percentage of young
adults). Another 200,000 people died in Japanese-occupied Korea and
Taiwan.
Influenza devastated
British India, killing some 18 million people. India had supplied
substantial personnel to the British, both in fighting strength and in
auxiliaries. The
disease spread quickly from its
epicenter at Bombay, while colonial officials dithered and denied the
severity of the outbreak. Mohandas K. Gandhi contracted the illness, but
survived. The impact of the flu helped demonstrate the underlying
weakness of the British imperial system, however, and facilitated the
strengthening of the pro-independence movement.
The flu may have
touched only lightly upon China. Unlike India, China was not fully
colonized by European powers, leaving much of its agrarian population
isolated from disease-spreading colonials. Unlike Japan, China’s
population remained primarily agrarian in the first decades of the 20th
century.
Some suggest that traditional Chinese medicine,
which had historically focused on the management of epidemics, may have
played a role in limiting the spread and virulence of the virus. We
should take this conclusion with a grain of salt, as China had little in
the way of an effective central government at the time and consequently
there are few good statistics about the impact of the virus.
Each
of Japan, India, and China face much different problems today than they
faced in 1918. Still, the Spanish Flu left a mark on all of them, with
the impact mediated by differences in governing structure and in
relationship to international society. It’s worthwhile for modern
policymakers to keep the 1918 pandemic in mind when considering
responses in 2020.
