![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Surely 2.5-5% isn't the proportion of the population (globally) that died, as the article says, but rather the estimated "case fatality rate" - the proportion *of those who caught flu* who died? I know the numbers are controversial, but I've never heard a reputable estimate as high as this for proportion of the world's population that died.
The island of Marajó wasn`t the only inhabited place not to contract Spanish flu (I haven't checked this fact). Other examples are St. Helena, New Caledonia or American Samoa.
I deleted the Austrian artist Klimt, because he couldn't have died from Spanish flu. The epidemic only started in March of 1918 in the U.S. The most famous Austrian victim is the painter Egon Schiele.
The article seems inaccurate. The cause of the virus turns out to be a mutation of a virus that exists harmlessly in birds, who transmit it to pigs, causing the virus to mutate. Samples of the virus found in well-preserved victims are offering clues. I am not a pathologist or a biologist, perhaps someone more knowledgable than I cold implement this? http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1386.html
-- cprompt
"8 million deaths in Spain in May of 1918"? That can't be right...
"8 million people sick in Spain." (one in three people was serious sick). The most recent regional study by Beatrix Echeverri 1993 "La gripe Española. La pandemia de 1918 a 1919" suggests some 255.000 dead in Spain. J.D.Mueller from Hannover, Germany
I change 8 million died in Spain to 8 million people infected in Spain. Mintguy (T) 23:44, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
change "really bigger" to "much bigger"? -- 203.142.136.122 01:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can we be a little less anal about the "citation needed" tags? I don't know about you guys, but I don't use Wikipedia as an absolute-truth kind of source, more of an overview kind of source, and all these "citation needed" tags make me feel like there's someone out there with a highlighter yelling "Another link in my conspiracy theory chain! The government is lying about the 1918 pandemic to contain the truth about vampires!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.184.7 ( talk) 04:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a better article written on WikiNews ( Wikinews:The Deadliest Fall) about the Spanish flu. I think it would make sense to copy it here and use existing material (which is currently little more than a loose collection of random facts) to expand it. Paranoid 18:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article says it contains translations from a French site. I can't read French really, but there was no indication on that site that it was GFDL or similar. Translations have been restricted to the original copyright for more then a hundred years. -- Eean 05:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Among its various effects, the Spanish flu outbreak in 1919 caused the cancellation of the Stanley Cup Final, due to the illness of many of the hockey players – its only cancellation prior to the 2004-2005 Labour Lockout in the NHL." Is that a joke? I don't really want to edit that par out in case I'm missing the point in what seems like a bit of local trivia in some country, in an article about the deaths of millions of people worldwide. I assume it must be Wiki-vandalism. alpheus
According to a TV show I just watched, it claims that Pvt. Harry Underdown of England was the first victim, and brought it to the world. He died January 21, 1916, a full 2 years before it hit the world. Should that be written, or is it not verified enough? Kaiser matias 02:53 Mar 30 2005 UTC
http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/bubonic_plague/index.html states that the first victim was on 11 March 1918 at Camp Funston, Kansas – a company cook named Albert Mitchell. violet/riga (t) 20:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
John Barry's The Great Influenza presents good evidence (but not certainty) that this flu originated in Kansas. Thomas R. Fasulo ( talk) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Many books I have read on the topic say only 20 to 40 million died (The Encyclopedia of Plague and Pestilence, etc.)500 million estimated infected worldwide.
Why don't teachers (history or science teachers) teach this to students? (high school or lower.) It had a major effect on the world, and yet it isn't even mentioned in passing. Why? - perviously unsigned comment by 207.200.116.204 17:49, 24 September 2005
A lot of teachers aren't acquainted with this aspect of early 20th century world history. In addition, the subject by nature is depressing and fearful. Not an attractive addition to any class syllabus, by any means. How did this type of flu enter the United States? I'm a high school science teacher and I have taught about this for years in my biology classes in great detail. -unsigned
We are learning about this in US History right now. So teachers do teach it, it's one of the "unexpected outcomes" of WWI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.184.23 ( talk) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of mentioning the study by Noymer and Garenne if you don't give even a summary of the conclusion? I was quite interested in why it infected so many young adults - and ..... nothing.
Bayer aspirin is mentioned in the last sentence, and... nothing else? It was distrusted? Ok. Wouldn't it actually be a good thing, since not taking it would mean it would not interfere with body's natural defence systems, i.e. fever? What is the effect of Bayer or anything aspirin or NSAD on influenza virus and/or morbidity/mortality?
I think that the page should be moved from Spanish flu to Spanish Flu, as it is a proper noun. See Asian Flu and Hong Kong Flu. Btm 06:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea!
Kiradax (Lunakeet, or the magic parakeet) 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Some scientist has re-created The Spanish Flu is this a fact worthy of putting on there?
The Spanish Flu has indeed been decoded (bits of tissue containing it were assembled from various sources and the virus was extracted and its genes were sequenced). The virus was then recreated in a form lethal to lab animals. This fact does seem germane to an article on Spanish flu, and salient to the significance of Spanish flu today, since the re-constituted flu throws some light on the nature and scope of the potential pandemic facing humanity in the form of the H5N1 virus now endemic in poultry and resembling the H1N1 of the Spanish flu in certain key aspects.
