接下来会发生什么?在COVID时代对1918 - 1919年流感大流行后果的思考

IF 0.4 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Christopher McKnight Nichols, E. Ewing, K. Gaston, M. Marinari, A. Lessoff, David Huyssen
{"title":"接下来会发生什么?在COVID时代对1918 - 1919年流感大流行后果的思考","authors":"Christopher McKnight Nichols, E. Ewing, K. Gaston, M. Marinari, A. Lessoff, David Huyssen","doi":"10.1017/S1537781421000682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The causes for pessimism are many: despite modern medical knowledge and a robust public health infrastructure, in fall 2021 the United States tragically surpassed the 675,000 estimated total flu deaths in the 1918–19 pandemic (models suggest the United States will reach one million cumulative COVID-19 deaths early in 2022);too few are being or have been vaccinated, particularly among marginalized groups and the young, in a process that has taken longer than anticipated;in non-industrial, non-Western, non-urban, and less affluent areas, vaccine access had been woeful. In the United States, more than virtually anywhere else in the world, public health responses to the COVID-19 virus were politicized in new ways, weaponized to reject public health measures from closures policies and social distancing to mask and vaccine mandates. The wartime context in 1918 had generated a sort of patriotic language and push for homogeneity that, however problematic, also pressured citizens to conform to public health measures—casting those who rejected wearing masks as “mask slackers,” just as those who dodged the draft for World War I had been labeled and castigated as “draft slackers.” Over the following years, public health measures came and went, often pushed by special interests, but starting roughly after the winter season of 1920, when a fourth wave was more deadly than either the first or third waves, influenza became something to be managed and weathered without resorting to emergency public health measures.","PeriodicalId":43534,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era","volume":"21 1","pages":"111 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Came Next?: Reflections on the Aftermath(s) of the 1918–19 Flu Pandemic in the Age of COVID\",\"authors\":\"Christopher McKnight Nichols, E. Ewing, K. Gaston, M. Marinari, A. Lessoff, David Huyssen\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1537781421000682\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The causes for pessimism are many: despite modern medical knowledge and a robust public health infrastructure, in fall 2021 the United States tragically surpassed the 675,000 estimated total flu deaths in the 1918–19 pandemic (models suggest the United States will reach one million cumulative COVID-19 deaths early in 2022);too few are being or have been vaccinated, particularly among marginalized groups and the young, in a process that has taken longer than anticipated;in non-industrial, non-Western, non-urban, and less affluent areas, vaccine access had been woeful. In the United States, more than virtually anywhere else in the world, public health responses to the COVID-19 virus were politicized in new ways, weaponized to reject public health measures from closures policies and social distancing to mask and vaccine mandates. The wartime context in 1918 had generated a sort of patriotic language and push for homogeneity that, however problematic, also pressured citizens to conform to public health measures—casting those who rejected wearing masks as “mask slackers,” just as those who dodged the draft for World War I had been labeled and castigated as “draft slackers.” Over the following years, public health measures came and went, often pushed by special interests, but starting roughly after the winter season of 1920, when a fourth wave was more deadly than either the first or third waves, influenza became something to be managed and weathered without resorting to emergency public health measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"111 - 149\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537781421000682\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537781421000682","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

悲观的原因有很多:尽管拥有现代医学知识和强大的公共卫生基础设施,但在2021年秋季,美国的流感死亡人数不幸超过了1918年至1919年大流行期间估计的67.5万人(模型显示,美国的COVID-19累计死亡人数将在2022年初达到100万);接种疫苗或已经接种疫苗的人数太少,尤其是边缘化群体和年轻人,接种疫苗的时间比预期的要长;而在不太富裕的地区,疫苗的获取情况也很糟糕。在美国,对COVID-19病毒的公共卫生反应以新的方式被政治化,被武器化,以拒绝从关闭政策和社会距离到口罩和疫苗授权的公共卫生措施。1918年的战争背景催生了一种爱国主义语言,并推动了同质化,尽管这有问题,但也迫使公民遵守公共卫生措施——把那些拒绝戴口罩的人称为“口罩懒汉”,就像那些在第一次世界大战中逃避兵役的人被贴上“懒汉”的标签和惩罚一样。在接下来的几年里,公共卫生措施来来去去,通常是由特殊利益集团推动的,但大约从1920年冬季开始,当第四波比第一波和第三波更致命时,流感成为了一种可以管理和抵御的东西,而无需诉诸紧急公共卫生措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Came Next?: Reflections on the Aftermath(s) of the 1918–19 Flu Pandemic in the Age of COVID
The causes for pessimism are many: despite modern medical knowledge and a robust public health infrastructure, in fall 2021 the United States tragically surpassed the 675,000 estimated total flu deaths in the 1918–19 pandemic (models suggest the United States will reach one million cumulative COVID-19 deaths early in 2022);too few are being or have been vaccinated, particularly among marginalized groups and the young, in a process that has taken longer than anticipated;in non-industrial, non-Western, non-urban, and less affluent areas, vaccine access had been woeful. In the United States, more than virtually anywhere else in the world, public health responses to the COVID-19 virus were politicized in new ways, weaponized to reject public health measures from closures policies and social distancing to mask and vaccine mandates. The wartime context in 1918 had generated a sort of patriotic language and push for homogeneity that, however problematic, also pressured citizens to conform to public health measures—casting those who rejected wearing masks as “mask slackers,” just as those who dodged the draft for World War I had been labeled and castigated as “draft slackers.” Over the following years, public health measures came and went, often pushed by special interests, but starting roughly after the winter season of 1920, when a fourth wave was more deadly than either the first or third waves, influenza became something to be managed and weathered without resorting to emergency public health measures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信