St. Louis' Response To The 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic Was Lauded. Rightly So?
In determining the best guidelines for government action during the COVID-19 outbreak, city leaders and officials are looking at how different metros responded during the 1918 flu pandemic. The general consensus is that because St. Louis implemented more extensive quarantine measures, the area had a lower death rate than other cities — like Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and New York City.
In his latest piece, Chris Naffziger, who writes about history and architecture for St. Louis Magazine, wrote that while city officials managed to prevent the deaths of thousands during the pandemic of 1918 through 1920, St. Louis’ response to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic wasn't quite what we've been told.
“If you look to smaller, industrial cities in the Midwest, we did not do as well, and I think that probably had a lot to do with the very bad coal pollution,” Naffziger said Wednesday on St. Louis on the Air.
“I want to stress that by no means am I saying that we should not learn the lessons [of St. Louis’ response to the 1918 pandemic],” he continued. “What Dr. Starkloff taught us from 1918 is still an incredibly valuable lesson about social distancing; it does work. However, if we look at Minneapolis, Minneapolis had a far lower rate of infection and death than St. Louis and, actually, several other Midwestern cities did as well.”
https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-response-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-was-lauded-rightly-so
= new reply since forum marked as read
