Description of the Pandemic
The influenza virus erupted in 1918 before it grew to be a pandemic. The causative agent was the H1N1 virus that was linked to avian descent. In the US, influenza was first diagnosed by military personnel in 1918. About one-third of the world’s population was infected with H1N1, and the death toll was estimated at over 50 million (Dolan 2). Unfortunately, San Francisco Bay Area was the first place in the US to declare social distancing following the influenza virus. Such consideration promoted historical fact-finding on how maintaining social distance slowed the transmission of H1N1. Efforts were made towards flattening the disease infection curve, which was essential in controlling influenza (Reshi 214). The federal government should adopt similar approaches to manage similar cases in the future, like the present coronavirus. However, developing a guideline to stop the H1N1 virus from being transmitted was a challenge due to limited literature and novelty.
The 1918 flu pandemic was distressing everyone with no defined path of treatment or prevention globally. It started as small outbreaks in San Francisco before spreading to other parts of California. The generally unfavorable conditions facilitated the shift from minor episodes of the virus to the epidemic. Similarly, San Francisco residents were warned of the rising influenza situation on the 10th of October, 1918, but they placed little emphasis on the matter. Within a week, over 1600 more cases were reported, and more than 7000 at the end of the month (Dolan 4). The epidemic explosion along the Atlantic coast was expected because the conditions that facilitated its occurrence doubled. However, according to Dolan, the shift from a pandemic to an epidemic was unpredictable (8). Such anticipations explain the state-wide rise in cases of influenza.
Interventions Implemented to Address the Pandemic
The trend of influenza-related morbidity and mortality triggered fast-paced scientific research on the global public health issue. To mitigate the impact of the loss caused by influenza, the California health department set up various interventions to stop further transmission of the H1N1 virus within California, such as the use of face masks (Dolan 4). Such interventions included the rapid establishment of coordination to deliver operations, technical and strategic support to the partnerships, and channels that already existed. Most countries also scaled up their response operations and preparedness, for instance, boosting the preparedness for quick diagnosis and treatment, implementing awareness and health measures for travelers, and feasible infection control and prevention in hospitals (Dolan 6). Other interventions used were accelerating priority innovation and research towards the transparent global process to scale up and fast-track research.
Resistance, Barriers, and Challenges
The outlined intervention to curb the spread of the flu virus encountered various challenges. For instance, an antagonist group, Anti-Mask League, was created to contest the use of face masks due to potential health risks associated with prolonged use (Dolan 3). Improper commitment from the public impeded the achievement of targets aimed at combating H1N1 infection. The people have found it difficult to restrict movement or maintain face and eye protection wherever they go. Such laxity accelerated the spread of the virus in San Francisco. Mayor Breed showed concern over the November 1918 celebrations among San Francisco residents. People were allowed to remove their masks, leading to the second wave of H1N1. Improper communication between health professionals and the general public impeded fighting against influenza. For instance, the health department announced that the virus was virtually over, making people throw their masks away as they celebrate (Dolan 2). Such consideration allowed the return of public health measures to be contested.
What Could Have Been Done for Successful Intervention
California’s public health department was not successful in its advocacy to contain the H1N1 virus considering the rapid spread after implementing social distancing and face-mask interventions. A collaborative approach was required to combat the effects of the 1918 influenza virus in the population. The Mayor was not to permit the bear-faced liberation movements. Amid California’s anti-mask protest, people should have learned to wear masks in public places and observe social distancing. Public health advocacy was supposed to be helpful in California, especially in raising awareness and knowledge about the pandemic. Different people are involved, such as nurses, doctors, and other hospital staff, sharing patient information towards a modified treatment plan.
Even though they proclaimed the endemic to be virtually over, the health department could not have allowed celebrations without masks, increasing virus transmission. For instance, public gatherings of more than 50 people should have been discouraged in California. San Francisco residents needed to practice handwashing with soap and running water, avoid touching their faces, and take precautions while sneezing or coughing. People also could also avoid unnecessary movements, especially in and out of San Francisco, by imposing travel bans. Misinformation stems from knowledge gaps among California’s health department, with an inadequate understanding of the H1N1 virus and the ability to recur in the population. The health professionals needed more training and guidance on preventing the spread and eradicating the H1N1 virus.
Works Cited
Dolan, Brian. “Unmasking History: Who Was Behind the Anti-Mask League Protests During the 1918 Influenza Epidemic in San Francisco?” Perspectives in Medical Humanities, vol. 5, no. 19, 2020, pp. 1-23.
Reshi, Nissar. “Management Strategies of COVID -19.” COVID-19 Pandemic Update 2020, vol. 1, no. 5, 2020, pp. 214-221.