Public Health History: COVID-19
The Pandemic That Showed Us How Badly We'd Forgotten the Last One
Every policy debate of 2020 — masks, quarantine, school closures, the ethics of lockdown — had already been fought, and largely settled, during the 1918 influenza pandemic.
The Idea
When COVID-19 arrived, it felt to many people like an unprecedented rupture — a once-in-a-lifetime crisis for which there was no playbook. There was, in fact, an extremely detailed playbook. It had simply been shelved. The 1918 influenza pandemic infected roughly a third of the world's population and killed somewhere between 50 and 100 million people — a range that itself tells you how poorly it was tracked. Public health authorities at the time implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions: banning gatherings, closing schools, mandating masks in some cities, staggering work shifts to reduce crowding. Epidemiologists in the decades that followed studied which cities fared better and why. The data was unambiguous: cities that acted early and sustained measures for longer had dramatically lower death tolls. Philadelphia held a liberty bond parade in late September 1918 and was overwhelmed within days. St. Louis cancelled its equivalent event and survived the first wave far more intact. That research existed. It was published. But somewhere between 1918 and 2020, the institutional memory of how to respond to a respiratory pandemic at scale had quietly eroded. What COVID-19 revealed wasn't just a virus — it revealed a century-long failure to treat epidemic preparedness as a permanent civic responsibility rather than an emergency to be managed and forgotten. The pandemic didn't expose our ignorance. It exposed how much we once knew and chose not to pass on.
In the World
In 2007, two epidemiologists — Howard Markel and Alexandra Stern — published a landmark paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association analysing the 1918 pandemic responses of 43 American cities. They called their framework 'non-pharmaceutical interventions' and showed with striking precision that the timing and duration of these measures directly predicted survival rates. The paper received attention in public health circles. It was cited in pandemic preparedness documents, including a 2006 White House report that explicitly recommended many of the same measures. Then came 2009's H1N1, which turned out to be milder than feared. The sense of urgency faded. Preparedness stockpiles were depleted and not replenished. Pandemic planning units in several governments were quietly scaled back. When Markel watched the COVID-19 debates unfold in spring 2020 — arguments about whether masks worked, whether school closures were necessary, whether governments had the authority to restrict movement — he described it as watching the same arguments from 1918 replay in real time, with people acting as though the questions had never been posed before. The research he and Stern had produced, and which had briefly shaped policy, had essentially failed to penetrate the political and cultural memory of the institutions that needed it most. The lesson had been learned, written down, and then quietly unlearned.
Why It Matters
There's a temptation to read this as a story about institutional failure — bureaucracies dropping the ball, politicians ignoring experts. That's part of it. But the deeper pattern is something more human: we are extraordinarily good at treating catastrophe as an exception rather than a recurring feature of life. After COVID-19, many people now have a visceral, personal understanding of what a pandemic feels like — the disorientation, the grief, the strange social reorganisation of daily life. That experiential knowledge is genuinely new and valuable. The question is whether we'll treat it the way previous generations treated theirs: as something so overwhelming that we'd rather not pass it on clearly, so that our children can maintain the comfortable illusion that normal life is the default. Historical literacy about public health isn't just academic. It shapes what we expect governments to maintain, what we're willing to fund in quiet years, and how quickly we recognise the early signals of something serious. Knowing that 1918 happened — and that we have detailed evidence of what worked — is a form of civic armour. Whether we choose to wear it is a political and cultural choice, not a technical one.
A Question to Ponder
What would it actually take for a society to hold onto hard-won knowledge across generations — and why do we seem so structurally inclined to let it go?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable