The Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918: How Newspapers and Diaries Documented the Outbreak

In the fall of 1918, as the First World War raged across Europe, a new and mysterious illness swept through the United States and the world. In Montpelier, Vermont, the historian and businessman Dorman B.E. Kent contracted the disease and chronicled his ordeal in a diary. He woke with a “high fever,” an “awful headache,” and a stomach bug. His doctor could not come, so Kent resorted to castor oil and greased cloths placed around his throat and chest. Meanwhile, newspapers from Utah to New York carried headlines of an “epidemic of grip and pneumonia.” The pandemic that would kill more people than the war itself was already unfolding, but contemporaries were only beginning to grasp its scope.

What Happened?

The 1918 influenza pandemic moved through the world in two distinct waves. The first, in the spring of 1918, was relatively mild and spread largely through military camps and troop transports. The second wave, which struck in the autumn of 1918, was far more deadly. In the United States alone, a quarter of the population came down with the flu, and some 675,000 people died. Globally, fatality estimates range from 20 million to 40 million, and some scholars argue the figure may be twice that.

The pandemic’s origins were unknown at the time. English speakers first knew the disease as “Spanish influenza” or “Spanish flu.” Because Spain was neutral during World War I, it had no wartime censorship, and its newspapers freely reported the flu’s ravages. In contrast, other nations suppressed news of the epidemic to maintain morale. As a result, the disease appeared to have originated in Spain, though it had likely been circulating elsewhere earlier.

• Spring 1918: First wave, mild, spreads through military camps.
• Autumn 1918: Second wave, deadly, kills millions worldwide.
• 1919–1920: Third wave, less severe, but continues to cause deaths.

How It Was Seen at the Time

Contemporaries had no clear understanding of the disease’s cause. They called it “grip,” “la grippe,” or “plague,” and many believed it was caused by Pfeiffer’s bacillus, a bacterium that had been identified in the 1890s. The prevailing mood was a mixture of fear and fatalism. People tried a wide range of remedies, from hot water bottles to castor oil. In his diary, Dorman Kent wrote:

“Tried to get Dr. Watson in the morning but he couldn’t come. Took a seidlitz powder about 10:00 and threw it up soon so then took two tablespoons of castor oil. Then the movements began and I spent a good part of the time at the seat.”

Such personal accounts reveal the uncertainty and desperation that characterized the pandemic’s experience.

Historical Snapshot

Contemporary Newspaper Coverage

Newspapers were the primary source of public information during the pandemic. In the United States, the Library of Congress’s Chronicling America database contains dozens of articles from 1918–1920. One headline from The Ogden Standard (May 8, 1918) read “Epidemic of Grip and Pneumonia,” illustrating the initial confusion. Because of wartime censorship, the full scope was often downplayed. In Spain, however, the press was uncensored, and reports from there were unfiltered, leading to the disease being named “Spanish flu.” A JSTOR Daily article notes that “English speakers first knew the pandemic as ‘Spanish influenza’ or ‘Spanish flu.’ Neutral Spain didn’t have wartime censorship, so unfettered press reports of the flu coming out the country made it sound as if the nation was suffering worse than it actually was.”

Newspapers also served as a platform for public health advisories, often urging readers to avoid crowds and practice hygiene. Yet the tone of coverage was often optimistic, even as death tolls rose, reflecting a desire to maintain public order.

Eyewitness Accounts

Personal diaries and letters offer a more intimate view. Dorman B.E. Kent’s diary is one of the most detailed. He described his symptoms, his attempts to find a doctor, and his treatments. His account is preserved at the Vermont Historical Society and provides a vivid, first-hand narrative of the illness. Another eyewitness, a nurse or a soldier, might have written home, but such letters are often lost. Kent’s diary, however, captures the frustration and helplessness of a patient who could not get professional care.

“Tried to get Dr. Watson in the morning but he couldn’t come. Instead, the physician advised his patient to place greased cloths and a hot water bottle around his throat and chest.”

This excerpt shows the limited medical interventions available and the reliance on home remedies.

What People Knew at the Time

What the Sources Got Wrong

Contemporary reporting contained several errors. The name “Spanish flu” was a misnomer, as the disease likely originated in the United States or Asia, but Spain’s open press made it seem the epicenter. More seriously, medical authorities believed that Pfeiffer’s bacillus was the cause, which led to misdirected research. Early newspaper reports in the spring of 1918 described a mild epidemic, leading to a false sense of security. When the second wave struck, many were unprepared. The 1918 reports also underestimated the death toll, partly due to wartime censorship. Later research, including studies of the virus from recovered tissue, corrected these misconceptions.

The 1918 pandemic remains a powerful example of how misinformation and censorship can shape public understanding during a health crisis.

In the end, the diaries and newspapers of 1918 offer a poignant record of a world struggling to comprehend a silent killer. They remind us that even in the face of the most advanced medical knowledge of the era, fear and uncertainty dominated. The primary sources from this period not only document the events but also capture the human experience—the panic, the helplessness, and the resilience. They teach us that the way we document a pandemic influences how future generations remember it.