User:Galaxysword/Spanish flu

Article Draft

China

Despite ongoing research regarding the origins of the 1918 influenza pandemic, there is still significant controversy surrounding the argument of whether or not the pandemic might have originally begun as the result of various pulmonary infections in Northern China between 1917 and 1918.

In 1993, Claude Hannoun, the leading expert on the Spanish flu at the Pasteur Institute, asserted the precursor virus was likely to have come from China and then mutated in the United States near Boston and from there spread to Brest, France, Europe's battlefields, the rest of Europe, and the rest of the world, with Allied soldiers and sailors as the main disseminators. Hannoun considered several alternative hypotheses of origin, such as Spain, Kansas, and Brest, as being possible, but not likely.

In 2014, historian Mark Humphries argued that the mobilization of 96,000 Chinese laborers to work behind the British and French lines might have been the source of the pandemic. Humphries, of the Memorial University of Newfoundland in St. John's, based his conclusions on newly unearthed records. He found archival evidence that a respiratory illness that struck northern China (where the laborers came from) in November 1917 was identified a year later by Chinese health officials as identical to the Spanish flu. Unfortunately, no tissue samples have survived for modern comparison. Nevertheless, there were some reports of respiratory illness on parts of the path the laborers took to get to Europe, which also passed through North America.

China was one of the few regions of the world seemingly less affected by the Spanish flu pandemic, where several studies have documented a comparatively mild flu season in 1918. (Although this is disputed due to lack of data during the Warlord Period, see Around the globe.) This has led to speculation that the Spanish flu pandemic originated in China, as the lower rates of flu mortality may be explained by the Chinese population's previously acquired immunity to the flu virus. In the Guangdong Province it was reported that early outbreaks of influenza in 1918 disproportionately impacted young men. The June outbreak infected children and adolescents between 11 and 20 years of age, while the October outbreak was most common in those aged 11 to 15.

A report published in 2016 in the Journal of the Chinese Medical Association found no evidence that the 1918 virus was imported to Europe via Chinese and Southeast Asian soldiers and workers and instead found evidence of its circulation in Europe before the pandemic. The 2016 study found that the low flu mortality rate (an estimated one in a thousand) recorded among the Chinese and Southeast Asian workers in Europe suggests that the Asian units were not different from other Allied military units in France at the end of 1918 and, thus, were not a likely source of a new lethal virus. Further evidence against the disease being spread by Chinese workers was that workers entered Europe through other routes that did not result in a detectable spread, making them unlikely to have been the original hosts.

Beginning in 1918, reports began to surface of various outbreaks of respiratory illnesses near the port cities of Guangzhou and Shanghai, resulting in the closure of public facilities in attempts to stop the early spread of illness. Despite these efforts, the pandemic became known as the “bone pain plague,” the “five-day plague,” and as the “wind plague” because it could spread quickly, caused significant muscle pain, and killed rapidly as well. Although exact data is unavailable, it is estimated that between 4-9.5 million Chinese people died from the 1918 influenza pandemic.

According to a September 3, 1918, report in the newspaper Tai Gong Boa, the majority of individuals who died were those who either delayed treatment or did not receive proper treatment, though exact numbers of deaths were not documented. Although estimates based on the limited data available show mortality rates that were much lower than in other parts of the world, if one person in a house became infected, the whole household was quickly infected as well, despite the government’s best efforts to curb the spread of the pandemic.

The majority of China relied on Traditional Chinese Medicine to prevent infection at this time. Some practices called for spraying limewater on the roofs of homes as a preventative measure, and herbal remedies were employed for treatment. Other recommendations included drinking soups made from powdered mung beans and burning rhubarb to help disinfect the air.

Korea

The Spanish flu entered the peninsula of Korea in spring of 2018. The contagious disease spread into Korea from port to port via ships and internally via rail, five-day markets, and inns, among other areas that promote close contact. The death toll peaked in November 2018, with over 91,000 fatalities having a big impact on society and causing disruptions in business operations. In addition, rice and fuel prices were three to four times as expensive. Straw and hemp were also more expensive as families buried their impacted family members in straw mats as coffins were hard to obtain.

People wore masks to minimize the spread of the disease, and local establishments were closed, such as schools, and movie theatres, among other facilities, where many people congregate. If people showed symptoms, they were quarantined and could not enter the workplace. People were deterred from going to the hospital because of the fear of being quarantined, never to see their family. Hence, many people used folk remedies and superstitions to mitigate the disease. Many elixirs containing scallions, bamboo shoots, and ginger, among other ingredients, were thought to be cures for the disease. Scary temple guardians were also drawn on paper and placed on an infected individual’s forehead.