It is fair to question the wisdom of the decision to re-sequence the Spanish Flu even in bio-"safe" laboratories, as the existence of herd immunity to it is an open question and its escape from the lab or employment of a weapon of mass murder is imaginable and horrible. The decision seems understandable only when weighed against the high likelihood of an H5N1 pandemic in the near- to medium-term, and the corresponding need for any information that may help to prepare vaccines, anti-virals, VLPs, or other medical measures on an urgent basis which, once developed, are likely to help prevent devastation from the likely H5N1 pandemic, from future pandemics such as an H7N7, or even from a pandemic emerging by H1N1 (Spanish flu) later getting loose from the lab.
I have reworded the lead here which stated that Spanish flu is variant of avian influenza. H1N1 (which I just created from the CDC pages) is not considered an avian strain as it is primarily transmitted through swine, though both avian influenza and H1N1 are considered Type A influenza viruses. Avian influenza currently does not list H1N1 as one of the strains that falls under the term. The description here states that the virus jumped directly from birds to humans; if this is accurate, H1N1 and Avian influenza may both need to be updated as the articles are currently contradicting each other. - Banyan Tree 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It is apparently a swine flu: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 47 (2008) 1100–1110 Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I just read an article in National Geographic (Finnish edition, 11/2005) that claims some 50-100 million died. So, is this new information or false information?
Several blocks down in this discussion, there is [Encyclopedia Brittanica 1968: ...It says here that most of the 100 million deaths that occured ...] This seems to provide another source for the 100 million figure.
Has there been any attempt to explain why the virus seemed to infect young people more easily? Can this be because the virus adapted to young people in the trenches in Europe?
Cytokine storm mechanisms rely on a healthy immune system. Those with a compromised immune system lack sufficient feedback to create a cytokine storm. Essentially, it is an over-response by a healthy immune system. This is the cause of death.
For another theory on the dangers of being young with the Sp Flu see"Anecdotal observations".
Socsci69 (
talk)
22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Socsci69
It seems to be common knowledge now that the H5N1 virus directly attacks deep-lung tissue, bringing on acute pulmonary distress in a matter of days, if not hours. The mortality numbers the experts are talking about are scary enough---but what about those who survive? Will scarring from the pneumonia leave them with impaired lung function? If indeed the worst-case scenario plays out will "normal" pulmonary function in humans become the exception rather than the rule? It doesn't take much imagination to predict dire consequences on a hitherto unheard-of scale.
The article should be moved to "Great Influenza Pandemic". Please vote for that. I think it is currently offensive to spanish people. No, spanish people are not infectious. What would americans think if we hosted AIDS info under the title "Great Yankee A**-F****** Disease"? 195.70.48.242 19:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how it is known in Hungary, but in the English speaking world this is indeed known as the Spanish Flu. Black_Death isn't renamed on the basis that it may offend black people. -- 82.15.46.162 22:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmmmmmm! It says here that most of the 100 million deaths that occured in 1918 Spanish Flu/ Spanish Fever Pandemic was NOT caused by the virus, but by a Bacteria that opportunistically infected people with the virus. Because people had no Antibiotics, many died. If this same virus strain were to be infected on the present population today, Antibiotics & Antivirals would combat most of the illnesses.
Supercool Dude 01:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The 1918 influenza was swiftly deadly and killed within a day or so. Few common pathogenic bacteria behave that way. This appears to be due directly to viral virulence, not concuring or secondary bacterial infections; so antibiotics would be useless. Anonymous
There is a better article written on Wikipedia in dutch search for Spaanse griep -- Retjiur 21:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Under mutation theory, there is talk of "Genetic Drift and Antigenic Shift" but later in the article, it is refered to as genetic shift. The difference between the two is somewhat muddled, if there is in fact, a difference.
Thanks.
I have exactly same question. Will there be an answer?
Thanks.
The adjective "Genetic" pertains to genes where as the adverb "Antigenic" pertains to antigens i.e. infective agents. Found here at Wikipedia:
Genetic drift is the statistical effect that results from the influence that chance has on the survival of alleles (variants of a gene).
Antigenic shift is the process by which two different strains of influenza combine to form a new subtype having a mixture of the surface antigens of the two original strains.
The article currently says: "The strain was unusual in commonly killing many young and healthy victims, as opposed to more common influenzas which caused the bulk of their mortality among newborns and the old and infirm." under Effects of New Strain.
However in a Stanford University Article it says the exact opposite saying, "The flu was most deadly for people ages 20 to 40. This pattern of morbidity was unusual for influenza which is usually a killer of the elderly and young children."
Can anybody confirm or deny the validity of this discrepancy?
-- Prozaciswack 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you're correct! I definately read that wrong, sorry.
A previous version of the article said that Spanish Flu vanished after 18 months. Why did it vanish? This is a very important question. Maybe the recreated 1918 H1N1 virus will help to shed some light; by antibody study, for example. I wonder too why/how the flu vanished ......... I heard/read somewhere that a successful organism such as this flu - (sorry, I know it may technically not be an organism, but I can't come up with anything else to call it...)can basically wipe out its supply of hosts by successfully killing them off. In other words, perhaps those people in whom the flu could fourish were now dead and gone, and the only ones left were the ones in which the flu could not survive. So the flu itself died out. 216.57.138.98
The book "The Great Influenza" by John M. Barry, around page 370, explains that there were two natural processes at work. One was the buildup of immunity of the population. The second was the extremely rapid mutation of the virus (actually the "mutant swarm" of influenza viruses) causing a "reversion to the mean," where the mean was less lethal than the unusually dangerous variety that was causing the pandemic. This begs the question: Why don't similar processes occur for H5N1 in the current bird population, making it less lethal? - unsigned
Why does Fort Riley link here? I gather there's some sort of folk tale, but more detail would be helpful for those not in the know. Anyone?
Fort Riley was a major staging ground for the first U.S. troops sent into World War I action. It is reported that the flu first affected these troops before they were sent over to Europe. From the PBS documentary The American Experience: Influenza 1918: "At Fort Riley, Kansas, an Army private reports to the camp hospital just before breakfast on March 11 {1918} complaining of fever, sore throat, and headache. He was quickly followed by another soldier with similar complaints. By noon, the camp's hospital had dealt with over 100 ill soldiers. By week's end that number jumped to 500." ( Aewold 08:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC))
Is the link really notable? It was originally posted anonymously, and contained syntax errors and POV. I vote that it should be removed. SyntaxPC 14:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I read somewhere many years ago that the person alarming the spanish papers of the epidemic was primarily Santiago Ramón y Cajal, thereby giving it its name. Does anyone know more? DanielDemaret 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC) My source was not the most reliable, I am afraid. DanielDemaret 13:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In relation to an earlier comment on this talk page - what is the aspirin mention here for? It doesn't seem to be linked to the rest of the article in any coherent way - would it have prevent Spanish flu if people had used it? Or should it be removed? TheGrappler 02:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That was my first reaction as well - the aspirin is in no way connected to treatment of the flu. It should be removed, but it is an interesting fact, and definitely deserves a place elsewhere in Wikipedia.
I believe that this meets the criteria because:
Overall, while it only just passed stable and referenced, I feel that this is good enough to be on the Good Articles list. Congratulations! -- Cel es tianpower háblame 09:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Were the indigenous peoples hurt especially just those who had not had long term historical exposure to European viruses? Did the Basques have a special deathrate? If not I think the wording should be rearranged to clarify that it was not idigenous peoples, just those historically isolated
I added a link under "further reading" to information postulating that US compulsory vaccinations caused the Spanish Flu. It may be interesting to add an additional section to the article if anyone has additional information from the " anti-vaccinationist" perspective. -- Tokalon73 01:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the deletion of that link by WAS 4.250 ... WAS 4.250, I find the contrast between your "batshit-insane" description of a mere LINK and this touchy-feely quote on your user page to be puzzling:
"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities."
I fail to see the respect here. You seem merely to want to dictate what people can and cannot read, rather than let them decide for themselves. Either this open-source stuff is democratic or dictatorial, and if it's the latter, it's not open-source. Please show a little more respect rather just insult and force your preference onto everyone. -- Tokalon73 02:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
From H1N1:
Does anyone else see a conflict here? Spanish flu says that weakened immune systems increased susceptibility to the flu, and H1N1 says that normal healthy immune systems were more susceptible. Which is it? - Eric 11:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I added some things that should be on this page, including how long the pandemic lasted, and why scientists believe it subsided. I also gave a source. I'd like an explanation as to why my added information was "inaccurate". WAS 4.250? Fresheneesz 13:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You certainly deserve an explanation, so I'll give one.
Well, I think what I think and you think what you think. We have a content dispute. I recommend arbitration. I suggest we find some third person we both trust and let them look at your version, my version, and this discussion and accept their solution. Sound good? WAS 4.250 04:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to take this one item at a time, at least for now, because I think I'm wasting my time. First item: you left out the ref tag. Why would you do that? WAS 4.250 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
No. I'm not done with this. This is important. This has to do with whether I'm wasting my time. If you are here to beautify articles at the expense of their usefulness as an encyclopedia article then I'm wasting my time. Why would you chose to make it look better at the expense of its usefulness as an encyclopedia article? Do you understand what ref does and why it is used? WAS 4.250 21:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
it says: "with 20% of the world population suffering from the disease to some extent.". This needs to be clarified. What does "to some extent" encompass? That a person had a loved one lost? That they lost business because of it? "to some extent" is unacceptably vauge. Fresheneesz 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
FROM : Kreiser, Christine M. (December 2006). "Influenza 1918". The Enemy Within. 41. American History: 22. {{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
I am suprised that an event that took 100, 000, 000 lives at the dawn of the 1900s has had little spot light. Black Death this, Black Death that. Why I heard of the S.F. (as a minor footnote) I was astonished! I thought to my self, "My God! So many people died! How have I never heard anything about this!? Nothing it texts or notes about how it effected the people or economy or nations". It's like nothing happened. Some people dropped dead and that's it.
-G It's all about priorities and publicity. In third world countries, people die off off of lots of things and the flu pandemic was just one more woe; and their news infrustructure was nead nonexistent. In developed counrties there was World War One taking place which meant it has both the priority and the pubkicity. Further governments activelty suppressed information about the pandemic. And finally western governments actively persistantly lied about it saying it was just a normal flu season and whatever you see to the contrary is just a local anomoly. Makes you wonder how much of history is a fairy tale. WAS 4.250 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Should the article read
Scientists have used tissue samples from frozen victims to reproduce the virus for study.
or
Scientists have used tissue samples frozen from victims to reproduce the virus for study.
The former of course implies that you have whole people frozen, whilst the latter simply implies small tissue samples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.78.64.106 ( talk) 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Nothing about the origins of the Spanish Flu being likely in China, near Hong Kong? That area is famous for "interesting" cuisines and has been the breeding ground for many "interesting" virii. - unsigned
Shouldn't there be something explaining what happend to it, why isn't it around today?, etc. -- Fabio Talk 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You have something about towns whose entire population was wiped out. What towns are they? - Kiradax (Lunakeet, or the magic parakeet) 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There is something badly wrong with the figures in this article. Global deaths are put at 50 - 100 million. Mortality among infected individuals at 2.5% - 5%. The proportion of the population catching the flu is given as 20% (this seems very high). In 1918, the world population was 1.85 billion. Accepting the seemingly high infection rate of 20%, this means that 370 million people caught it. If we take the high value of 5% for mortality of infected individuals, we end up with a total of 18.5 million deaths (9.25 million for the lower value). Luss42 10:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
100 million dead at 5% mortality gives 2000 million infected. Assume 2000 million for world population and "mortality" then must not mean "case mortality rate" but must mean "total population mortality rate". Case mortality rate then varies according the infection rate assumed (there is not even good data on total deaths much less infection). WAS 4.250 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The 1918 flu pandemic, commonly referred to as the Spanish flu, was a category 5 influenza pandemic between 1918 and 1920 caused by an unusually severe and deadly Influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1. By far the most destructive pandemic in history, it killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide in just 18 months, [1][2] dwarfing the bloodshed and ball hair due to World War I (1914-1918). Many of its victims were healthy young adults with supple breasts and firm buttocks, in contrast to most influenza outbreaks which predominantly affect juvenile, elderly, or otherwise weakened patients.
I assume the parts I have bolded above from the first paragraph are due to vandalism since they makes no sense. Please edit the article if you agree.
"In February 1998, a team led by Jeffery Taubenberger of the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) recovered samples of the 1918 influenza from the frozen corpse of a Native Alaskan woman buried for nearly eight decades in permafrost near Brevig Mission, Alaska."
According to Gina Kolata's 1999 account of the pandemic, 'Flu', pp. 255-65, this is incorrect. Johan Hultin first attempted to recover samples from Brevig in 1951, but he was unsuccessful. In 1997, by then a seventy-two year old retired pathologist, he decided that science had advanced enough to make another attempt worthwhile. Taubenberger had already recovered RNA of limited quality from samples of two servicemen who had died in the pandemic, and Hultin wrote offering offering his services to try to get better quality samples from Brevig permafrost. Taubenberger accepted, and Hultin went alone to Brevig in August 1997, and recovered the sample from the Alaskan woman, which Taubenberger and his team then analysed. Dudleymiles 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where Dr.Jeffrey Taubenberger works today? - unsigned
The first few paragraphs of this article contain an unusual number of occurrences of the word unusual. Which is unusual because as unusual as it may seem, wikipedia articles are unusually well written considering the fact that anyone can edit. 74.140.118.185 07:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The Spanish flu pandemic came in three waves
http://www.pharmacyeurope.net/default.asp?title=Flupandemic%22maylastsixmonths%22&page=article.display&article.id=8002 Flu pandemic "may last six months" Wednesday 6th February 2008</ref>
The earlier wave of the Spanish flu in the U.S. was far less lethal than the later waves, and communities affected by the earlier mild wave experienced fewer deaths when stricken by the subsequent lethal waves.
The protective effect of community exposure to the early mild wave of the Spanish Flu is a public health fact of unique interest and usefulness, because it suggests a personal and public health strategy that may be vital during any near-term outbreak of a a mild form of pandemic flu that may have later lethal waves, as did the Spanish flu.
For a significant time after a pandemic emerges, it is expected that there will be no effective vaccine. While one is being developed, the experience of community protection by the mild wave of the Spanish Flu suggests a personal and public-health countermeasure that might be adapted from pre-vaccine days, one fashioned along the lines of chicken pox parties. These parties were favored before the emergence of effective chicken pox vaccine. A child who caught a mild case of chicken pox would be the honored guest at a party intended to allow all his or her friends to be immunized by exposure to the same mild form of chicken pox.
If an initial wave of pandemic influenza is as mild as was the first wave of the Spanish flu (dubbed the "three day" flu by a number of historians), then it will be theoretically possible for large numbers of the population to acquire some measure of personal immunity by arranging to contract the newly emergent mild strain before a lethal wave has time to evolve. These individuals may well protect protect not only themselves but in the process also provide the overall population with a measure of herd immunity to slow the rate of contagion of later more lethal waves, saving not only the lives of the inoculated but also sparing health, economies, and lives of others in their community or even globally,
By adding mention of the protection afforded by the mild first wave of the Spanish Flu to this article, readers will be furnished key information of potentially inestimable value and interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.68.117 ( talk) 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
A masterful brief history full of information lamentably lacking in the current article is available, with footnotes, in
1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics Jeffery K. Taubenberger* and David M. Morens†
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no01/pdfs/05-0979.pdf
The authors provide this summary and prologue:
...
