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)

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe