Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.

[Ludicus]

Hard for you to read something on March 22nd that was not published until May...

A mistake in typing, you know that.

I could not know it would have to be withdrawn

Nor I could have known. Falsely accusing me of citing a paper that was "fraudulent" reveals intellectual dishonesty, it is an act of bad faith.

of course there was no need at all to provide any sort of definition

Right.

was not an actual response to what I provided:
"The excess mortality occurred between March 1 and April 22 was 3.5- to 5-fold higher than what can be explained by the official COVID-19 deaths."

Well, its a wrong statement, you should have said: "Despite the inherent uncertainty, the excess mortality occurred between March 1 and April 22 could be 3.5- to 5-fold higher than what can be explained by the official COVID-19 deaths".
This really, really isn't nitpicking...

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeati...pinion-1519535

"a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine"

In outpatients. OK, show me the controlled trial...take care, I don't want to accuse you of false advertising. (insert irony)
We know since a long time ago we know that HCQ has a established good profile, safety and effectiveness in the treatment of patients with Rheumatoid arthritis, for example.
That being said, Bolsonaro says "I trust in hydroxychloroquine. And you?", but he is undergoing electrocardiogram examinations twice a day to monitor when using chloroquine.

In hospitalized patients it doesn't work,
Death threats after a trial on chloroquine for COVID-19 - The ...
Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to ...

Are you back to making bald statements

Bald: not having any extra detail or explanation. You know, you have to many sources. Is it possible to have many sources without a great confusion? just asking, I don't want to be rude.Summarize what you read, summarize your thoughts.

Something, as I recall, even your sources did not do.

Tomorrow. I have a life. Meanwhile, read the epidemiological contemporary research ,300 pages. The 1918 pandemic emerged in the spring of 1918 from the central United States. Vaughn, W. T. (1921) Influenza: An Epidemiological Study (Am. J. Hyg., Baltimore), Monograph 1. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.0980flu.0016.890

[Infidel144]

A mistake in typing, you know that.

Probably why I laughed.

Nor I could have known. Falsely accusing me of citing a paper that was "fraudulent" reveals intellectual dishonesty, it is an act of bad faith.

It is not a false accusation. It is true. You cited a paper that was fraudulent and had to be retracted, because it suited your preconceived bias.
If I had not called you out on it, would you have ever acknowledged it?

Right.

So you provided an incomplete and thus misleading definition, then try to excuse yourself by claiming a definition is irrelevant.

Well, its a wrong statement, you should have said: "Despite the inherent uncertainty, the excess mortality occurred between March 1 and April 22 could be 3.5- to 5-fold higher than what can be explained by the official COVID-19 deaths".

Notice that I did not say that. I provided a direct quote of the abstracts conclusion.
"Conclusion: The excess mortality occurred between March 1 and April 22 was 3.5- to 5-fold higher than what can be explained by the official COVID-19 deaths."
Since you are a professional in the field, you should perhaps inform the the authors that they made "wrong statement".
Oh wait, what Ludicus is providing seems to be from the errata portion.
And he is still not actually addressing the conclusion.

"a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine"

In outpatients. OK, show me the controlled trial...take care, I don't want to accuse you of false advertising. (insert irony)

What the author said:
"In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk."

Since you are a professional in the field, and do not do not have a bias against the medication [that, by the way, is irony], I'd suggest you look up the published letter the author, who is a "professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, [and has] authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold[s] senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals", mentions.
Since you are a professional in the field, you should, no doubt, have access.

We know since a long time ago we know that HCQ has a established good profile, safety and effectiveness in the treatment of patients with Rheumatoid arthritis, for example.
That being said, Bolsonaro says "I trust in hydroxychloroquine. And you?", but he is undergoing electrocardiogram examinations twice a day to monitor when using chloroquine.

This is meaningless crap.
I just cited a leading epidemiologist, and Ludicus makes some comment about some politician.

Bald: not having any extra detail or explanation. You know, you have to many sources. Is it possible to have many sources without a great confusion? just asking, I don't want to be rude.

Interesting. Too many sources (4 I think, one of which was was a source provided by Ludicus, which noted in the modern research section a possible Asian link).
And note the post of Ludicus that this was referencing back to (post 864) had 10 sources several of which had no relevance to topic at hand (origin of the Spanish Flu), while others did not support his definitive bald statements of fact, but couched their language so as to indicate other possibilities.
So Ludicus will, as I suggested, just pretend they do not exist, including his own.