16 Emerging Infectious Diseases • www.cdc.gov/eid • Vol. 12, No. 1, January 2006
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.127 ( talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Surely 2.5-5% isn't the proportion of the population (globally) that died, as the article says, but rather the estimated "case fatality rate" - the proportion *of those who caught flu* who died? I know the numbers are controversial, but I've never heard a reputable estimate as high as this for proportion of the world's population that died.
The island of Marajó wasn`t the only inhabited place not to contract Spanish flu (I haven't checked this fact). Other examples are St. Helena, New Caledonia or American Samoa.
I deleted the Austrian artist Klimt, because he couldn't have died from Spanish flu. The epidemic only started in March of 1918 in the U.S. The most famous Austrian victim is the painter Egon Schiele.
The article seems inaccurate. The cause of the virus turns out to be a mutation of a virus that exists harmlessly in birds, who transmit it to pigs, causing the virus to mutate. Samples of the virus found in well-preserved victims are offering clues. I am not a pathologist or a biologist, perhaps someone more knowledgable than I cold implement this? http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1386.html
-- cprompt
"8 million deaths in Spain in May of 1918"? That can't be right...
"8 million people sick in Spain." (one in three people was serious sick). The most recent regional study by Beatrix Echeverri 1993 "La gripe Española. La pandemia de 1918 a 1919" suggests some 255.000 dead in Spain. J.D.Mueller from Hannover, Germany
I change 8 million died in Spain to 8 million people infected in Spain. Mintguy (T) 23:44, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
change "really bigger" to "much bigger"? -- 203.142.136.122 01:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can we be a little less anal about the "citation needed" tags? I don't know about you guys, but I don't use Wikipedia as an absolute-truth kind of source, more of an overview kind of source, and all these "citation needed" tags make me feel like there's someone out there with a highlighter yelling "Another link in my conspiracy theory chain! The government is lying about the 1918 pandemic to contain the truth about vampires!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.184.7 ( talk) 04:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a better article written on WikiNews ( Wikinews:The Deadliest Fall) about the Spanish flu. I think it would make sense to copy it here and use existing material (which is currently little more than a loose collection of random facts) to expand it. Paranoid 18:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article says it contains translations from a French site. I can't read French really, but there was no indication on that site that it was GFDL or similar. Translations have been restricted to the original copyright for more then a hundred years. -- Eean 05:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Among its various effects, the Spanish flu outbreak in 1919 caused the cancellation of the Stanley Cup Final, due to the illness of many of the hockey players – its only cancellation prior to the 2004-2005 Labour Lockout in the NHL." Is that a joke? I don't really want to edit that par out in case I'm missing the point in what seems like a bit of local trivia in some country, in an article about the deaths of millions of people worldwide. I assume it must be Wiki-vandalism. alpheus
According to a TV show I just watched, it claims that Pvt. Harry Underdown of England was the first victim, and brought it to the world. He died January 21, 1916, a full 2 years before it hit the world. Should that be written, or is it not verified enough? Kaiser matias 02:53 Mar 30 2005 UTC
http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/bubonic_plague/index.html states that the first victim was on 11 March 1918 at Camp Funston, Kansas – a company cook named Albert Mitchell. violet/riga (t) 20:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
John Barry's The Great Influenza presents good evidence (but not certainty) that this flu originated in Kansas. Thomas R. Fasulo ( talk) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Many books I have read on the topic say only 20 to 40 million died (The Encyclopedia of Plague and Pestilence, etc.)500 million estimated infected worldwide.
Why don't teachers (history or science teachers) teach this to students? (high school or lower.) It had a major effect on the world, and yet it isn't even mentioned in passing. Why? - perviously unsigned comment by 207.200.116.204 17:49, 24 September 2005
A lot of teachers aren't acquainted with this aspect of early 20th century world history. In addition, the subject by nature is depressing and fearful. Not an attractive addition to any class syllabus, by any means. How did this type of flu enter the United States? I'm a high school science teacher and I have taught about this for years in my biology classes in great detail. -unsigned
We are learning about this in US History right now. So teachers do teach it, it's one of the "unexpected outcomes" of WWI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.184.23 ( talk) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of mentioning the study by Noymer and Garenne if you don't give even a summary of the conclusion? I was quite interested in why it infected so many young adults - and ..... nothing.
Bayer aspirin is mentioned in the last sentence, and... nothing else? It was distrusted? Ok. Wouldn't it actually be a good thing, since not taking it would mean it would not interfere with body's natural defence systems, i.e. fever? What is the effect of Bayer or anything aspirin or NSAD on influenza virus and/or morbidity/mortality?
I think that the page should be moved from Spanish flu to Spanish Flu, as it is a proper noun. See Asian Flu and Hong Kong Flu. Btm 06:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea!
Kiradax (Lunakeet, or the magic parakeet) 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Some scientist has re-created The Spanish Flu is this a fact worthy of putting on there?
The Spanish Flu has indeed been decoded (bits of tissue containing it were assembled from various sources and the virus was extracted and its genes were sequenced). The virus was then recreated in a form lethal to lab animals. This fact does seem germane to an article on Spanish flu, and salient to the significance of Spanish flu today, since the re-constituted flu throws some light on the nature and scope of the potential pandemic facing humanity in the form of the H5N1 virus now endemic in poultry and resembling the H1N1 of the Spanish flu in certain key aspects.
It is fair to question the wisdom of the decision to re-sequence the Spanish Flu even in bio-"safe" laboratories, as the existence of herd immunity to it is an open question and its escape from the lab or employment of a weapon of mass murder is imaginable and horrible. The decision seems understandable only when weighed against the high likelihood of an H5N1 pandemic in the near- to medium-term, and the corresponding need for any information that may help to prepare vaccines, anti-virals, VLPs, or other medical measures on an urgent basis which, once developed, are likely to help prevent devastation from the likely H5N1 pandemic, from future pandemics such as an H7N7, or even from a pandemic emerging by H1N1 (Spanish flu) later getting loose from the lab.
I have reworded the lead here which stated that Spanish flu is variant of avian influenza. H1N1 (which I just created from the CDC pages) is not considered an avian strain as it is primarily transmitted through swine, though both avian influenza and H1N1 are considered Type A influenza viruses. Avian influenza currently does not list H1N1 as one of the strains that falls under the term. The description here states that the virus jumped directly from birds to humans; if this is accurate, H1N1 and Avian influenza may both need to be updated as the articles are currently contradicting each other. - Banyan Tree 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It is apparently a swine flu: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 47 (2008) 1100–1110 Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I just read an article in National Geographic (Finnish edition, 11/2005) that claims some 50-100 million died. So, is this new information or false information?
Several blocks down in this discussion, there is [Encyclopedia Brittanica 1968: ...It says here that most of the 100 million deaths that occured ...] This seems to provide another source for the 100 million figure.
Has there been any attempt to explain why the virus seemed to infect young people more easily? Can this be because the virus adapted to young people in the trenches in Europe?
Cytokine storm mechanisms rely on a healthy immune system. Those with a compromised immune system lack sufficient feedback to create a cytokine storm. Essentially, it is an over-response by a healthy immune system. This is the cause of death.
For another theory on the dangers of being young with the Sp Flu see"Anecdotal observations".
Socsci69 (
talk)
22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Socsci69
It seems to be common knowledge now that the H5N1 virus directly attacks deep-lung tissue, bringing on acute pulmonary distress in a matter of days, if not hours. The mortality numbers the experts are talking about are scary enough---but what about those who survive? Will scarring from the pneumonia leave them with impaired lung function? If indeed the worst-case scenario plays out will "normal" pulmonary function in humans become the exception rather than the rule? It doesn't take much imagination to predict dire consequences on a hitherto unheard-of scale.
The article should be moved to "Great Influenza Pandemic". Please vote for that. I think it is currently offensive to spanish people. No, spanish people are not infectious. What would americans think if we hosted AIDS info under the title "Great Yankee A**-F****** Disease"? 195.70.48.242 19:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how it is known in Hungary, but in the English speaking world this is indeed known as the Spanish Flu. Black_Death isn't renamed on the basis that it may offend black people. -- 82.15.46.162 22:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmmmmmm! It says here that most of the 100 million deaths that occured in 1918 Spanish Flu/ Spanish Fever Pandemic was NOT caused by the virus, but by a Bacteria that opportunistically infected people with the virus. Because people had no Antibiotics, many died. If this same virus strain were to be infected on the present population today, Antibiotics & Antivirals would combat most of the illnesses.
Supercool Dude 01:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The 1918 influenza was swiftly deadly and killed within a day or so. Few common pathogenic bacteria behave that way. This appears to be due directly to viral virulence, not concuring or secondary bacterial infections; so antibiotics would be useless. Anonymous
There is a better article written on Wikipedia in dutch search for Spaanse griep -- Retjiur 21:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Under mutation theory, there is talk of "Genetic Drift and Antigenic Shift" but later in the article, it is refered to as genetic shift. The difference between the two is somewhat muddled, if there is in fact, a difference.
Thanks.
I have exactly same question. Will there be an answer?
Thanks.
The adjective "Genetic" pertains to genes where as the adverb "Antigenic" pertains to antigens i.e. infective agents. Found here at Wikipedia:
Genetic drift is the statistical effect that results from the influence that chance has on the survival of alleles (variants of a gene).
Antigenic shift is the process by which two different strains of influenza combine to form a new subtype having a mixture of the surface antigens of the two original strains.
The article currently says: "The strain was unusual in commonly killing many young and healthy victims, as opposed to more common influenzas which caused the bulk of their mortality among newborns and the old and infirm." under Effects of New Strain.
However in a Stanford University Article it says the exact opposite saying, "The flu was most deadly for people ages 20 to 40. This pattern of morbidity was unusual for influenza which is usually a killer of the elderly and young children."
Can anybody confirm or deny the validity of this discrepancy?
-- Prozaciswack 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you're correct! I definately read that wrong, sorry.
A previous version of the article said that Spanish Flu vanished after 18 months. Why did it vanish? This is a very important question. Maybe the recreated 1918 H1N1 virus will help to shed some light; by antibody study, for example. I wonder too why/how the flu vanished ......... I heard/read somewhere that a successful organism such as this flu - (sorry, I know it may technically not be an organism, but I can't come up with anything else to call it...)can basically wipe out its supply of hosts by successfully killing them off. In other words, perhaps those people in whom the flu could fourish were now dead and gone, and the only ones left were the ones in which the flu could not survive. So the flu itself died out. 216.57.138.98
The book "The Great Influenza" by John M. Barry, around page 370, explains that there were two natural processes at work. One was the buildup of immunity of the population. The second was the extremely rapid mutation of the virus (actually the "mutant swarm" of influenza viruses) causing a "reversion to the mean," where the mean was less lethal than the unusually dangerous variety that was causing the pandemic. This begs the question: Why don't similar processes occur for H5N1 in the current bird population, making it less lethal? - unsigned
Why does Fort Riley link here? I gather there's some sort of folk tale, but more detail would be helpful for those not in the know. Anyone?
