Sally Furniss
Well-known member
From the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases 2008 pg 132 http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/14/3/ICEID2008.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/14/3/ICEID2008.pdf
Board 107. An Historical Perspective of the 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic in Michigan
J. Averill1, J. Crawford2, E. Wells1; 1Michigan Department of Community Health, Lansing, MI, 2Michigan State
University, College of Veterinary Medicine, East Lansing, MI.
Background:
Beginning in the spring of 1918 three successive waves of pandemic influenza swept through the world leading to an estimated 50 million deaths. The possibility of another novel influenza virus emerging in the
human population currently drives an enormous surveillance and preparedness effort. A great deal of insight can be gained from how our communities survived the 1918 influenza pandemic and enable us to incorporate any beneficial practices into current public health preparedness plans.
Methods: A number of collections were searched for information detailing Michigan?s public health response to the 1918 influenza pandemic: Michigan Department of Health records, other governmental records, the State Journal, Detroit Free Press, and private collections.
Results:
13 cases of influenza were reported to the State Health Department on October 1st. A total of 116,000 cases and 6700 deaths were reported between October and December of 1918. Community mitigation measures were implemented in small communities on October 12th but larger cities did not do so until the 17th. Governor Sleeper declared state-wide bans of public gatherings on October 19th that were in effect until November 7th. During the height of the pandemic wave, measures to accommodate the surge in healthcare needs were instituted: teachers helped nurses or law enforcement officers, the Red Cross altered their response from World War I towards the domestic needs of Michigan communities, vacant buildings were used for triage and medical care, and many citizens assisted in the making of masks.
Conclusions:
During a time when the phrase ?public health preparedness? was not even coined, public health officials in Michigan were able to implement non-pharmaceutical interventions that could be used today. In 1918 there was much debate, as there is today, as to when community mitigation measures should be implemented and for how long. Further, while measures were put in place to mitigate social gatherings, compliance to maintain such prolonged measures was short-lived. The examination of those effective measures that mitigated the spread of influenza in 1918, allows practitioners today to develop and incorporate public health practices that will maximize efficacy and compliance for future communicable disease outbreaks such as pandemic influenza.
http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/14/3/ICEID2008.pdf
Board 107. An Historical Perspective of the 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic in Michigan
J. Averill1, J. Crawford2, E. Wells1; 1Michigan Department of Community Health, Lansing, MI, 2Michigan State
University, College of Veterinary Medicine, East Lansing, MI.
Background:
Beginning in the spring of 1918 three successive waves of pandemic influenza swept through the world leading to an estimated 50 million deaths. The possibility of another novel influenza virus emerging in the
human population currently drives an enormous surveillance and preparedness effort. A great deal of insight can be gained from how our communities survived the 1918 influenza pandemic and enable us to incorporate any beneficial practices into current public health preparedness plans.
Methods: A number of collections were searched for information detailing Michigan?s public health response to the 1918 influenza pandemic: Michigan Department of Health records, other governmental records, the State Journal, Detroit Free Press, and private collections.
Results:
13 cases of influenza were reported to the State Health Department on October 1st. A total of 116,000 cases and 6700 deaths were reported between October and December of 1918. Community mitigation measures were implemented in small communities on October 12th but larger cities did not do so until the 17th. Governor Sleeper declared state-wide bans of public gatherings on October 19th that were in effect until November 7th. During the height of the pandemic wave, measures to accommodate the surge in healthcare needs were instituted: teachers helped nurses or law enforcement officers, the Red Cross altered their response from World War I towards the domestic needs of Michigan communities, vacant buildings were used for triage and medical care, and many citizens assisted in the making of masks.
Conclusions:
During a time when the phrase ?public health preparedness? was not even coined, public health officials in Michigan were able to implement non-pharmaceutical interventions that could be used today. In 1918 there was much debate, as there is today, as to when community mitigation measures should be implemented and for how long. Further, while measures were put in place to mitigate social gatherings, compliance to maintain such prolonged measures was short-lived. The examination of those effective measures that mitigated the spread of influenza in 1918, allows practitioners today to develop and incorporate public health practices that will maximize efficacy and compliance for future communicable disease outbreaks such as pandemic influenza.