The Dangers of Ignoring History Lessons During a Pandemic
Authors: Graham Mooney
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2021)

EditorialsApril 2021The Dangers of Ignoring History Lessons During a PandemicFREEGraham Mooney, PhDGraham Mooney, PhDAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M21-0449 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The global ravages of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have directed attention to historical analyses of previous respiratory airborne pandemics, particularly the catastrophic influenza of 1918–1919 (1). Similarities in the epidemiologic characteristics of the 2 diseases left scientists, media, and the general public alike optimistically reaching back for century-spanning teachings. There are, of course, stark differences between the social situations of the 2 pandemics, including global communications, population size and distributions, geopolitical relations, systems and technologies of public health, and available medical therapies. These and many other distinguishing factors—not least the unprecedented dislocation caused by the First World War in 1914 to 1918—mean that anything we might learn from comparisons between the 2 pandemics needs to come with a large dose of historical context. Yet, I believe that we can begin to delineate the possible effects of deliberate public health policy in times of extreme crisis if we break down the historical epidemiology of influenza into manageable spatial units that have coherent political, social, and cultural meanings.A widely cited example of how this might be achieved is a study of influenza and public health in 43 U.S. cities that demonstrated the impact on mortality of nonpharmaceutical interventions (2). The overall conclusion was that many lives were saved in cities where local government acted quickly and decisively, using a combination of isolation and quarantine of individuals, school closures, and prohibition of public gatherings. Convincing though this historical study of mortality in U.S. cities is, generalizing from the experiences of a particular time and place can be a hazardous undertaking. As such, Staub and colleagues' observations of the response to the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic in Bern canton, Switzerland, reported in this issue (3), are welcome because they suggest that the effectiveness of the U.S. response in 1918–1919 was not exceptional.A noteworthy aspect of Staub and colleagues' analysis is its focus on morbidity, whereas other historical epidemiologic studies of the influenza pandemic have examined mortality (4, 5). The estimated case-fatality rate in Bern was 3.8%, but mortality data alone do not accurately reflect disease incidence. For example, in the United Kingdom, registration of influenza-related deaths as pneumonia, bronchitis, and heart disease is thought potentially to have underestimated influenza mortality by about 25% (6). Bern, then the most populous of Switzerland's 10 cantons, was one of the first authorities in the country to require physicians to register influenza cases. Staub and colleagues used all 9335 reports of influenza from Bern that detail the 121 152 cases of influenza-like illness. Their analyses designated all cases registered between 30 June 1918 and 30 June 1919 to one of the canton's 497 administrative districts, 30 administrative municipalities, and 6 regional areas.This unique collection of spatially organized influenza morbidity data allows us to observe the impact of the pandemic using a much wider epidemiologic lens than historians are usually able to do. As the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates, shocking though the mortality numbers are, a more thorough view of the disease's impact on daily life and well-being can only be seen if illnesses are considered alongside deaths. The overwhelming importance of this is underlined by the following calculations from the Swiss data: The cumulative influenza mortality rate for the Bern canton was 6.9 per 1000 inhabitants, and the incidence rate was 179.4 per 1000 inhabitants. With an incidence rate that high, it is inconceivable that anyone escaped its influence, whether at home, in school, or in the workplace.The authors provide a detailed temporal and spatial account of how influenza stalked the people of Bern. Within a few weeks of the disease's appearance, schools had been closed, mass gatherings were restricted, and entertainment activities involving large groups were banned. Nonpracticing physicians were forced back to work, and emergency hospitals were pressed into action. Similar nonpharmaceutical interventions have been common during COVID-19, but in 1918–1919 Bern, there were no mask mandates and all businesses were allowed to operate. Nevertheless, the canton-wide preventive actions taken in Bern in the summer of 1918 were associated with the containment of morbidity.Hatchett and colleagues' historical analysis of 1918–1919 influenza mortality in the United States concluded that "in the absence of an effective method of otherwise inducing immunity in the uninfected population (i.e., a well matched vaccine), such an epidemic is likely to have two phases, with the first phase mitigated by NPIs [nonpharmaceutical interventions] and the second commencing after NPIs are relaxed" (4). This proved to be so in 1918–1919 Bern. Prompted by anxieties about economic downturn, municipalities within the Bern canton were given freer rein after the first wave. The consequent relaxation of regulations, along with mass gatherings during a general strike, were associated with a second wave of influenza morbidity that was longer and more intense than the first. Drawing direct comparisons with laboratory-confirmed reports of COVID-19 and mitigation efforts in Switzerland in 2020, Staub and colleagues demonstrate startling chronological similarities in the course of the 2 pandemics.This impressively conducted historical analysis adds important new knowledge about the epidemiology of the 1918–1919 pandemic at the subnational level that lends valuable insight into the public health response to COVID-19. In 2007, Morse recognized that historical studies of the influenza pandemic could be crucial for guiding responses to future pandemics (7). As clichéd as it might sound, Staub and colleagues have shown that clear public health lessons are available in the history of the influenza pandemic of 1918–1919. Unfortunately, many of these lessons were eschewed. Will we be courageous enough to take heed of them when the next pandemic emerges?References1. American Historical Society. A Bibliography of Historians' Responses to COVID-19. Accessed at www.historians.org/news-and-advocacy/everything-has-a-history/a-bibliography-of-historians-responses-to-covid-19 on 20 January 2021. Google Scholar2. Markel H, Lipman HB, Navarro JA, et al. Nonpharmaceutical interventions implemented by US cities during the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic. JAMA. 2007;298:644-54. [PMID: 17684187] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Staub K, Jüni P, Urner M, et al. Public health interventions, epidemic growth, and regional variation of the 1918 influenza pandemic outbreak in a Swiss canton and its greater regions. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:533-9. doi:10.7326/M20-6231 Google Scholar4. Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M. Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:7582-7. [PMID: 17416679] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Smallman–Raynor M, Johnson N, Cliff AD. The spatial anatomy of an epidemic: influenza in London and the county boroughs of England and Wales, 1918–1919. Trans Inst Br Geogr. 2002;27:452-70. doi:10.1111/1475-5661.00065 Google Scholar6. Registrar-General. Report on the Mortality From Influenza in England and Wales During the Epidemic of 1918–19: Supplement to the Eighty-First Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales. H.M. Stationary Office; 1920. Google Scholar7. Morse SS. Pandemic influenza: studying the lessons of history. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:7313-4. [PMID: 17460034] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Disclosures: The author has reported no disclosures of interest. The form can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M21-0449.Corresponding Author: Graham Mooney, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Department of the History of Medicine, 1900 East Monument Street, Baltimore, MD 21205; e-mail, [email protected]edu.This article was published at Annals.org on 9 February 2021. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoPublic Health Interventions, Epidemic Growth, and Regional Variation of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic Outbreak in a Swiss Canton and Its Greater Regions Kaspar Staub , Peter Jüni , Martin Urner , Katarina L. Matthes , Corina Leuch , Gina Gemperle , Nicole Bender , Sara I. Fabrikant , Milo Puhan , Frank Rühli , Oliver Gruebner , and Joël Floris Metrics Cited byWikipedia searches and the epidemiology of infectious diseases: A systematic reviewPatient, Surgeon, and Health Care Worker Safety during the COVID-19 Pandemic April 2021Volume 174, Issue 4Page: 556-557KeywordsCOVID-19DisclosureEpidemiologyMorbidityMortalityPrevention, policy, and public healthQuarantinesSchool closuresScientistsVaccines ePublished: 9 February 2021 Issue Published: April 2021 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2021 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...