Fort Riley was a major staging ground for the first U.S. troops sent into World War I action. It is reported that the flu first affected these troops before they were sent over to Europe. From the PBS documentary The American Experience: Influenza 1918: "At Fort Riley, Kansas, an Army private reports to the camp hospital just before breakfast on March 11 {1918} complaining of fever, sore throat, and headache. He was quickly followed by another soldier with similar complaints. By noon, the camp's hospital had dealt with over 100 ill soldiers. By week's end that number jumped to 500." ( Aewold 08:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC))
Is the link really notable? It was originally posted anonymously, and contained syntax errors and POV. I vote that it should be removed. SyntaxPC 14:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I read somewhere many years ago that the person alarming the spanish papers of the epidemic was primarily Santiago Ramón y Cajal, thereby giving it its name. Does anyone know more? DanielDemaret 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC) My source was not the most reliable, I am afraid. DanielDemaret 13:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In relation to an earlier comment on this talk page - what is the aspirin mention here for? It doesn't seem to be linked to the rest of the article in any coherent way - would it have prevent Spanish flu if people had used it? Or should it be removed? TheGrappler 02:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That was my first reaction as well - the aspirin is in no way connected to treatment of the flu. It should be removed, but it is an interesting fact, and definitely deserves a place elsewhere in Wikipedia.
I believe that this meets the criteria because:
Overall, while it only just passed stable and referenced, I feel that this is good enough to be on the Good Articles list. Congratulations! -- Cel es tianpower háblame 09:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Were the indigenous peoples hurt especially just those who had not had long term historical exposure to European viruses? Did the Basques have a special deathrate? If not I think the wording should be rearranged to clarify that it was not idigenous peoples, just those historically isolated
I added a link under "further reading" to information postulating that US compulsory vaccinations caused the Spanish Flu. It may be interesting to add an additional section to the article if anyone has additional information from the " anti-vaccinationist" perspective. -- Tokalon73 01:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the deletion of that link by WAS 4.250 ... WAS 4.250, I find the contrast between your "batshit-insane" description of a mere LINK and this touchy-feely quote on your user page to be puzzling:
"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities."
I fail to see the respect here. You seem merely to want to dictate what people can and cannot read, rather than let them decide for themselves. Either this open-source stuff is democratic or dictatorial, and if it's the latter, it's not open-source. Please show a little more respect rather just insult and force your preference onto everyone. -- Tokalon73 02:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
From H1N1:
Does anyone else see a conflict here? Spanish flu says that weakened immune systems increased susceptibility to the flu, and H1N1 says that normal healthy immune systems were more susceptible. Which is it? - Eric 11:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I added some things that should be on this page, including how long the pandemic lasted, and why scientists believe it subsided. I also gave a source. I'd like an explanation as to why my added information was "inaccurate". WAS 4.250? Fresheneesz 13:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You certainly deserve an explanation, so I'll give one.
Well, I think what I think and you think what you think. We have a content dispute. I recommend arbitration. I suggest we find some third person we both trust and let them look at your version, my version, and this discussion and accept their solution. Sound good? WAS 4.250 04:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to take this one item at a time, at least for now, because I think I'm wasting my time. First item: you left out the ref tag. Why would you do that? WAS 4.250 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
No. I'm not done with this. This is important. This has to do with whether I'm wasting my time. If you are here to beautify articles at the expense of their usefulness as an encyclopedia article then I'm wasting my time. Why would you chose to make it look better at the expense of its usefulness as an encyclopedia article? Do you understand what ref does and why it is used? WAS 4.250 21:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
it says: "with 20% of the world population suffering from the disease to some extent.". This needs to be clarified. What does "to some extent" encompass? That a person had a loved one lost? That they lost business because of it? "to some extent" is unacceptably vauge. Fresheneesz 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
FROM : Kreiser, Christine M. (December 2006). "Influenza 1918". The Enemy Within. 41. American History: 22. {{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
I am suprised that an event that took 100, 000, 000 lives at the dawn of the 1900s has had little spot light. Black Death this, Black Death that. Why I heard of the S.F. (as a minor footnote) I was astonished! I thought to my self, "My God! So many people died! How have I never heard anything about this!? Nothing it texts or notes about how it effected the people or economy or nations". It's like nothing happened. Some people dropped dead and that's it.
-G It's all about priorities and publicity. In third world countries, people die off off of lots of things and the flu pandemic was just one more woe; and their news infrustructure was nead nonexistent. In developed counrties there was World War One taking place which meant it has both the priority and the pubkicity. Further governments activelty suppressed information about the pandemic. And finally western governments actively persistantly lied about it saying it was just a normal flu season and whatever you see to the contrary is just a local anomoly. Makes you wonder how much of history is a fairy tale. WAS 4.250 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Should the article read
Scientists have used tissue samples from frozen victims to reproduce the virus for study.
or
Scientists have used tissue samples frozen from victims to reproduce the virus for study.
The former of course implies that you have whole people frozen, whilst the latter simply implies small tissue samples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.78.64.106 ( talk) 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Nothing about the origins of the Spanish Flu being likely in China, near Hong Kong? That area is famous for "interesting" cuisines and has been the breeding ground for many "interesting" virii. - unsigned
Shouldn't there be something explaining what happend to it, why isn't it around today?, etc. -- Fabio Talk 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You have something about towns whose entire population was wiped out. What towns are they? - Kiradax (Lunakeet, or the magic parakeet) 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There is something badly wrong with the figures in this article. Global deaths are put at 50 - 100 million. Mortality among infected individuals at 2.5% - 5%. The proportion of the population catching the flu is given as 20% (this seems very high). In 1918, the world population was 1.85 billion. Accepting the seemingly high infection rate of 20%, this means that 370 million people caught it. If we take the high value of 5% for mortality of infected individuals, we end up with a total of 18.5 million deaths (9.25 million for the lower value). Luss42 10:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
100 million dead at 5% mortality gives 2000 million infected. Assume 2000 million for world population and "mortality" then must not mean "case mortality rate" but must mean "total population mortality rate". Case mortality rate then varies according the infection rate assumed (there is not even good data on total deaths much less infection). WAS 4.250 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The 1918 flu pandemic, commonly referred to as the Spanish flu, was a category 5 influenza pandemic between 1918 and 1920 caused by an unusually severe and deadly Influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1. By far the most destructive pandemic in history, it killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide in just 18 months, [1][2] dwarfing the bloodshed and ball hair due to World War I (1914-1918). Many of its victims were healthy young adults with supple breasts and firm buttocks, in contrast to most influenza outbreaks which predominantly affect juvenile, elderly, or otherwise weakened patients.
I assume the parts I have bolded above from the first paragraph are due to vandalism since they makes no sense. Please edit the article if you agree.
"In February 1998, a team led by Jeffery Taubenberger of the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) recovered samples of the 1918 influenza from the frozen corpse of a Native Alaskan woman buried for nearly eight decades in permafrost near Brevig Mission, Alaska."
According to Gina Kolata's 1999 account of the pandemic, 'Flu', pp. 255-65, this is incorrect. Johan Hultin first attempted to recover samples from Brevig in 1951, but he was unsuccessful. In 1997, by then a seventy-two year old retired pathologist, he decided that science had advanced enough to make another attempt worthwhile. Taubenberger had already recovered RNA of limited quality from samples of two servicemen who had died in the pandemic, and Hultin wrote offering offering his services to try to get better quality samples from Brevig permafrost. Taubenberger accepted, and Hultin went alone to Brevig in August 1997, and recovered the sample from the Alaskan woman, which Taubenberger and his team then analysed. Dudleymiles 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where Dr.Jeffrey Taubenberger works today? - unsigned
The first few paragraphs of this article contain an unusual number of occurrences of the word unusual. Which is unusual because as unusual as it may seem, wikipedia articles are unusually well written considering the fact that anyone can edit. 74.140.118.185 07:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The Spanish flu pandemic came in three waves
http://www.pharmacyeurope.net/default.asp?title=Flupandemic%22maylastsixmonths%22&page=article.display&article.id=8002 Flu pandemic "may last six months" Wednesday 6th February 2008</ref>
The earlier wave of the Spanish flu in the U.S. was far less lethal than the later waves, and communities affected by the earlier mild wave experienced fewer deaths when stricken by the subsequent lethal waves.
The protective effect of community exposure to the early mild wave of the Spanish Flu is a public health fact of unique interest and usefulness, because it suggests a personal and public health strategy that may be vital during any near-term outbreak of a a mild form of pandemic flu that may have later lethal waves, as did the Spanish flu.
For a significant time after a pandemic emerges, it is expected that there will be no effective vaccine. While one is being developed, the experience of community protection by the mild wave of the Spanish Flu suggests a personal and public-health countermeasure that might be adapted from pre-vaccine days, one fashioned along the lines of chicken pox parties. These parties were favored before the emergence of effective chicken pox vaccine. A child who caught a mild case of chicken pox would be the honored guest at a party intended to allow all his or her friends to be immunized by exposure to the same mild form of chicken pox.
If an initial wave of pandemic influenza is as mild as was the first wave of the Spanish flu (dubbed the "three day" flu by a number of historians), then it will be theoretically possible for large numbers of the population to acquire some measure of personal immunity by arranging to contract the newly emergent mild strain before a lethal wave has time to evolve. These individuals may well protect protect not only themselves but in the process also provide the overall population with a measure of herd immunity to slow the rate of contagion of later more lethal waves, saving not only the lives of the inoculated but also sparing health, economies, and lives of others in their community or even globally,
By adding mention of the protection afforded by the mild first wave of the Spanish Flu to this article, readers will be furnished key information of potentially inestimable value and interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.68.117 ( talk) 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
A masterful brief history full of information lamentably lacking in the current article is available, with footnotes, in
1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics Jeffery K. Taubenberger* and David M. Morens†
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no01/pdfs/05-0979.pdf
The authors provide this summary and prologue:
...
16 Emerging Infectious Diseases • www.cdc.gov/eid • Vol. 12, No. 1, January 2006
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.127 ( talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |