Spanish Flu vs COVID-19: A Paradigm Shift in Global Economics

Written by Tomi Akinruli & Researched by Catherine Irawan

When the Economy Becomes The Front Line

Over the past century, history has told the story of two virulent pandemics - the Spanish Flu of 1918 and the more recent, relevant COVID-19 - both of which swept the globe through silent, yet deadly airborne transmission. Both outbreaks left lasting marks on education, human interaction, and consumer behaviour. Yet perhaps the most significant impact lies in the realm of the global economy. Namely, the contrast in the international economic response in 1918 versus 2020 is striking. That being said, to understand this shift fully, we must resist the temptation to oversimplify. Failing to honour the divulging contexts begs the risk of missing the deeper story: how the global economy’s response speaks to its evolution.

Setting the Scene: Comparison of the Two Pandemics

Though more than 100 years apart, what bridged the gap were the notable similarities observed among the two crises. Both spread rapidly through unseen means, overwhelming public systems. Impact-wise, both societies became involuntarily accustomed to a new normal, characterised by school closures, public gathering bans and protective gear, leading to scenes of mask-clad citizens, all in a desperate attempt at crisis mitigation (Cleveland Clinic, 2024). Moreover, the requirement for civilians to isolate was central to the response in both cases. Although the Spanish Flu understandably sought to confine the visibly sick, COVID ushered in a more aggressive preventative measure - widespread lockdowns. This shift was largely driven by the emerging knowledge around asymptomatic transmission; the idea that individuals could spread the virus without ever developing symptoms. Ultimately this finding heightened the level of urgency in public health response as transmission wasn’t straightforward, with 40% of confirmed cases falling under the asymptomatic category (Ma Q, Liu J, Liu Q, et al., 2021). In contrast to the Spanish Flu, governments within well over 100 countries adopted the principle that all were potentially infectious. This assumption underpinned the rationale for universal lockdowns, requiring even the healthy to stay indoors.

Considering the generally accepted death toll of 50 million for the Spanish Flu and just over 7 million reported deaths for COVID-19, both viral outbreaks were undeniably deadly. However, it was the contrasting demographics that piqued curiosity. Among the modern population, those known to be most vulnerable were the elderly and those with chronic health conditions; however the Spanish Flu was more so lethal for the younger, healthier segment of the population with ages ranging from 18-29.

Despite the overall similarities in the nature of the outbreaks, it is crucial to acknowledge the stark differences in global contexts. 1918 was overshadowed by the immediate aftermath of another pandemic of sorts – the Great War. Now known as World War I (WWI), it left an estimated 40 million casualties, toppled empires and rampant economic hardship, particularly across Europe. Government institutions were weak, medical knowledge was limited and economic tools, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), were not to be established until 1944. COVID-19, though not without its challenges, struck a highly connected and technologically advanced world. Digital platforms enabled many sectors such as education, retail and much of the global workforce to move online. Governments could instantly cross-communicate, central banks were independent and generally knew better, along with vaccines being rolled out at unprecedented speed. The responses in 2020 were not only about learning from past global trials but also about the immense evolution of institutions, capacity and resources.

Policy Response to both Pandemics: A Century Apart

While both pandemics led to adverse effects, the economic response was very different. Though the Spanish Flu caused devastating economic and social disruption, there was minimal government intervention. Governments lacked the fiscal tools, welfare systems and central banking capacity to deliver economic relief, particularly as several nations were reeling from World War I-weariness.

On the other hand, COVID-19 marked an unprecedented level of economic response. According to the IMF, over $14 trillion in fiscal measures were deployed worldwide to cushion the economic blow. Emergency stimulus payments, furlough schemes, business loans and expanded unemployment benefits became standard policy in many nations. Central banks slashed interest rates and injected liquidity into the markets. As reflected in the IMF’s policy tracker, nearly every major economy enacted some combination of monetary easing coupled with fiscal stimulus.

These interventions were made possible by a century of economic evolution - institutional development, stronger central banks as well as deeper understanding of macroeconomic tools. Moreover, while the Spanish Flu predated effective vaccines and antiviral treatments, COVID-19 saw massive public funding directed toward vaccine development and global distribution. Though not fiscal policy in itself, vaccine funding represented a fiscally driven public health solution, reinforcing how economics and epidemiology have become increasingly intertwined.

Recovery and Aftermath of the Pandemics: Long-term Impact

Though both pandemics disrupted global systems, only COVID-19 left behind a wave of structural transformation. The Spanish Flu’s long-term impact on institutions and markets was geared more so towards the social aspect. Significant demographic effects followed; notably the elevated mortality risk among those exposed in utero, but its economic legacy was subtle. NBER research shows that pandemics like the Spanish Flu often cause a prolonged drop in real interest rates, slight increases in real wages and reduced investment - a “slow burn” of economic change rather than a sharp reset.

COVID-19, on the other hand, significantly reshaped the global economy. It caused a 3.5% drop in global GDP in 2020 alone, triggering the sharpest economic downturn since the Great Depression (Gagnon, Kamin and Kearns, 2023). A McKinsey report revealed that digital adoption leapt forward by 3 to 7 years in sectors like e-commerce, telehealth and remote work. It also triggered the fastest digital acceleration in history (McKinsey, 2021). Organisations moved at lightning speed, often implementing technology transformations 25 times faster than pre- COVID expectations. These shifts are not temporary adaptations - they’ve changed how consumers, workers and businesses operate as we once knew it.

