This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
1889–90 flu pandemic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2009 flu pandemic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Could we expand this article, including which measures people and societies took in order to mitigate this virus's spread? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 04:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Found this: What four coronaviruses from history can tell us about covid-19, on: New Scientist as of 29 April 2020. Is a specific one of the 4 coronaviruses NL64, HKU1, OC43 and 229E suspected? Does anyone know more? Kind regards, -- Ernsts ( talk) 12:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
OC43 - the hypothesis was reinforced (if not confirmed) by the similarity of the symptoms to COVID-19 but originated when genetic sequencing indicated that it diverged from bovine coronavirus in the late 1880s. Article has already been updated to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.229.2 ( talk) 16:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Moved as proposed. There is a clear consensus that this article should be moved from its current title, and within that a clear consensus favoring the title proposed by the nominator. Other suggestions that have been made have not gained comparable support. BD2412 T 16:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
1889–1890 flu pandemic → 1889–1890 pandemic – We should consider whether it is appropriate to have "flu" in the title, as it have been suggested that the pandemic was caused not by influenza, but by a coronavirus. The strongest evidence in favor of this hypothesis is the 2005 article from Vijgen et. al., while the newer Danish results should be given very little weight, as it has yet to be published. See also these news articles on the topic: [1] [2]. For me, the critical question is what the larger scientific community's stand is on this. Do they consider it established that this was an influenza pandemic, with the Vijgen et al. article a challenger to the established claim? Or do they consider the question unresolved, with some things pointing in the direction of an influenza (the historical position), and some newer results in the direction of a coronavirus? I think others are better to assess this than me. ― Hebsen ( talk) 10:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm ( talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Was (as claimed) Emperor William I a survivor of the 1889-1890 pandemic? He died in 1888. Typographical error for William II perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.220.163 ( talk • contribs)
It seems implausible that "up to 2/3rds" of the population of Bukhara died from this disease, both given the way other flu viruses and coronaviruses behave and on the much lower mortality rates reported in other places. Can someone with access check the given sources for this extraordinary claim? 2A01:E35:242B:7230:81A2:9CF3:DB2E:9A96 ( talk) 14:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we be using a preprint that hasn't been published? Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
1889–90 flu pandemic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2009 flu pandemic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Could we expand this article, including which measures people and societies took in order to mitigate this virus's spread? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 04:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Found this: What four coronaviruses from history can tell us about covid-19, on: New Scientist as of 29 April 2020. Is a specific one of the 4 coronaviruses NL64, HKU1, OC43 and 229E suspected? Does anyone know more? Kind regards, -- Ernsts ( talk) 12:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
OC43 - the hypothesis was reinforced (if not confirmed) by the similarity of the symptoms to COVID-19 but originated when genetic sequencing indicated that it diverged from bovine coronavirus in the late 1880s. Article has already been updated to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.229.2 ( talk) 16:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Moved as proposed. There is a clear consensus that this article should be moved from its current title, and within that a clear consensus favoring the title proposed by the nominator. Other suggestions that have been made have not gained comparable support. BD2412 T 16:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
1889–1890 flu pandemic → 1889–1890 pandemic – We should consider whether it is appropriate to have "flu" in the title, as it have been suggested that the pandemic was caused not by influenza, but by a coronavirus. The strongest evidence in favor of this hypothesis is the 2005 article from Vijgen et. al., while the newer Danish results should be given very little weight, as it has yet to be published. See also these news articles on the topic: [1] [2]. For me, the critical question is what the larger scientific community's stand is on this. Do they consider it established that this was an influenza pandemic, with the Vijgen et al. article a challenger to the established claim? Or do they consider the question unresolved, with some things pointing in the direction of an influenza (the historical position), and some newer results in the direction of a coronavirus? I think others are better to assess this than me. ― Hebsen ( talk) 10:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm ( talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Was (as claimed) Emperor William I a survivor of the 1889-1890 pandemic? He died in 1888. Typographical error for William II perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.220.163 ( talk • contribs)
It seems implausible that "up to 2/3rds" of the population of Bukhara died from this disease, both given the way other flu viruses and coronaviruses behave and on the much lower mortality rates reported in other places. Can someone with access check the given sources for this extraordinary claim? 2A01:E35:242B:7230:81A2:9CF3:DB2E:9A96 ( talk) 14:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we be using a preprint that hasn't been published? Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)