Veterans Day: The History Behind November 11th

November 11th is Veterans Day. A day where we honor and pay respect to all those who served our nation in the Armed Forces (Memorial Day is set aside to remember and pay respect to those who were killed in the service of this country), but do you know the significance or history of that date?

Officially, World War I, known as the "Great War" and the "War to End All Wars" went into effect on November 11, 1918 at 11:11 AM even through a tentative ceasefire had been agreed to earlier. The reason picked for that date had nothing to do with the war itself. It was actually chosen by French Marshal Foch as sounding more "poetic". As a result, there were 10,944 casualties on the last day of the war, and 2,738 unnecessary deaths. but there's still more to the story.

Most people assume the war ended on November 11th, 1918 with the signing of the armistice. In fact, the war between the British Empire and Imperial Germany didn't formally end until January 20, 1920.   It was July 16th 1920 that it ended with Austria. August 9th with Bulgaria. July 26, 1921 for Hungary and August 6, 1924 with the Ottoman Empire!

The signing of the Treaty of Versailles took place on June 28, 1919, although the treaty wasn't formally ratified in the United States until the passage of the Knox-Porter Resolution on July 2, 1921. The armistice represented a ceasefire between all belligerent nations, and not a surrender by Germany or the other Central Powers.

Nevertheless, the war resulted in the deaths of approximately 9.4 million service members, 23 million wounded or missing, plus the deaths of 5 million civilians. It brought about the destruction of 8,000 square miles of farm land (mostly in France, Belgium, and Holland), as well as 1,857 square miles of forests.  

Some 300,000 homes were plus 6000 factories, 1,200 churches and synagogues, and 1,600 schools. 1,300,000 head of livestock were destroyed as well, and around 4 million were made homeless. The Central Power nations of Germany and Austro-Hungary sank 6000 Allied and neutral ships totaling 14,200,000 tons. While some were sunk due to mines, the majority were sunk by German U-boats.

The deadliest battle for American Expeditionary Forces was the Meuse-Argonne offensive. The seven week long engagement began on September 26, 1918 and involved 1.2 million American troops under the command of General John "Blackjack" Pershing against 450,000 Germans. The offensive was aimed at stopping Germany's last "going for broke" advance through the Verdun region of France and forcing a overall retreat of German forces. 

It resulted in the deaths of 26,000 Americans with 216,000 wounded or injured. Sadly ,there never was closure for the families and friends of 914 men whose remains were never found or identified. German losses were 28,000 men and over 350,000 causalities. The battle, which ended on November 11th, broke the back of the German advance and brought about the signing of the armistice.

As an aside, the deadliest battler of World War 1 was the Battle of Somme. The carnage began on July 1 and continued to November 18, 1916. The battle resulted in 1 million casualties and 310,459 dead. On the first day alone, the British had more than 57,000 casualties and close to 20,000 dead. The Germans lost close to 12,000 while the French suffered loses of just over 1500 men. 

With the war's end in 1918, all Europe had changed. Empires were irrevocably  changed geographically and politically. One was the Constitutional Duel Monarchy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which stretched from Austria's border with Switzerland in west to almost the Black Sea in the east. 

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was one of the largest countries in Europe, covering 621,538 million square miles and a population of 52 million. 16 languages were commonly spoken there. 76% of the population was Roman Catholic with just 8.9% being Protestant (mainly Lutheran). 8.7% were Eastern Orthodox with the remainder being comprised of Jewish and Muslim. 

The "Great War" started in 1914 with the murder of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Hapsburg throne and one of the more liberal leaning members of the royal court, and his wife, Sophie, the Duchess of Hohenberg.  Both were murdered by a 19 year old Bosnian Serbian and member of the Black Hand anarchist group by the name of Gavrilo Princip.  The murder, which was more of a dark comedy of errors than a serious plot, set off a ever escalating chain of events which would lead to one of the worse wars in history.  

The war marked the end of the Hapsburg rule and dissolution of the duel monarchy with the abdication of Emperor Karl, successor of the Emperor, Franz Joseph. The Habsburgs had ruled Austria from 1282 to 1918 and Hungary from 1526 until 1918.

The dissolving of the Austro-Hungarian Empire created a new Austria and Hungary. Czechoslovakia (a merger of two differing ethnic groups, the Czechs and the Slovaks) was formed as was Yugoslavia ("Greater Slavia"), a independent Romania, and enlarged the existing countries of Italy, Poland, and the Ukraine. However, it did not result in the creation of a Greater Serbia as hoped by the Black Hand. 

The second empire to fall was the Ottomans. The Ottomans had ruled Turkey, Southeastern Europe, and much of the Middle East for over 600 years under the leadership of a sultan (or essentially an emperor). The Ottomans had long been a regional power, noted for their military prowess and brutality, culture and support of the arts as well as education, and tolerance of religions. But its inability to modernize, poverty and endless internal chaos all but ensured its end as a major power, and nickname as "the sick man of Europe".