Mental health crises, education inequalities and long-term labour disruptions also marked COVID’s extensive footprint. Unlike the Spanish Flu, COVID’s aftermath includes intensified public discussions around work-life balance, digital access and institutional trust. Recovery, in this case, is not just about GDP growth, but how systems adapt to a permanently altered social and technological landscape.

Significance of Severity in Change caused by Two Pandemics & Why it Matters

While COVID-19 and the Spanish Flu both caused mass disruption, the global reaction to each tells us more about context than capacity for compassion. The Spanish Flu unfolded in an era with limited fiscal resources, recovering from a global war and operating without many of the tools we take for granted today - no real-time data, no mass media coordination, and no institutions like the IMF or WHO. In many ways, governments simply couldn’t act as effectively - not because they didn’t care, but because they lacked the structural means to do so.

By comparison, the COVID-19 crisis occurred in an economically stronger, digitally equipped world. Many of the innovations it spurred: remote work, online retail, vaccine technology - were already in progress. While the latter pandemic didn’t invent these trends, it accelerated them dramatically. The IMF’s capacity to distribute emergency financing along with the use of technology to support policy, showed just how much had changed. In 1918, cities enforced quarantines largely on the visibly ill. During COVID-19, the reality of asymptomatic transmission meant entire populations were asked to stay home, a drastic but necessary shift in pandemic management.

This distinction reinforces a central truth: the scale and shape of economic response depends not just on the severity of a crisis, but on the system it collides with. COVID-19 struck a world more capable of responding - and it showed.

Conclusion: Lessons & Preparations for Next Possible Crisis

This is not to suggest that the Spanish Flu was handled disastrously or that the COVID-19 response was flawless. The world of 1918 had just endured the deadliest conflict in modern history; a global war that drained resources, fractured institutions and left economies severely weakened. Governments then did what they could with what they had. But what this century-long comparison reveals are the profound importance of capacity. The tools available in 2020 - both fiscal and technological - gave nations a fighting chance to stabilise their economies and support their people. While there is still much to learn, and much that could have been handled differently, there is no doubt that the advancements of the modern era, from digital infrastructure to economic coordination, softened the blow.

Ultimately, preparedness is not about perfection. It comes from progress: from investing in institutions, public health, knowledge and in the agility to respond quickly when crisis strikes. The Spanish Flu reminds us of the dangers of delay and fragmentation. COVID-19 reminds us of the power of readiness. Now for the next potential crisis, what will matter the most is how well we have listened.

Sources

Gagnon, J., Kamin, S. and Kearns, J. (2023). The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Global GDP Growth. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, [online] 68(68). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjie.2023.101258.

Gauthier, J.G. (2025) March 2023: The 1918 influenza pandemic, Census.gov. Available at: https://www.census.gov/about/history/stories/monthly/2023/march 2023.html#:~:text=In%20scenes%20reminiscent%20of%20the,people%20in%20the%20United %20States. (Accessed: 02 July 2025).

Gopinath, G. (2020) The great lockdown: Worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, IMF. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2020/04/14/blog-weo-the-great lockdown-worst-economic-downturn-since-the-great-depression (Accessed: 02 July 2025).

Ma, Q., Liu, J., Liu, Q., Kang, L., Liu, R., Jing, W., Wu, Y. and Liu, M. (2021). Global Percentage of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections Among the Tested Population and Individuals With Confirmed COVID-19 Diagnosis. JAMA Network Open, [online] 4(12), p.e2137257. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.37257.

O’Toole, C. et al. (2020) How COVID-19 has pushed companies over the technology tipping point-and transformed business forever, McKinsey & Company. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-covid 19-has-pushed-companies-over-the-technology-tipping-point-and-transformed-business-forever (Accessed: 02 July 2025).

Pfizer (2020). Retrospect and Context: One Scientist’s Thoughts on Comparing COVID-19 to the 1918 Flu Pandemic | Pfizer. [online] Pfizer.com. Available at: https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/retrospect_and_context_one_scientist_s_thoughts_on_com paring_covid_19_to_the_1918_flu_pandemic.

Policy responses to covid19 (2020) IMF. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and covid19/Policy-Responses-to-COVID-19 (Accessed: 02 July 2025).

Singh, S. (2020) Longer-run Economic Consequences of Pandemics, NBER. Available at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26934 (Accessed: 02 July 2025).

Social and economic impacts of the 1918 influenza epidemic (no date) NBER. Available at: https://www.nber.org/digest/may20/social-and-economic-impacts-1918-influenza-epidemic (Accessed: 02 July 2025).

What was the influenza pandemic of 1918? (2025) Cleveland Clinic. Available at: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21777-spanish-flu (Accessed: 02 July 2025).

Wheelock, D.C. (2021) What can we learn from the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-19 for covid 19?, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Available at: https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the economy/2020/june/what-can-we-learn-from-the-spanish-flu-pandemic-of-1918-for-covid-19 (Accessed: 02 July 2025).

International Monetary Fund (2022). International Monetary Fund . [online] IMF. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Home.

World Health Organization (2024). History of influenza vaccination. [online] www.who.int. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/history-of-vaccination/history-of influenza-vaccination.

World Health Organization (2025). COVID-19 deaths | WHO COVID-19 dashboard. [online] World Health Organization Data. Available at: https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deathsv.