Tomorrow. I have a life. Meanwhile, read the epidemiological contemporary research ,300 pages. The 1918 pandemic emerged in the spring of 1918 from the central United States. Vaughn, W. T. (1921) Influenza: An Epidemiological Study (Am. J. Hyg., Baltimore), Monograph 1. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.0980flu.0016.890

No, I am not reading a hundred year old monograph filled with hard to read pictures of newspaper articles.
Perhaps you should provide a quote from this 300 page monograph, and link directly to that page the quote is from, backing up your bald, unqualified, statement of fact.
(Considering that you often do not seem to have read the sources you provide, I rather doubt you have read this).
After that, if it actually does support your claim, you can explain why it should be given more credence than more modern research into the subject.

P.S. didn't you already supply this thing several months back?

[Ludicus]

You cited a paper that was fraudulent.

Stop this trolish nonsense. Just as you said, we could not know it would have to be withdrawn. No one could know that the paper was fraudulent. I read the news from the Guardian, on the eve or in the same day the Lancet retracted the paper. Not from you.

So you provided an incomplete and thus misleading definition, then try to excuse yourself by claiming a definition is irrelevant

No. The definition itself is not irrelevant, but when we talk about excess deaths, we know what we are talking about, so at that point, yes, the definition is irrelevant. That's what happened during our conversion- and the context matters,
You asked,

Originally Posted by Infidel144
How does Portugal count covid deaths, is anyone who dies with covid counted as dying of covid?

I answered your question,

No. From Covid (mortos por covid) in the medical certificate of cause of death. Excess mortality is a term that refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis. On a side note, some countries only report COV deaths that occur in hospitals.

That was my point, the emphasis on all possible causes, not a particular emphasis on Covid causes, or only Covid deaths in hospitals. Here, +-93% deaths from covid-19 occurred in hospitals.
And then you started nitpicking, a sign that someone is arguing in bad faith, warming your trolling soul by reflecting on all of the "errors" recently identified and "promptly" corrected.

So I answered back, putting (again) emphasis on all causes of death.

As I said, from all causes. Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19 ...
Excess mortality is a term used in epidemiology and public health that refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under ‘normal’ conditions

Notice that I did not say that. I provided a direct quote of the abstracts conclusion.

So, let's conclude: you cited a statement that was not completely accurate, ergo potentially misleading, and you even forgot to read the errata on page 376. I know how to play your little dirty game.
It also says, btw,
"On page 376, in Abstract, paragraph Results, where it reads: ”Despite the inherent uncertainty, it is safe to assume an observed excess mortality of 2400 to 4000 deaths. Excess mortality was associated with older age groups (over age 65)"
It should read: “An excess mortality of 2400 to 4000 deaths was observed. Excess mortality was associated with older age groups (over age 65)"

What the author said:
"In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I...

...and then he says, "I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications".

That's the point when science becomes publicity...

Ludicus... a professional in the field

"In the field" is a false statement, but I forgive you. I wrote somewhere else, in this thread, a few months ago, after a quarantine period, what exactly is my field of expertise.

and do not do not have a bias against the medication

Right. Yet, for elder patients there is a high risk for toxicity and dose reduction should always be made.

...you should, no doubt, have access.

WOW! you should stop advertising articles you haven't actually read!!

Btw, the original article in the AJE is available free online. I read it already. Last but not least, from the American Journal of Epidemiology,

Abstract
In May, this journal published an opinion piece by one of the members of the Editorial Board, Dr. Harvey Risch, that reviewed several papers and argued that using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) + azithromycin (AZ) early to treat symptomatic COVID-19 cases in high-risk patients should be broadly applied. As members of the journal's editorial board, we are strongly supportive of open debate in science, which is essential even on highly contentious issues. However, we must also be thorough in our examination of the facts and open to changing our minds when new information arises. In this commentary, we document several important errors in the manuscript by Dr. Risch, review the literature he presented and demonstrate why it is not of sufficient quality to support scale up of HCQ+AZ, and then discuss the literature that has been generated since his publication, which also does not support use of this therapy. Unfortunately, the current scientific evidence does not support HCQ+AZ as an effective treatment for COVID-19, if it ever did; and even suggests many risks. Continuing to push the view that it is an essential treatment in the face of this evidence is irresponsible and harmful to the many people already suffering from infection.

Here's the full article,
https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance...17/kwaa189.pdf

Perhaps you should provide a quote from this 300 page monograph

Obviously. I'm ready.

can explain why it should be given more credence than more modern research into the subject.