At the time of the Armistice of Mudros, signed between the Allies Powers and the Ottoman Empire on October 30, 1918, out of an army of three million, mostly underequipped, undertrained, and poorly led, the Ottomans lost approximately 325,000 men. Some 400,000 were wounded and 202,000 were made POWs, mainly by the British and Russians. Another one million had deserted, leaving a fighting force (if you can call it that) of just 323,000 men.

The armistice also established an Allied military government in Istanbul, which broke up much of the empire, although it was mostly a shell by this point. The final sultan, Medmeh VI abdicated in November 17, 1922. The empire would be divided between the Greeks, Russians, French, and British. Turkey would experience turmoil and the emergence of its greatest leader, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, to restore order and establish a Turkish republic. 

I would be amiss if I failed to mention Turkey's role in the Armenian genocide during the war and the deliberate murder of 1.5 million Christian Armenians. The genocide had two phases.  First the arrest of all able bodied males who were cosigned to brutal forced labor camps. The second phase was the deportation of everyone else---women, children, the sick, handicapped and the elderly deep into the desert without any provisions, including water.

Aside from the 1.5 million Christian Armenians murdered, the Seyfo Genocide (1915 -1923) by the Ottomans resulted in 250,000 dead, which was half of their entire population. The Greek Genocide (which lasted until 1923) resulted in approximately 900,000 dead. The Government of Turkey continues to this day to dispute the claims of "genocide" while 29 other countries officially disagree.

Perhaps the country most impacted was Imperial Germany. Prior to the war, Imperial Germany was the intellectual and scientific light of Europe. It was the second largest economic powerhouse in Europe behind Great Britain. It's military was the largest, most modern, and best trained on the continent. Its colonial empire, comprising 22 countries, was small compared to the other imperial powers, was still noteworthy for its mineral wealth.

By the end of the war, the German economy was utterly exhausted. The British naval blockade of Germany during the war resulted in the deliberate deaths of 763,000 civilians from starvation. Half of all newborns in Berlin died of malnutrition. Germany's imperial monarchy also collapsed  with the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II on November 9th following a mutiny by the Imperial German Navy and subsequent establishment of a democratic government known as the Weimar Republic.

Germany had previously accepted a ceasefire (armistice) and subsequent peace talks at Versailles as an equal partner. Representatives of the Allied powers, however, surprised the German delegation the threats of renewed hostilities (which the German economy and political situation could not endure) unless Germany assumed full guilt for the war despite it haven been started by a Serbian anarchist!

The Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to surrender some 27, 000 square miles or 13% of its territory, resulting in displacing 9 million Germans. It also lost all of its colonies, which were divided between a greedy France and Great Britain, both of which were exhausted and faced economic instability. The British still speak of having lost an entire generation of its youth in the war. Nevertheless, the war broke their mutual mortal enemy---Germany.

 This amounted to roughly 2.4% of Germany's gross national product. It was estimated to have taken Germany from 1919 until the mid 1980's to pay off the debt (Germany had to borrow money from the U.S. to service the debt payments).

Germany was forbidden an air force and it standing army was reduced to the size of 100,000 strong militia, and payment of 67.8 billion gold marks (adjusted for inflation, that would be about $760 billion U.S. dollars today).

Germany also experienced social unrest, a revolution, 322% hyperinflation, and occupation of its industrial heart, the Ruhr, by French and Belgian troops.  It struggled through the Roaring Twenties and was hit hardest of any industrial nation following the 1929 Crash. Chained to the Versailles Treaty, it all but ensured a second great war, which in fact occurred barely 20 year later.

Imperial Russia, led by Czar Nicholas II, reluctantly came to the defense of Serbia after it was threatened by the Hapsburg monarchy based on a all but forgotten treaty. The Czar, cousins of Kaiser Wilhelm II and King George V through Queen Victoria, was intellectually to naive for a war of this scale.

The Russian economy was regarded as backwards. It relied on heavily subsistence farming and a still developing industry. There was little political freedom in this last remaining autocratic empire with power resting in the hands of the very wealthy elite, the church, and the Czar. The discrepancy between those at the bottom economically and those at the top was as stark as it was wide with a small middle class in between.

The military was poorly trained and ill equipped, relying on conscripted peasants with no interest in war. Many of its troops lacked guns, often having to obtain weapons needed to fight from fallen comrades. They even lacked adequate ammunition. It had no air force to speak of, very little heavy artillery, and a well worn navy (it had been decisively defeated by the Japanese in the war of 1904/05). As a result, it was defeated at nearly every turn. Desertions  were rampant.

In February 1917, the Czarist Government was overthrown by a Provisional Government consisting of various leftwing factions. The result was a temporary withdrawal from the war. When it was proposed to resume fighting, support for the new government evaporated. In October, the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, staged more of a coup than a revolution and the Provincial Government fell without much of a fight. The result was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the permanent exit from the war.

In the end, the "Great War" or the more euphemistically named "War to End All Wars" achieved very little. It gave a greedy and exhausted England and France territory it couldn't control. It laid the seeds of resentment in Austria and Germany, though it did remove the monarchy and allowed for a brief and ill fated democratic Weimar Republic. Russia underwent a civil war and following Lenin's death in 1923, Joseph Stalin soon seize control. Ataturk established order in a modernized and now secular Turkey.

The United States perhaps benefited most of all. Although we were in Europe barely over a year, we emerged a global power to be taken seriously. Following the war, a decade long attempt to regulate public morality known as Prohibition failed but it ushered in one hell of decade long party which ended in a helluva a hangover in October 1929 and the stock market crash. Nevertheless, the war represented our coming out to the world.

World War I introduced airplanes into war, tanks, the importance of submarines, the deadly machine guns as well as the horrors of mustard and chlorine gas warfare and flamethrowers. It demonstrated the obsolescence of 19th century tactics amid 20th century weapons which bordered on the criminal. It introduced terms like "Yank", "doughboy", "ace", "dogfight", "tank", and "no man's land" along with "shell shock" and the "thousand yard stare".   

The "Great War" resulted in 40 million causalities with roughly 22 million military deaths and 23 million injured and wounded. The U.S. lost some 4.3 million. Every participating nation established a memorial to its war dead. It's returning soldiers, especially those wounded, were proudly called " war heroes". As an aside, the Spanish Flu followed on the heels of the Great War, resulting in the deaths over 100 million men, women, and children; roughly one third  of the world's population. Some 675,000 of these were Americans.

A League of Nations was established to help ensure that there would be no more wars of this scale and to finds ways nations could work together. Although the League lasted 26 years, it was successful in one important way. Many of the nations who participated in the "Great War" adopted a national day to remember and honor its fallen. In 1957, in the shadow of World War II and the Korean War, which cost the lives of 418,800 and 36,000 American service men and women respectively, President Eisenhower signed a bill to honor all veterans, living and dead, and all active duty personnel. We call it "Veterans Day".

Thank you for reading Another Opinion! We hope you enjoyed this article and will pass it along. Please don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly, please "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Please find below the links we consulted in researching this article.

 

Veterans Administration: The History of Veterans Day

 

Veterans Day

Armistice of 11 November 1918

World War One Causalities

Gavrilo Princip

Russian Revolution

Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic

Our Healthcare Rubicon: To Get Vaccinated or Not

We seem to have reached a line in the sand; a national healthcare "Rubicon" if you will.  Since the onset of the COVID-19 virus and the development of vaccines, there has been those who've declined, for one reason or another, to get vaccinated, especially with a average recovery rate of between 97% and 99.75%. That's fine. It's their choice. We are, after all, ultimately responsible for our own health, be it good or bad.

Hundreds of thousands of individuals routinely include a "DSR" (do not resituate) as part of their Living Will. By the same token, tens of thousands of people refuse to accept blood transfusions or other medical treatment as part of their religious or philosophical beliefs. At the same time, countless others routinely decline to get a flu, tetanus, hepatitis, or shingles vaccination.

Our concept of individual sovereignty as defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not to mention the precepts of Western democracy itself, gives us a "God-given" right to make decisions for ourselves. 

As bad as the swine or chicken flu was, or given the deadly seriousness of the AIDs epidemic, there was no massive call for vaccinations or treatment. It was left up to the individual. Why is the government all but pounding on our doors, needles in hand, prepared to wrestle us to the ground if need be and force us to get vaccinated?

The CDC recently concluded a study of around 400 Kentucky patients and reported that "herd immunity" alone is not effective enough by itself (yet it was effective with other viruses). Therefore, regardless of one's health, age, or other risk factors, vaccinations should be made mandatory.

I remember as a child that when some kid came down with mumps, measles, chicken pox or whatever, the parents would get all the kids together so that everyone got exposed and got over it together. This was "herd immunity" and it's been used everywhere. It's the idea that eventually enough people would become exposed causing a general group immunity to a particular virus.

Those opposed to the vaccinations believe the same thing applies to COVID-19; that if exposed, a individual immunity would develop, and if enough people are exposed, then a group or herd immunity would develop. At the same time, they accept that there are those who are at a higher risk, and should get vaccinated, which would either artificially create a immunity to the virus, or at the very least, reduce the severity of the virus.

This was the approach used with the deadly 1919 "Spanish Flu" which killed about 676,000 Americans and about 500 million worldwide. About 42,770,00 Americans have reportedly died of COVID and roughly 5 million worldwide. However, based on the latest study by the CDC, that's not how they see it.

To date, we've seen some public and private businesses, hospitals, and healthcare associations require that their employees either get vaccinated or face possible sanctions, up to and including termination. Given the current situation we're facing in the business sector, and especially in healthcare, that could leave us critically shorthanded. What should we do?

If you're dealing with "at risk" individuals on a regular basis, such as the elderly or those with suppressed immune systems, wouldn't you want to go that extra step to insure they are protected as best as possible? Of course, to do that, it might mean getting that vaccination or take that pill even though you don't want to for whatever reason, but need to do in order to protect those you choose to in your chosen profession. This doesn't just include those in healthcare, including working in nursing homes and convalescent centers, but also EMS, firefighters, and police. 

The "Rubicon" I mentioned at the outset, isn't so much about whether you should or shouldn't get the vaccinations, but rather, do you have a moral obligation to do so? The argument today seems to be centered on whether they government (or your employer) has a "right" to order you to get the vaccination; that is, impede on your individual sovereignty.  

As with so many things these days, it's not all black and white. On the one hand, does the government have a right to force you to get an injection? You, as a human being, have the right to do with your body as you see fit so long as no one else is harmed or negatively affected or do you?

Shouldn't the government just advise you? They can (and should) provide you with the unvarnished facts of the situation, including the pros and cons of getting or not getting this or that vaccination (which, thus far, they've done a pretty poor job of doing) and then step back and allow you---the sovereign individual---to make your own decision and accept whatever consequences may result.

 Well, not exactly. There are two precedents to consider.  In 1905, the US Supreme Court ruled that a state government could force an individual to receive a vaccination in the event of a national emergency or be fined (Jacobson vs. Massachusetts).  In a second decision, the Supreme Court ruled in 1922 (Zucht vs. King) what unvaccinated students could be excluded from both public or private schools. 

However, both decisions were very narrowly defined and related to specific applications. Given the powers still inherent to the states, they can prohibit mandates to vaccinations.  As of August, 14 States have enacted legislation which prohibited mandatory vaccinations by employers, schools, or which required so-called "vaccination passports".  Federally, it's a bit different.

Currently, there are no specific federal laws which require federal employees or contractors to be vaccinated, nor are there any laws which can require citizens in general to be vaccinated, with a few exceptions such as immigrants seeking permanent residency, and the military, but should that include prisoners? Exemptions for medical or religious reasons are permitted as covered under the 1964 Title VII Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (regular testing and mandatory masks can, however, still be required).

So, that means the states are out of the proverbial woods and can do as they want right? Well, again, not exactly. The federal government still has one ace up its sleeve. While the federal government doesn't (as of yet) have the legal authority to require vaccination mandates, which currently rests with the states, under Constitution's "Spending Clause", that could change.

The Spending Clause basically controls the money that states use to underwrite or supplement various programs. It's been suggested that Congress use the Spending Clause to "urge" states to enact some form of mandate on their own. Given that the majority of states couldn't financially survive without federal money, that's a pretty good incentive, while making it look like Washington's hands are clean.

What about employers? Can they mandate employees get vaccinated?  When it comes to corporations, things get a bit more complicated. The first thing we have to remember is that corporations are not democracies. The "Bill of Rights" doesn't apply there. Secondly, there's no single clear cut policy. Some are requiring all employees to be vaccinated, while others are requiring either proof of vaccination or to submit to weekly testing and even requiring masks.  

However, most employers, especially in industries with a current shortage of employees, are taking a "wait and see" attitude, partly to avoid any possible legal action by employees or unions, and to avoid a further loss of workers.

According, some employers are taking the "blanket approach" and requiring all employees, regardless of vaccination status, to wear masks while others are leaving it up to the employees. Either way, the employer must ensure that they are compliant with all state and federal laws (most notably Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act). Thus, the majority of employers are simply mirroring whatever the federal government does at present.

So, where does this leave us? For the average employer, it's mostly a matter of "monkey see monkey do" and mimic the federal government. For others, especially in healthcare, law enforcement and firefighting, vaccination is either strongly being encouraged or mandatory. As for the average person, states and local governments are taking a two prong approach.

The CDC is going all out to encourage citizens to get vaccinated, especially if they're high risk. Secondly, while not making masks mandatory, they are strongly urging mask usage, even if the individual was previously vaccinated in some instances. At the same time, while they are informing citizens of the dangers of exposure, they are leaving the final choice (and consequences) to the individual.

America is a unique country. Individually is as much a "national trait" as taking tea time or afternoon beer is to the English and Germans. Americans, in general, also have never trusted the government. In fact, this is a country born out of that distrust. Our trust of Congress, as well as the presidency and judicial system, along with local government, are at dismal levels, which doesn't help the situation. We don't even trust school systems, the news media, or even religious institutions anymore.

In the end, Americans will respond as we always have. Governments can make recommendations, or try to bully or scare us. They can try to circumvent existing laws by making it difficult on us (such as masks or weekly testing), but we will ultimately do what we want. Some believe that "herd immunity" will eventually save us while others believe that it's only through compulsory mass inoculation that we'll survive.

Personally, I believe it's largely an individual choice. Unless you're around those with compromised immune systems, the option of vaccination or no vaccination should be yours. By the same token, you and you alone are solely responsible for the consequences. There are folks who thought they had good immune systems and ended up in the hospital on a respirator...or the morgue.  Others, however, barely got a sniffle.

 Nevertheless, I don't believe that our right to chose, as "American" as that is, should supersede putting someone else at risk. We can be as individualistic as we like, but we don't have the right to put someone else's life at risk.  I believe that our humanity to others must come first.

So, you play your cards. You place your bets, and you take your chances. My advice is, as always, stay as informed as possible, be careful, and make your own decisions, but don't put your well being ahead of those who might not be so lucky if possible. Want to know more? Check out the references below.

 

Current constitutional issues related to vaccine mandates

Can Employers Mandate a Vaccine Authorized for EmergencyUse?

 

How the COVID Pandemic May End: Lessons From The 1918 Flu

COVID has killed about as many Americans as the 1918-1919flu

 

Coronavirus Recovery

Our Brave New World: Life Post-COVID-19

As we slowly start to return to life after being confined to our homes these past many weeks, I've wondered what our world will be like post-virus. What will change and what will remain the same? Many states and cities remain on lockdown while a few others are slowly coming around, much like flora in the spring, but will they ever fully blossom again?

The federal government has largely left governors and mayors to decide how quickly or slowly they can reopen. Some recommendations have been suggested such as maintaining "social distancing" of at least six feet, wearing protective masks, regular hand washing or using hand sanitizers, which all sound sensible, but how will it play out in practical daily application? Before we address this and other questions about our "brave new world" (to borrow from Aldous Huxley), perhaps we should take a look at what changes took place following the 1918 Spanish Influenza pandemic.

As you may know, the 1918 influenza outbreak (better known as the Spanish Flu), a strain of the H1N1 virus, first appeared just as World War One was waning. No one knows for sure where it originated. It acquired its infamous name from a Madrid newspaper article which had reported on some of the first cases, including their king, Alfonso XIII, but stated that the virus had originated in France. Meanwhile, American doctors first noted patients with the all too familiar symptoms months earlier at a Kansas army base (many of the patients had been stationed in Europe as well as in Asia).

Unlike the current viral strain, the Spanish Flu was truly a mass killer. More people died due to the flu than died in the war (about 50 million compared to around 20 million war dead). At present just over 264,000 worldwide have died due to COVID-19 with about 4 million infected. Compare that to the 500 million or one-third of the world's population being infected by the Spanish Flu. At the time there were no vaccines. Doctors were at a complete loss. They lacked the high tech specialized labs that we have today or computers capable of running millions of calculations a second. It was all slow trial and error experimentation and knowledge gleaned from each death.

Without a proven vaccine, the best solution was to ask citizens to cover their nose and mouth with whatever they could (most used handkerchiefs or scarves while others used homemade masks). Like today, schools and businesses were closed as were churches, saloons, theaters, and other places where people tended to congregate. Even libraries were closed while mail delivery and garbage pickup became sporadic. Since it was thought that the virus was spread by human contact, some staggering business hours in order to minimize crowds.

Meanwhile, as hospitals quickly filled up with the sick and dying, officials began to covert empty buildings, homes, and gymnasiums. With a lack of available doctors and nurses, medical students were pressed into service to treat the less severe patients, who, as an aside, were often treated with nothing more than common aspirin, then a relatively new "wonder drug" (the German company Bayer held the patent and Germany was an enemy combatant, making the drug hard to come by). And like today, entire communities were quarantined. Those who violated the quarantine were issued a citation ("disturbing the peace") by the local police. Repeated violators were fined or even arrested!

The death rates were so high that funeral homes were filled beyond capacity. Many used ice houses to store the bodies until they could be buried. In rural parts of the country (which at the time made up 49% of the nation), families had "parlor" funerals in their living rooms while graves were dug by family members or friends with the departed buried on the property (it wasn't unusual in the country to have small family cemeteries). Their names and date of death were reported when they could, which could be weeks or months after their death. Some were never reported.

So how did the Spanish Flu change the America? America in 1918 was still in the midst of "The Great War". Industry had been geared up to support the war effort while young men (and a few women) volunteered to go "over there" as the popular battle cry implied. In some ways that was a good thing. It meant much of America's youth were overseas at the height of outbreak.

