Could a mild flu pandemic prevent a more deadly one?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A mild first wave of flu pandemic could reduce deaths from a future outbreak of more severe infection, a new analysis suggests.

A review of the effects of the 1918 flu pandemic on American soldiers and British sailors and civilians found that people who were infected during the first, milder spring and summer wave had a 35 percent to 94 percent lower risk of catching the more severe strain than those who weren't infected earlier. The higher end of that continuum is similar to the 70 percent to 90 percent protection offered by vaccines.

Their risk of death also was 56 percent to 89 percent lower, according to an analysis published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Scientists from the National Institutes of Health, George Washington University and Tulane and Xavier Universities in Louisiana conducted the analysis.

"You wouldn’t want to eradicate this wave because it probably provided protection," says study author Lone Sinonsen, a visiting professor of global health at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services.

Still, it may be difficult to apply that conclusion in another pandemic, she says.

"You have to judge how severe [a disease outbreak] is before deciding whether to close schools and movie theaters and suffer the consequences of all that," Simonsen says. "It's going to be very hard to judge that in real time."

Richard Hatchett, associate director of emergency preparedness at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), agreed.

"I'm not sure there is any direct application of the results of this paper to current pandemic planning," Hatchett told the University of Minnesota's CIDRAP News.

The Department of Health and Human Services calls for isolation of patients and voluntary quarantining of family members, as well as closing schools, depending on how severe a flu outbreak is. "I think their [the study authors'] recommendation of not implementing aggressive nonpharmaceutical interventions in a mild pandemic is in line with what the government is currently recommending," Hatchett told CIDRAP.

(CDC microbiologist Terrence Tumpey examines a reconstructed 1918 pandemic influenza virus/Public Health Image Library)

 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe