NZ: rural areas went better in 1918

[gsgs]

Was rurality protective in the 1918 influenza pandemic in New Zealand?McSweeny K, Colman A, Fancourt N, Parnell M, Stantiall S, Rice G, Baker M, Wilson N.
University of Otago, Wellington.

AIMS: This study aimed to examine the impact of rurality on mortality rates from pandemic influenza in New Zealand in 1918. METHODS: Mortality data was obtained from death certificates (in a published source) and denominator population data from the 1916 census (for the European population only). Analyses were conducted on cities (n = 4), towns (n = 111), counties (n = 97). RESULTS: The influenza mortality rate for the towns and cities was more than twice that of the counties that represented rural settings (rate ratio (RR) = 2.13, 95% CI = 2.00-2.27). However, larger towns (population >2000 people) had a significantly lower mortality rate than smaller towns (RR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.74-0.88). Similarly, cities had a lower mortality rate than larger towns (RR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.83-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: These results are suggestive that rurality may have provided some protection from mortality during this influenza pandemic. This may have been due to a mix of remoteness and greater social distancing among rural residents. However, the differences in mortality rates between towns and cities may have reflected other factors such as the more organised provision of community care in the larger towns and cities, when compared to smaller towns.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

[Amish Country]

Re: NZ: rural areas went better in 1918

It may also have been due to a greater level of self sufficiency within each family farm or ranch that allowed the rural population to remain isolated from exposure to the disease. Knowing people were literally dropping dead in town from a pandemic may have given the rural population more incentive to stay self quarantined. Self sufficiency gave them the means. The population also had lower expectations. There are a lot of things the modern world depends on and takes for granted that, back in 1918, they easily lived without because they never had it or excepted it was "better to make do or do without".

I doubt they had to teach the 1918 adult population much about the potential dangers of exposure to contagious disease, they knew, many from first hand experience. Small pox and many other nasty bugs we now have vaccines and treatments for were still floating around the world at the time. Quarantining themselves from infection wasn't a "drill" or something out of a history lesson, it was part of their culture. Once informed of the danger the bulk of the population probably knew what to do.