It also meant that our resources (especially medicine and medical supplies) had to be balanced to support the war effort and flu outbreak "over there" and increasingly at home. Bear in mind too that many of the country's recently graduated medical doctors and nurses, feeling patriotic, had volunteered for military service. Thus, medical students were co-opted to take care of the sick on the home front.

Like today, the flu took its greatest toll on the old , the sick or those with serious underlying medical conditions like cancer, diabetes, heart or lung disease. Another killer at the time which claimed thousands of lives was tuberculosis. "TB" as it's typically called ran rampant in poorer regions of the country like the deep South or in the slums of large cities like New York and Chicago.

Thanks in part to the devastation of the flu and TB among other diseases of the time like the measles, there was calls to eradicate the slums, access to clean water, improved nutrition, particularly for children, and demands for mandatory vaccinations (again, mainly for the children). Hospitals and universities began dedicating more money to the treatment and prevention of these diseases.

By 1920 overall healthcare had improved dramatically. This was due, in part by the lessons learned by the war in the care and treatment of not just the wounded or treatment of the flu, but also mental illness such as "shell shock" or PTSD as we call it today, and other diseases experienced by those who fought in the filth of the trenches. One major improvements was in sanitation.

After the war much of this changed. There was an emphasis on cleanliness. Even hospital food improved (well, relatively. At least they now got healthier meals). Standardized treatment of individuals now became commonplace with added emphasis in prevention. Because more money was going into research, there was more or improved medicines, treatments and vaccines becoming available.

In society in general, there was a new emphasis in cleanliness, be it in restaurants, saloons, or the neighborhood grocery store, which focused on insuring that its vegetables, fruits, and meats were fresh. It became common to wash your hands before dinner and to take regular baths---with soap! It was far from what we would consider acceptable these days, but it was a huge improvement, and it helped jump start movements to improved the quality of life such as water lines to bring clean water to every home, and stronger health codes for better quality control of meat and food processing.

What will the post-COVID-19 world be like? It's hard to say at this point just as it was all but impossible to predict in the waning months of the Spanish Flu pandemic. At first, I expect there will be a lot of "overkill" of precaution. As in 1918, officials are terrified of being accused of doing too much as they are of not doing enough. We'll see some demand everyone wear masks until the impractically of it finally dawns on them or society refuses to comply. Social distancing will likely remain, at least for awhile, but that will soon fade. Humans are social animals. We tend to congregate. It's our nature.

Whereas in 1918/19 there were no "take out" dinners per se, I think we'll see more people doing just that. The result may be fewer restaurants, especially those whose menus don't easily accommodate to pickups. Businesses which deliver food will likely do well along with those who pick up and deliver office supplies, groceries, and fulfill similar needs. We'll see an increase in online shopping across the board. In fact, anything that can be done electronically will do quite well.

There are some things which has to be done in person such as visiting the doctor. Well, maybe. This pandemic took a relatively new technology, "telemedicine", and brought it into the mainstream of healthcare. It allows the doctor or their staff to connect visually over the internet and conduct a virtual office visit. Of course, there are practical limits, but it does allow the physician to actually see and speak with their patient and ascertain their general health and any issues which may necessitate a office visit or trip to the ER. Now, if we can only figure out how to use this in lieu of dentist visits!

Naturally, the patient can provide their weight, temperature, and blood pressure too if they have the equipment at home. Physicians can already check on a number of medical conditions remotely such as heart monitors and CPACS through the use of the internet or electronic transponders. We may also see the increase in doctor directed robots making the rounds in hospitals or nursing homes.

Speaking of robotics, expect to see an increase in automation not just in manufacturing, but also in warehousing and fast food restaurants. The virus pandemic and reliance on "essential" employees has proven to be too unreliable, operationally costly, and increased the risk of a potential infection which would affect not just staffing but insurance costs.

Banks, which are operating mainly through drive-thru tellers, could potentially eliminate inside banking altogether except for appointments, reducing cost and improving security. They could have a dedicated drive-up window to handle investment services or loan applications. What all this means is less demand for low skill/entry level employees. By the way, there's a growing case being made to all but eliminate cash, which some claim is susceptible of carrying germs and viruses.

The result would be the use of credit and debit cards for the majority of transactions. But why stop there? Why not encode a card to include your credit, work, insurance, criminal, and medical histories plus your driver's license and voter ID ? By the way, expect that your vaccination history to be included, which is more likely going to mandatory and less an option. In short, your entire life on one plastic card! You would have just have one card to worry about, but we can do even better than that!

What if, instead of a plastic card to carry around, they could simply implant a microchip in your hand or arm with all your data on it? Just a wave of your hand (or arm as the case may be), and that's all. No more "dirty" money. No more cards to carry or pin numbers to remember. Less risk of ID theft or stick ups! Maybe it could be encoded to unlock your home or car (or even start it!). Well don't laugh, microchips are already being tried in places like Sweden and the trend is growing. Now it's being promoted as a way to cut back on interpersonal contact and reduce the spread of viruses.

Unlike 1918, we have far greater technology available to us. But scientific achievement doesn't translate to moral wisdom, which sadly often lags decades behind. Sometimes longer. In our rush and fear to avoid the next pandemic, let's pause for a moment and reflect on what it is we really want as a society and what price we are willing to pay for it. Remember, earlier Republics and democracies often failed as a result fearful citizens willingness to trade their freedom for security, and ultimately, obtaining neither.



The Influenza Pandemic of 1918


Diseases In The Trenches


Five Bold Predictions For The Post COVID-19 World


Telehealth


Why You're Probably Getting A Microchip Implant Someday

Chinese Flu or COVID-19: What's in a Name? Politicizing the Flu

Apparently the Left and "mainstream" media is miffed with President Trump by his referencing of the COVID-19 virus as the "Chinese" virus or flu. They claim that Trump isn't being "sensitive" to people of Chinese origin or even to those of Asian ancestry in general. Some media outlets have gone as far to not only denounce the president for using the term, but have stated that they will not use the term "Chinese virus" in their reporting. Instead, they will solely use "COVID-19" when discussing the virus.

Of course, these are the same media outlets which refuse to use the correct term "illegal immigrants"; choosing instead to call those who are illegally in the country politically correct term "undocumented" immigrants or workers. We certainly don't want to hurt the feelings of those breaking the law now would we? Then again, the media has been criticizing nearly everything Trump has done starting with his election as president from literally day one, so I can hardly say I'm surprised.

Meanwhile, Xi Jinping, the Chinese General Secretary and Paramount Leader, has been trying to persuade other countries and their media to call COVID-19 the "American virus", claiming that the virus was the product of the CIA and was smuggled into China through either a CIA spy or unwitting tourist (perhaps someone of Chinese ancestry returning to visit friends or family or someone going to China on business, especially in light of the ongoing trade talks between the U.S. and China).

However, the Paramount Leader hasn't made much headway with his argument except among his closest allies like North Korea and Iran which is to be expected (frankly, I'm a little surprised that CNN and similar news outlets haven't followed suit). While the Chinese have severely clamped down on news in China about the virus, and especially its origins, best evidence at this time would seem to confirm that its origin was indeed the Wuhan Providence of China, which, interestingly, is also the location of a Chinese military biolab.

Personally, I think that the virus somehow accidently got out and began infecting whatever it came in contact with. Without any contradictory evidence, I suspect it was not done intentionally. However, given China's infamous internal secrecy, we'll likely never know. Also, given China's recent aggressive activity in the region, especially the China Sea and Indian Ocean, not to mention tension between the U.S. and China over trade issues, I can see where Xi Jinping is concerned about this killer virus being called something like the "Chinese flu" and how it would affect their already sketchy international image. But how much should this really matter?

First of all, the virus originated from China. Whether it was the result of an escaped virus from a Chinese military laboratory or entered the country from some unknown point doesn't really matter. The fact is that China is where the virus first came to the world's attention (Wuhan Providence to be specific). That's why it's called the "Chinese" virus or flu. If we look at other diseases or viruses, it's no different. Let's take "German measles" as an example.

German measles, or more properly, Rubella, is a virus which causes similar symptoms as the flu plus a rash and is highly contagious. It was originally thought to be a type of scarlet fever. However, in 1814, three German scientists were able to correctly diagnose that the rubella virus as distinct from both measles and scarlet fever. As a result, the virus was called "German measles" after the three German scientists who made the discovery, and as far as I know, Germans weren't offended by the name and the media commonly used the term (and still do).

As an aside, there was a German measles epidemic in Australia in 1940, and a pandemic affecting first Europe and then the U.S. between 1962 and 1965. Between 1964 and 1965, the U.S. experienced some 12.5 million cases of rubella which caused several thousands of deaths and physical disabilities such as blindness, deafness, or affected mental development in children just in America alone and millions worldwide. In 1969, a vaccine was finally introduced. By 2015, the U.S. declared it had eradicated the rubella virus, along with smallpox and polio.

One of the most lethal viruses was the Spanish Flu, which affected as much as 40% of the world's population just as one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, World War One, was coming to a close. Although we'll never know for sure, it's estimated that between 20 and 50 million people died of the Spanish Flu compared to 17 million who died as a result of the war. So, did this deadly virus originate in Spain?

Actually, no. It was the fact that the virus first made worldwide headlines in Madrid is how it got its name. No one knows for sure where the virus actually originated. When it was first reported in May of 1918 in Spain, it was assumed by the Spanish that the virus had originated in France and was thus called the "French flu" in Spain and neighboring Portugal.

