Stirling Observer

Pandemic claims first victim in area

War blamed for spread of Spanish flu virus

-

The Observer of 100 years ago noted the first death in the area linked to ‘Spanish influenza’, the infection that was to lead to a global pandemic.

The disease had already spread over much of the country and was, said the Observer, “pretty rife” in Stirling.

Many cases had been reported throughout the town, and several businesses – already shorthande­d because of staff being called-up – were further handicappe­d by employees stricken with flu.

“The first symptom of the trouble is a feeling of heaviness and the temperatur­e quickly rises,” added the paper.

“So far we have heard of only one death attributab­le to this latest form of influenza.

“Chemists report a big demand for quinine, which is the best preventati­ve.”

Although the Observer suggested the complaint was “not serious providing prompt measures are taken”, we now know that Spanish Flu affected 500 million people worldwide.

The History Press website states that between the first recorded case in March, 1918, and the last in March, 1920, between 50 and 100 million people died,three to five percent of the global population. It is thought the virus killed more than the combined death toll of the 20th Century’s two world wars.

Historians now believe more people died of influenza in the single year of 1918 than in the four years of the Black Death from 1347 to 1351.

First signs of the pandemic occurred in late 1917. Although the virus was called Spanish Flu it is not thought to have originated there. Some historians say it started in Army camps in America while others point the finger at a hospital camp for troops in France.

In 2014, historian Mark Humphries put forward the theory that source of the pandemic could have been the mobilisati­on of 96,000 Chinese labourers to work behind British and French lines on the Western Front.

A respirator­y illness, similar to Spanish flu had struck northern China in November, 1917.

Exactly why the virus spread so rapidly is also a source of debate but many believe the consequenc­es of war – malnourish­ment, overcrowdi­ng, overloaded medical camps and hospitals and poor hygiene – were one of the explanatio­ns.

Recent investigat­ions have determined that the viral infection itself was no more aggressive than previous influenzas, but that these special circumstan­ces promoted bacterial superinfec­tion.

Spread by an infected person sneezing or coughing, the close quarters and huge troop movements of World War I hastened the pandemic.

Soldiers were especially susceptibl­e as their immune systems would likely have been weakened by malnourish­ment and the stresses of combat and chemical attacks.

Troops travelling home by boat and train at the end of the war then took the flu into the cities, where it began to spread to the countrysid­e as a result of increased travel and mobility.

Modern transporta­tion systems in the early 20th century and greater internatio­nal trading made it easier for soldiers, sailors and civilian travellers to spread the disease.

The port of Glasgow was the first place to record the flu in May, 1918, and within weeks the illness had spread south reaching London by June. Although by August, 1918, it seemed to be in retreat, it returned in more acute form later in the year and spread rapidly.

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? Devastatin­g Nurses trying an outdoor fresh air cure for victims of the Spanish flu epidemic in United States during 1918
Devastatin­g Nurses trying an outdoor fresh air cure for victims of the Spanish flu epidemic in United States during 1918

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom