Springfield's Response to the 1918 Flu Epidemic

The following is something I posted a week or two ago on my author Facebook page. However, since a lot of readers of this blog probably do not follow my author FB page, I thought I would post it here, too. It is actually the second of two installments I posted about the 1918 flu epidemic and how America responded to it compared to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The first post briefly discussed how media coverage of the two events differed, but it mainly compared the guidelines issued by the US Health Department during the 1918 epidemic to the advice we are being given by health professionals and government officials during the current crisis. Surprisingly enough, the guidelines were fairly similar. The way individual localities responded to the 1918 epidemic and the way they have responded to the present outbreak were also fairly similar, as my examination below of Springfield's response to the 1918 epidemic will show.

The 1918 influenza epidemic, often mislabeled the Spanish flu, hit in three waves. It began with a relatively small outbreak in the spring of 1918. A much more prevalent and deadly wave began, at least in the United States, around the first of October and raged throughout the month before quickly subsiding. The disease reappeared in January of 1919, but it was again a much smaller outbreak. A very large percentage of the deaths from the so-called Spanish flu occurred during the fall of 1918.

On October 1, about the time the most deadly wave of the epidemic was coming on, Springfield mayor J. J. Gideon, to help fight the highly contagious disease, issued a proclamation closing schools, the public library, churches, pool halls, theaters, and other public places where people gathered. The only exceptions to the ban were liberty loan meetings, which were designed to raise funds for the World War I war effort. Even some of these meetings were open-air events.

Perhaps in response to the ban or perhaps on their own, many private groups also postponed meetings. For instance, the Springfield Women’s Business Club announced on October 4 that its upcoming meeting was postponed. Near the same time, physical examinations for local men registering for the draft were postponed. Although most businesses were not directly affected by the ban, many of them closed on their own or reduced their hours. Some of the businesses that did stay open tried to use the situation to their advantage. Noting that there was no ban on music at home, a music store took out a newspaper ad promoting the sale of pianos and phonographs to counter the loss of entertainment at theaters and other places of amusement.

The closures extended beyond Springfield to other Greene County communities as well. For instance, on October 6, it was announced that the Fair Grove School Fair was postponed and rescheduled for October 17. At the same time, a similar event at Strafford was postponed until October 18. (These events were probably further postponed, but I don’t know.) One of the few public events that was allowed to take place was a speech by a US military officer at the Landers Theater. As I noted yesterday, one of the things officials were concerned about during the 1918 epidemic was not to do anything to undermine the war effort.

On October 5, the Springfield Missouri Republican announced that five people had died in Springfield from the flu within the previous 24 hours. Such updates appeared on an almost-daily basis for the rest of the month.

The October 8 edition of the same paper reported 14 new deaths the previous day. By this date, an estimated one-half of Springfield’s telephone employees were out sick. The city health department recommended the following measures as a deterrent to the flu: take frequent doses of castor oil to keep the bowels open, gargle with an antiseptic mouthwash, spray your nose with a salt water solution, and use carbolic acid to clean any room where a sick person had been.

On the 9th, over 300 new cases of the flu were reported in Springfield, with 17 new deaths and a total of 44 deaths since the outbreak began. On the 12th, only 10 new deaths were reported, and there had been a 20 percent reduction in the number of new cases. A Red Cross official said the flu outbreak seemed to be showing signs of abatement.

On October 15, there were four new deaths, although the number of new cases was the same as the day before. On the 16th, the deaths jumped back up to nine, but the number of new cases dropped off. Also, it was pointed out that several of the deaths were people who had been sick a long time. By the 16th, many people who’d been out sick were starting to return to work.

The Republican reported on October 20 that there had been only 33 new cases of the flu in the city the previous day, the lowest number since the outbreak began. On this same day, which was a Sunday, a pastor was arrested for holding church services but he was released without charges when it was learned that violation of the mayor’s proclamation carried no punishment. (Sounds similar to the stay-at-home order that was issued in Joplin a few weeks ago, in that police officers said at the time that, despite the order, they would not be arresting people who were out driving on the streets. More of a suggestion than a law, I guess.)

On October 23, the Republican reported that, although the flu was still raging in Kansas City, the outbreak in Springfield was almost over. On October 26, there were only three new deaths in the city, and it was announced that the mayor’s ban would be lifted a week later, barring an unforeseen setback. On Saturday, November 2, the mayor did indeed issue a proclamation allowing schools, theaters, and other public places to reopen.

From my research for this article and the one I posted previously on my FB page, I would conclude that our country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, both on the national and local level, has not been all that much different from the way America responded to the 1918 epidemic.