Since there was a global news blackout as a result of the war, people were restricted in where they could get international news. Thus, since Spain, which was neutral, was one of the few countries where news stories were still readily available worldwide, it was assumed that the virus had first originated there (especially since Spain's King, Alfonso XIII, was reported with having come down with this strain of the flu). However, there is no indication that Spain was in anyway responsible for the virus.

It's worth noting that in addition to France, that China and Britain were thought to have been the origin of the virus at the time as was the U.S. since the first case was reported at a U.S. Army base in Kansas on March 11, 1918---two months before the virus had worldwide headlines in Madrid! Also, since this was the age of empires, remember that France, Germany, Spain, Great Britain, Portugal, and even the United States all had a global presence, including Asia. Thus with global trade and travel even during war, it's possible that the "Spanish flu" could have originated almost anywhere.

What about MERS? MERS-CoV is another lethal virus. Similar to COVID-19, it affects the respiratory system as well. Approximately 35% of those exposed have died worldwide. That's between three and four per ten individuals. But did you know that MERS is not its actual name? The virus is actually known as the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus because it was first identified in Saudi Arabia in 2012, not because that was where it originated. Nevertheless, the largest outbreaks have occurred in not just Saudi Arabia, but the United Arab Emirates (UAR) and South Korea.

Strains of the virus have been identified almost worldwide, including Egypt, Oman, Iran, Jordan, Qatar and other countries in the Middle East along with China, Turkey, the UK, the Philippines, and the United States. However, 80% of confirmed cases centered in Saudi Arabia (principally as a result of contact with infected animals, especially camels through camel meat, urine, or milk, and inflected humans). Nevertheless, despite being contagious, since 2012 there has been under 1000 deaths reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) worldwide.

Another particularly virulent virus of recent is the Asian Flu, also known as the Avian or bird flu, which is similar to other forms of the flu including the horse flu, the dog flu, swine flu, and the ordinary human form of the virus. As an aside, in discussing these viruses, it's worth nothing that there isn't one kind of influenza or flu. There is actually three--"A", "B", and "C". "A" is the one most familiar to us. It can be passed between animals and humans. Type "B" is species specific while type "C" affects humans and pigs (there is a similar physiology between humans and pigs which is why it's easy to do transplants using pig organs). Only Types "A" and "B" can also cause epidemics or pandemics.

The first documented case of bird flu, also then known as the "fowl flu", was in 1878 in the UK. It was in 1996 that the first jump between birds and humans is thought to have occurred. In this case it was from infected chickens to humans and happened in Hong Kong (hence the name "Asian flu"). It also affected cats because, well, cats eat birds. By 2003 there were approximately 700 cases in 15 countries of HPAI-H5N1, as it was being called, reported to WHO; primarily in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. It went on to eventually affect 60 countries, including the U.S.

Eventually the bird flu was contained through a combination of improved sanitary conditions, biosecurity (including culling of infected birds), mass inoculation of the flocks, improved ventilation where the birds are kept, and protective clothing for anyone who comes in contact with birds. Other changes have also been implemented, some of which included ending or modifying centuries old traditions. However, with these changes it appears that the bird flu has been successfully contained.

Various strains of influenza have been with us since the beginning. It's almost impossible to say when or where any particular strain originated, especially in this day and age where global trade and travel has become to integrated into society that it rarely causes any notice. President Trump's use of the terms "Chinese flu" or the "Chinese virus" doesn't reflect any racial or politically derogatory connotation of China or those of Chinese origin as alleged by some of those on the Left and much of the so-called mainstream media. It merely reflects the possible origin of this particular strain of COVID-19.

However, it does appear to reflect an attempt to covertly or even overtly bring into question both Trump's handling of the situation and his character by implying that he is in some way making a racial slur or negative political comment about China. For that the Left and the media should be chastised. While partisan politics is to be expected, in this time of national crisis one would expect the petty partisan bickering to be put aside for the sake of the nation, at least on this topic.

As for the media, their job is to report the news in a way that's balanced, fair, and honest. That means not playing partisan politics, especially when the sole aim is to discredit a president they happen not to like, again, especially during a time of national crisis.

I can hardly imagine news outlets doing this to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the height of the depression or just after Pearl Harbor or Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hell, as much as they ridiculed President George W Bush, they at least showed some respect following 9/11 in how he handled the situation. Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans---72%---have no faith in the media?

This is a time when all Americans need to put aside their partisan politics and manufactured divisions and come together as one. If we can't do that during a national health crisis of this proportion, then perhaps America as a country is finished.




ECDC: MERS-COVD Worldwide Overview


Origin of the Spanish Flu


Rubella: History


Poll: 72 percent say traditional news outlets 'report news they know to be fake, false, or purposefully misleading