influenza pandemics
early 20th centuryConsidered "The Greatest Medical Holocaust in History." Spanish Influenza of 1918 was a worldwide pandemic. Affecting mainly people and soldiers of World War 1 with healthy immune systems. The soldier's close quarters allowed for easy transmission making them an easy target. There are numerous theories about the source of the flu. The symptoms were extreme fatigue, fever, headache, and turning blue. The pandemic lasted from January 1918 to December 1920 and killed 50 to 100 million people worldwide.
|
early 21st centuryThe H1N1 flu virus of 2009 caused a major stir worldwide. Also known as Swine Flu because it could infect pigs, it had the same symptoms and spread the same way as the normal flu. What makes it different is that the H1N1 virus could previously only affect animals, but it genetically changed in order to infect humans with a virus they've never been infected with before. The pandemic lasted from April 2009 to October 2010 and killed about 284,500 people worldwide.
|
why?
Both were a form of influenza, and both were a national pandemic and with the same symptoms: fever, fatigue, and headache. People panicked all over the world and started to wear masks. However, the Spanish flu killed an exponentially larger number of people than the Swine flu, and the cause of the Spanish flu is unknown.
The effect was less dramatic in the 21st century because people feel more secure when there are doctors with overwhelming amounts of medical and scientific knowledge that say they've got it covered. Especially in the modern age, word can spread quick through the internet, television and cellular devices, making people scared and very apprehensive. And while the people facing the threat of the Spanish flu felt the same feelings, they were not so hyperactive and blown out of proportion as the modern media and its viewers often do, the the doctors must reassure their frightened citizens with the utmost confidence. The doctors back then, while knowing as much as they could, still had a lot to learn about the spread of viruses and what would treat it, so beside their few medicines and home remedies they were blind.
Both flus were the same in the fact that no one knew how to cure it before it became fatal.
The effect was less dramatic in the 21st century because people feel more secure when there are doctors with overwhelming amounts of medical and scientific knowledge that say they've got it covered. Especially in the modern age, word can spread quick through the internet, television and cellular devices, making people scared and very apprehensive. And while the people facing the threat of the Spanish flu felt the same feelings, they were not so hyperactive and blown out of proportion as the modern media and its viewers often do, the the doctors must reassure their frightened citizens with the utmost confidence. The doctors back then, while knowing as much as they could, still had a lot to learn about the spread of viruses and what would treat it, so beside their few medicines and home remedies they were blind.
Both flus were the same in the fact that no one knew how to cure it before it became fatal.
CHILD MORTALITY RATE
Early 20th centuryIn the turn of the 20th century, 20 percent of children under the age of 10 in the U.S. died due to unsafe water, living conditions, or milk, poor nutrition and the majority, 61 percent, from disease. 16.5 percent of children die before their first birthday.
|
Early 21st centuryDuring the turn of the 21st century, the infant mortality rate is less than half of what is was, at only 7 percent. Almost half of the infant deaths were due to congenital malformations, short gestation and low birthweight, and sudden infant death syndrome.
|
why?
Both are susceptible to complications with birth, and an accident such as the child falling down, or the possible neglect or abandonment of the child. But advanced medical care can solve all of these events.
There is such a dramatic decrease in child mortality rate between the two centuries because now there is now easy access to purified water and a greater knowledge of nutrition and what vitamins and nutrients are essential to a child's growth development. On the medical side, antibiotics and immunizations had been introduced and commonly made mandatory in order to participate in school and day-care. Many of the diseases that were fatal to children in the early 20th century are eradicated, and early vaccines allow children to grow up with little threat to their health by contagious disease.
The response is different in both eras. In the early 1900s, it was seen as almost common for a child to die. Of course it was a time to mourn, but the idea of a child dying was not absurd. In the 2000s, with so much readily available healthcare and millions of doctors specializing in Pediatrics, it's uncommon for a child to be lost to disease, broken bone, or sickness, because for the most part those are easy fixes in the medical world. Such a high child mortality rate may have caused the need to find medical cures and treatments. A child's death could pull at people's heartstrings more because they were so pure and innocent and didn't get a chance to live their life, thus giving them more of a reason and purpose to work at creating vaccines and medicines to prevent it from happening in the future.
There is such a dramatic decrease in child mortality rate between the two centuries because now there is now easy access to purified water and a greater knowledge of nutrition and what vitamins and nutrients are essential to a child's growth development. On the medical side, antibiotics and immunizations had been introduced and commonly made mandatory in order to participate in school and day-care. Many of the diseases that were fatal to children in the early 20th century are eradicated, and early vaccines allow children to grow up with little threat to their health by contagious disease.
The response is different in both eras. In the early 1900s, it was seen as almost common for a child to die. Of course it was a time to mourn, but the idea of a child dying was not absurd. In the 2000s, with so much readily available healthcare and millions of doctors specializing in Pediatrics, it's uncommon for a child to be lost to disease, broken bone, or sickness, because for the most part those are easy fixes in the medical world. Such a high child mortality rate may have caused the need to find medical cures and treatments. A child's death could pull at people's heartstrings more because they were so pure and innocent and didn't get a chance to live their life, thus giving them more of a reason and purpose to work at creating vaccines and medicines to prevent it from happening in the future.
life expectancy
why?
Both era's averages include the lifespan of all deceased beings, including those that die at an early and an older age. As formerly discussed, the infant and child mortality rate was much higher in the 1900s, therefore making the statistical average much lower in compensation for the number of deceased children. This goes along with the fact that medicine has shoved its foot between the door of life and death by prolonging lives with cures and treatments that could otherwise kill someone in the early 1900s.
The average lifespan for 1900 could be skewed, while the average lifespan from 2000 could be more accurate because there is less of a chance for infants to die and more of a chance for the elderly to live longer. By the same logic, one may think that the average age of 2000 is skewed because there is more elderly, however the average is more evenly distributed and not so strongly skewed as the 1900 age.
A higher life expectancy has its advantages and disadvantages. Sure, it proves that the country's healthcare is top quality and the way of life is luxurious, but it could also bring the country down. One may argue that by prolonging the lives of the elderly, the country is spending more money on their healthcare, nursing homes, and retirement. They cannot work so they are not contributing to the workforce, and while insensitive, one could in this sense accuse the elderly of being a deadweight and not providing anything for the country. One could also argue that through medicine, doctors can play God, and natural selection and survival of the fittest can no longer choose the strongest people to live on.
The average lifespan for 1900 could be skewed, while the average lifespan from 2000 could be more accurate because there is less of a chance for infants to die and more of a chance for the elderly to live longer. By the same logic, one may think that the average age of 2000 is skewed because there is more elderly, however the average is more evenly distributed and not so strongly skewed as the 1900 age.
A higher life expectancy has its advantages and disadvantages. Sure, it proves that the country's healthcare is top quality and the way of life is luxurious, but it could also bring the country down. One may argue that by prolonging the lives of the elderly, the country is spending more money on their healthcare, nursing homes, and retirement. They cannot work so they are not contributing to the workforce, and while insensitive, one could in this sense accuse the elderly of being a deadweight and not providing anything for the country. One could also argue that through medicine, doctors can play God, and natural selection and survival of the fittest can no longer choose the strongest people to live on.