Why We Don't Worry About Scarlet Fever Anymore
The infection killed millions of people throughout history. Today it's considered a mild illness.

My 1-year-old daughter recently got sick. She cried nonstop, she ran a fever, and her body broke out in a fiery red, spotty, measleslike rash. But it wasn't measles. (Recent outbreaks notwithstanding, that disease is blessedly rare in the U.S., thanks to widespread vaccination.)
Alarmed by the spreading rash and worsening symptoms, I rushed my screaming toddler to an emergency room, where a doctor calmly diagnosed her with scarlet fever.
I thought I had misheard. Scarlet fever sounds like something from a different century.
Many people today are only vaguely familiar with the term from classic literature. Scarlet fever is prominently featured in the plots of many old books, such as Frankenstein, Little Women, The Velveteen Rabbit, and Little House on the Prairie. The disease is described in Anna Karenina as an inevitable part of life. Scarlet fever's prominence in fiction makes sense, given that many writers once had real-life experience with the illness. Little Women author Louisa May Alcott's sister died from it at age 22.
Yet scarlet fever, a scourge that has caused millions of deaths throughout history and that was once described as "agonizing" and "diabolical," is now a mild illness. This formerly feared disease once sent countless children into isolation from their loved ones at so-called fever hospitals, where the young patients often contracted additional illnesses and died, separated from their families. Yet today a scarlet fever diagnosis is no cause for alarm. Modern medicine played an important part in that change, but there is more to the story.
Many lethal epidemics of scarlet fever occurred throughout Europe and North America during the 17th and 18th centuries, and such deaths were numerous in the 19th century. In fact, from 1840 through 1883, scarlet fever was among the most common causes of death for children in the United States, with case fatality rates ranging from 15 percent to 30 percent.
Making matters worse, scarlet fever sometimes occurred in combination with other potentially deadly ailments, further lowering the chances of survival. As the historian Judith Flanders put it, "Before the age of five, 35 out of every 45 Victorian children had experienced either smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, typhus or enteric fever—or some combination of those illnesses—and many of them did not survive."
In 1865, there were around 700 scarlet fever deaths per 100,000 1-year-old children in England and Wales. Despite a decline in the scarlet fever death rate, at the beginning of the 20th century the disease still caused around 350 deaths per 100,000 people of all ages.
Scarlet fever is caused by a toxin produced by Streptococcus pyogenes, the same bacteria behind the far more common ailment strep throat. Even before Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928, scarlet fever cases and deaths were falling. That was likely thanks to improvements in the population's overall health, partly due to cleaner water and better sanitation. Research suggests that better maternal nutrition also greatly increased children's resilience against the disease. Once penicillin was discovered, doctors could employ it to fight off most bad bacteria.
Scarlet fever spread easily among the poor but killed without regard to wealth or status, even slaying royalty, including queens of Denmark and Norway and a young Romanian princess. The Romantic composer Johann Strauss I lost his battle with scarlet fever in 1849 at age 45. It could kill at any age but was particularly deadly to children. The philosopher René Descartes' daughter Francine lost her life to scarlet fever in 1640 at age 5. Scarlet fever killed biologist Charles Darwin's 10-year-old daughter in 1851 and his last child, an 18-month-old son, in 1858. Scarlet fever also claimed the life of the 3-year-old grandson of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller Sr. in 1901.
Too often, those who survived untreated scarlet fever developed rheumatic fever a few weeks later. Triggered by an immune system overreaction to scarlet fever, rheumatic fever can permanently damage essential bodily organs such as the heart and brain. Potential long-term complications ranged from an irregular heartbeat to neurological issues to heart failure. Today, thanks to antibiotics, rheumatic fever is rare.
Due to antibiotics, already-declining deaths from scarlet fever became virtually unknown. Cases of scarlet fever also became few and far between by the year 1950. The Harvard Medical School website notes the reason why scarlet fever has become so rare "remains a mystery, especially because there has been no decrease in the number of cases of strep throat or strep skin infections." Recall that the same bacteria causes all those ailments.
Sadly, cases of the disease are now rising again, although they remain far rarer than in the 19th century. Many areas of Asia began to see an increase in scarlet fever around 2009. Starting around 2014 and especially since 2022, there has been an uptick in cases in children in Europe and, more recently, in the United States. Scientists suspect that new mutations or variants in the bacteria may fuel the return of scarlet fever as a serious problem. Thankfully, the mortality rate for scarlet fever is now less than 1 percent, as almost all cases receive antibiotic treatment.
My household's tiny scarlet fever patient has been drinking each dose of the strawberry-flavored antibiotic that she was prescribed and is on the road to recovery. I am grateful to live in an era of modern medicine and good general health, where diseases with scary, old-timey names are no longer so frightening. If only the children of the past were so fortunate.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Why We Don't Fear Scarlet Fever."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
...partly due to cleaner water and better sanitation. Research suggests that better maternal nutrition also greatly increased children's resilience against the disease.
There are whispers that better hygiene possibly as much as anything led to drop in polio cases, so will it be MAHA instead of pharma that will eradicate the next pandemic scourge?
It's also possible that the bacteria has evolved into a less lethal form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_virulence
That's what I kept reading for, and the author never once mentioned it. Wikipedia mentions it briefly and without detail.
There is also natural selection. Illnesses that kill children means that the survivors may carry traits that can be passed on to offspring. Natural resistance to bubonic plague is far more prevalent today because it killed so many breeders.
I noted 5 years ago that COVID was in no way an existential threat worthy of torching the economy of the world precisely because it was easily survived by people of breeding age. I was skeptical of public health experts on COVID after the mask and lockdown bullshit, but once they claimed that the vaccine was better than natural immunity from exposure, I knew they were promoting some perverse agenda.
COVID was in no way an existential threat worthy of torching the economy of the world precisely because it was easily survived by people of breeding age.
So letting millions of people die because they're too young or too old would be worth it. Care to quanify your principle? Yanno, for every 100,000 people over 60 who die, we won't give up more than $1bn in GDP, or similar. I mean, you must have some idea of the cost/benefit analysis to make your argument.
once they claimed that the vaccine was better than natural immunity from exposure, I knew they were promoting some perverse agenda.
Ah, so you think that natural immunity is better than vaccinations. In all cases or just Covid?
The first reports out of Italy had the average age at death "from COVID" as so close to average age at death, period, that it was clear COVID was mostly a danger to the old and frail. The young were never at risk.
Then there was that cruise ship, with all the passengers and crew isolated together for a week or two (I do not remember the details now) and only three died, all old IIRC.
COVID was never an existential risk to humanity.
ETA: Cuomo putting COVID patients in rest homes killed thousands of senior citizens. The trashed economy, the inflation from all that bloated spending, do you think that had no costs in dead people? You think there was no cost to hundreds of millions of children losing a year of education and socializing? True, it was government indoctrination, but it still had a cost.
You missed the meaning in your last quote. They were literally and explicitly claiming that the vaccines were so much better than natural immunity that even people who had had COVID and had acquired natural immunity still needed to get the vaccine. That is contrary to all medical advice I have ever heard, and underlines how ludicrous the vaccine claims were. In other words, people who made that claim were liars and untrustworthy, and no one really knew how good the vaccines actually were.
As it turned out, the vaccines didn't do nearly as well as all the claims. They weren't useless, but they didn't stop the spread like natural immunity did, they needed booster shots even for the same variety of the virus, and each new variety need new vaccines and new boosters, unlike natural immunity.
Present your evidence that forcing small businesses to close while keeping WalMart open; prohibiting people from attending drive-in church; keeping families away from elderly relatives in hospice care; closing elementary schools; and making people wear masks while walking alone on the beach, saved millions of lives.
I'm sure many factors are at play. But I think it is fair to say that sanitation is a huge one. It's no coincidence that lots of diseases like this became mostly irrelevant to most of our lives in the 20th century.
There are whispers that better hygiene possibly as much as anything led to drop in polio cases
Unlikely, given the precipitous decline in polio cases once the vaccine was available.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prevalence-of-polio-rates-in-the-united-states.png
I understand the motives of those who would advance such an argument, of course.
I had it when I was a kid. It was rough but not as bad as measles.
partly due to cleaner water and better sanitation.
Plumber, one of the greatest trades known to man.
Hope your child returns to good health.
I'm sure the increase in scarlet fever isn't related at all to the increases in measles and tuberculosis in places like, say, California.