Difference Between 1918 Flu And Ebola Crisis

1A
Diseases have laid waste to humanity through centuries, and humanity developed social and governmental systems in order to preserve itself. The 1918 flu and the recent Ebola crisis are cases in points. However, while many government and societal actions are helpful, these same institutions are sometimes harmful and result in inequity of opportunity. The 1918 influenza pandemic and the current response to Ebola are both similar, as they show how government quarantines are counterproductive and both helped expose a strain of racial bias within their respective societies, but do differ in term of what media and government choose to prioritize when reporting facts.
Many governments took efforts to stop the spreading of the flu in 1918. The
During 1918, the media and government tried to preserve pride and prevent panic at the expense of unbiased information. Since it was thought to be shameful if an individual dies of the flu, the press manipulated data to make it seems that individuals, such as Guillaume Apollinaire, died of wartime injuries, when in reality it was the flu. This ethos led to a deliberate numerical bias in the accounting of death rates and causes, and by stating deaths were caused by wartime injuries rather than the flu, it puts the focus on the wartime effort and victory rather than pointing out the incompetence of government actions to contain the flu. The state tried to boost public health and morale by framing the flu as a “metaphor in which Germans and germs were equally feared” (Kent, p. 5), even though the flu killed everyone. The governments also downplayed the effects of the flu, calling it an ‘ordinary’ flu”. (Slide 18, Flu Transmission and Mortality 9-11). This showed how in times of disaster, countries and the media tried to promote maintain nationalism and prevent
Lawrence K. Altman, in an article in The New York Times, writes that “Despite lack of prior experience, the experts predicted that any American hospital could safely handle Ebola patients with little risk to noninfected individuals.” That mistake proved costly in Texas, as Duncan died due to lack of proper care. Michael T. Osterholm, in an article in The New York Times, goes on and mentions the worst case scenarios, that “the Ebola virus spreads from West Africa to megacities in other regions of the developing world” or that “Ebola virus could mutate to become transmissible through the air”. The article goes on to state that the United Nations must exert more power over stopping this Ebola threat. The article warns that if the world does not take major action now, that Ebola could spread further and eventually become common in America. There is a clear distinction in the tones of these two articles and the message they convey, both in criticizing government and stating what need to be done, that distinguishes them from the media of 1918. This difference in the preference for preventing panic versus stating unbiased facts shows that the modern world is more willing to allow disagreement with the government, and that during peacetime, countries tend to cooperate and pool all their resources into a global effort to stop a mutual threat. Perhaps if government