That's a very pertinent question. In fact, John Barry now says that is more likely that the lethal virus started in China.But first, tell me, what the modern epidemiological research actually says? in a succinct way. Just three or four lines. The key points. I will wait, patiently. Tomorrow? monday?

----

Let the HCQ rest in peace. Why not a safe alternative, a promising innocuous treatment technology?

Photodynamic therapy , first tests in October.
Portuguese consortium proposes therapy to eliminate the coronavirus in seconds ...

...wants to develop an innovative therapy to eliminate “in a few seconds” the virus that causes covid-19.
Called FOTOVID, the project aims to eliminate the SARS-CoV-2 virus, responsible for the covid-19 disease, “right at the main ‘gateway’ in the body, that is, in the nasal cavities, using photodynamic therapy “..."in the early stages of covid-19 disease may speed up treatment, allow only the most benign forms of the disease to manifest and contribute to preventing the spread of the pandemic" .
The investigation brings UC together in consortium, through multidisciplinary teams from the faculties of Science and Technology (FCTUC) and Medicine (FMUC), the Hospital and University Center of Coimbra (CHUC) and the companies LaserLeap, from Coimbra , who coordinates the project, and Ondine Biomedical (Canada), a world leader in antibacterial photo-infection.

I have a long experience with PDT, in a completely different context. I predict that it will work locally. But is it enough to minimize the risk of a severe lung damage? Let's wait and see.

"In few seconds" means no more than 1 minute, I guess.

[Infidel144]

Stop this trolish nonsense. Just as you said, we could not know it would have to be withdrawn. No one could know that the paper was fraudulent. I read the news from the Guardian, on the eve or in the same day the Lancet retracted the paper. Not from you.

Really? And yet did not bother to come here and correct yourself...
So you cited a fraudulent paper that had to be retracted, and after finding out it was a fraudulent paper that had to be retracted, you did not bother to come here and issue a correction.

No. The definition itself is not irrelevant, but when we talk about excess deaths, we know what we are talking about, so at that point, yes, the definition is irrelevant. That's what happened during our conversion- and the context matters,

And yet you still provided an incomplete incorrect definition, and took exception to me providing a full and complete definition.

You asked,

I answered your question,

My question being how Portugal counted covid deaths.

That was my point, the emphasis on all possible causes, not a particular emphasis on Covid causes, or only Covid deaths in hospitals. Here, +-93% deaths from covid-19 occurred in hospitals.
And then you started nitpicking, a sign that someone is arguing in bad faith, warming your trolling soul by reflecting on all of the "errors" recently identified and "promptly" corrected.

"Nitpicking" meaning providing a full, complete, correct, definition of the term Ludicus provided an incomplete, partial, incorrect definition for, while he also claims that that the term is self-explanatory (and hence does not need a definition provided, to try and cover his ass).

So, let's conclude: you cited a statement that was not completely accurate, ergo potentially misleading, and you even forgot to read the errata on page 376. I know how to play your little dirt game.
It also says, btw,
"On page 376, in Abstract, paragraph Results, where it reads: ”Despite the inherent uncertainty, it is safe to assume an observed excess mortality of 2400 to 4000 deaths. Excess mortality was associated with older age groups (over age 65)"
It should read: “An excess mortality of 2400 to 4000 deaths was observed. Excess mortality was associated with older age groups (over age 65)"

The abstract did not mention anything about errata, so it would be difficult to 'forget' to read it.
I'm not particularly sure how or if the errata fundamental changes the statement, as in either reading, there is still a large number of excess deaths observed (more than the coronavirus deaths) than can be accounted for by coronavirus deaths.

...and then he says, "I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications".

That's the point when science becomes publicity...

Are you disappointed that he knows doctors who have saved lives using this medication you are so biased against?

"In the field" is a false statement, but I forgive you.

Have you not claimed you are a medical professional?

WOW! you should stop advertising articles you haven't actually read!!

No.

Btw, the original article in the AJE is available free online. I read it already. Last but not least, from the American Journal of Epidemiology,

Did you learn anything?

Obviously. I'm ready.

And yet..

That's a very pertinent question.

Naturally.

In fact, John Barry now says that is more likely that the lethal virus started in China.

No way...
Are you actually telling me that John Barry, author of "The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History" say that modern research points toward China as the likely origin of the Spanish Flu?

But first, tell me, what the modern epidemiological research actually says? in a succinct way. Just three or four lines. I will wait, patiently. Tomorrow? monday?

No.

Photodynamic therapy , first tests in October.
Portuguese consortium proposes therapy to eliminate the coronavirus in seconds ...


I have a long experience with PDT, in a completely different context. I predict that it will work locally. But is it enough to minimize the risk of a severe lung damage? Let's wait and see.

Is that some sort of light therapy?

[Stario]

While C19 is obviously concerning and a very real threat to some people IE. the elderly and immune-compromised, these data also show that the risk for the rest of the population is extremely low (pretty much zero if under 65 years).
Yet despite such low risk to "the rest of the population" most countries still opted to drive a truck through civil liberties while simultaneously ruining their own economies, while also contributing to the destruction of the world economy as a whole.


Infection Fatality Rate Estimated by Age (Covid-19):
5-9 years; IFR = 0.0016%
10-19 years; IFR=0.00032%
20-49 years; IFR=0.0092%
50-64 years; IFR=0.14%
65 years and over; IFR= 5.6% (I am willing to bet the 80 & 90-year-old age groups significantly increase this IFR%; too bad the study didn't further separate the groups into 65-75; 76-86; 86-100 etc. would have been interesting to see what we get).
https://osf.io/wdbpe/


Interestingly the IFR% is higher for Influenza for children/young people compared to C19 (but still pretty much zero- so I decided to make the comparison for just pure curiosity)
0-4 years; IFR= 0.007%
5-17 years; IFR=0.003%
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

[PointOfViewGun]

Stario is comparing COVID19 IFR numbers from Switzerland, a country with great healthcare and comparably healthier population, with that of influenza IFR from USA. Why are we not looking at data from USA both for influenza and COVID19? Here is why:

For influenza, the IFR is indeed 0.007% for the age group of 0 to 4 years. 0.007322% to be exact. This is true for influenza without any active measures to contain it. For the 5 to 17 age group, the number is 0.002753%. Overall, for all age groups combined, influenza's IFR is 0.097%.

For COVID19, the IFR is not 0.0016% for USA. It's 0.037151% for the age group of 0 to 4 years. This is true for COVID19 with active and often extreme measures to contain it. For the 5 to 17 age group, the number is 0.017021%. Overall, for all age groups combined, COVID19's IFR is 2.79%.

[Stario]

For COVID19, the IFR is not 0.0016% for USA. It's 0.037151% for the age group of 0 to 4 years. This is true for COVID19 with active and often extreme measures to contain it. For the 5 to 17 age group, the number is 0.017021%.

Interestingly, even if you take the slightly higher USA COVID-19 IFR numbers (assuming they are reliable as the link you provided offers no explanation on how the IFR was derived, nor does the link you posted show any confidence intervals or confidence levels and therefore there is no way of estimating the data with a certain level of accuracy, etc.)


So what this is saying -for young people (0-17 years of age), Influenza is more deadly than COVID-19 (even in the USA). Yet we don't employ -as you say- "active and often extreme measures to contain it" (Influenza!) like we do with Covid-19 to protect our children/young people from dying from influenza...surely they would be more valuable than a bunch of 65+-year-olds?! ...um-mm

[PointOfViewGun]

Let the records show that Stario is labeling a difference of a factor of about 10 as "slightly higher" IFR number. He also attempted to create doubt over the accuracy of the data from CDC for COVID19. He himself was using the same source for influenza IFR just a minute ago. He, of course, doesn't realize that no estimation is used for COVID19 numbers as they're being actively reported to CDC on a case by case basis.

Then he does something bizarre. He accurately suggests that the IFR for COVID19 is higher than inluenza but then proceeds to suggest that its not COVID19 but influenza that is more deadly. Can anybody decipher that?

[Ludicus]

.. Are you disappointed that he knows doctors who have saved lives using this medication..?

What a nerve, what a trollish attitude, blaming me because I don't have divinatory powers and at the same time you come here to advertise a (flawed) paper that you never read (!!!), written by an epidemiologist who knows two doctors who "saved" hundreds of lives from a certain death.

.. if it actually does support your claim, you can explain why it should be given more credence than more modern research into the subject.

It seems you are unable to summarize what the "modern" research has to say. I will do it for you, as promised.
As we know, lethal and highly contagious viruses often spread explosively, this is the most obvious sign by which to differentiate it and the usual run of common colds - for example common cold: rhinovirus, coronaviruses, RSA and parainfluenza. The epidemiology teaches us that the highly contagious COVID-19 coronavirus was born in China, we don't need a genomic study to know it.
The archaevirological research after 1955, determining the complete coding sequence of the 1918 flu virus took 9 years and after that experiments to further map the genetic basis of virulence of the 1918 virus in various animal models were planned, but it's impossible to address what specific host factors in 1918 accounted for the high mortality fatality, and these causes were never explained by the pathological and virological parameters examined. We know today that the 1918 virus is an avian-influenza like virus derived from an unknown source, with little difference from avian virus isolated today.

We still don't know the genotypic traits that gave the 1918 virus a high virulence. Several studies found virulence to be a multigenic trait, with a role for all viral segments. Although there is a study that points to the impact a single viral gene can have on virulence.

That being said, the epidemiological research is our best source. According to Mark Humphries, pointing to a Chinese origin, Chinese laborers were the source of transmission to Europe. The primary source of the hypothesis is shown in the quotation "A curious, mild febrile disease reported among Chinese labor troops on the coast of France early in the spring of 1918...Hans Zinsser 1922"

However, in 2105, Dennis Shanks, Director of the Australian Defense Forces Malaria and Infectious Diseases, reviewed the official mortality lists from the Britain and France mortality, respectively, and published the data, showing that the Chinese laborers peak mortality rates from flu lagged rather than proceeded the other nearby military camps. If they did incubate the virus, then one would expect that they would seek fall sick fall before rather than after. He found no evidence of flu pandemic origin in Chinese laborers in France, he found no evidence of an Asian connection to its onset.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that Edwin Jordan reviewed epidemiologic data on rates of clinical influenza by age, collected between 1900 and 1918. The data provided good evidence for the emergence of an antigenically novel influenza virus in 1918, not before.

During the pandemic, influenza mortality widely varied across populations and locations, even in the same geographic space. In the US mobilization camps, the mortality was higher among soldiers (0.34–4.3%) than among officer trainees (0-1.0%) and the susceptibility largely varied based on host epidemiological characteristics rather than the inherent virulence of the virus. Death caused by Spanish flu occurred after eight days of illness due to secondary bacterial infection.

Nonetheless, John Barry, as I said before, now points now to a Chinese origin. He was asked why he has decided to change his mind from the "definitive account" of the US origin, to a Chinese origin. He replies: "Work since then caused me back away from that".
Let's take a look at his website. John M. Barry - Welcome
What do we have here? the 2004 old book, "the definitive account of the 1918 Flu Epidemic"and links to old press reviews and interviews.
And that's it. Nothing more, nothing new. Somewhat disappointing given the fact that in 2014, Dr. Barry wrote: "in seven years of work on a history of the pandemic, this author conducted an extensive survey of contemporary medical and lay literature searching for epidemiological evidence – the only evidence available. Haskell County, Kansas, is the first recorded instance anywhere in the world of an outbreak of influenza so unusual that a physician warned public health officials (1). It remains the first recorded instance suggesting that a new virus was adapting, violently, to man. If the virus did not originate in Haskell, there is no good explanation for how it arrived there".
In 2018, he also said, emphatically: "the first report anywhere in the world, in any language that I could find, of a lethal form of influenza was actually in Pasco county Kansas southwestern of the state near the Texas border".
(1) Note the resemblance to actual events. In China, Li Wenliang warned about COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, where the early cluster of severe cases occurred.

So, why has he changed his previous position? John Barry explains- sic,

We found that China did not have a grievous experience in 1918 so best based on the fact they they did not suffer huge numbers of deaths it strongly suggest that there was previous exposure to that virus so it's more likely that it started in China

Let's take note: "China did not have a grievous experience in 1918" is the main argument for a Chinese origin. It happens that this is totally contradicted by the contemporary investigation.

Quotations from the contemporary sources, key excerpts, previous link.

1) The 1918 flu in China.

We have been able to follow the pandemic quite consecutively as it has spread around the world, from a first outbreak in the United States in March, 1918. From nearly all parts of China reports are being sent to the newspapers of the occurrence of a severe epidemic of disease which seems to manifest itself in various forms.
In Wusueh, the disease is called 'the five days' plague'. In other cases it is complicated by severe and often fatal pneumonia. At Anking the mortality is great and sudden. In one house four people died within a few hours of each other, and in another house eight persons out of eleven died. At Wuhu and other of the lower Yangtze ports the mortality is so great that undertakers are finding it difficult to meet the demand for coffins.
In Shansi, where the victims literally number thousands, the disease is regarded as influenza. In Peking fully fifty per cent of the Chinese have been affected and the mortality has been heavy.
The author has the following personal communication from Doctor Arthur Stanley of the Health Department of the Shanghai Municipal Council. "Influenza fever appeared during the recent epidemic in Shanghai towards the end of May 1918.It swept over the whole country like a tidal wave. You may take it that it spread like most rapid extant means of transit".
The Health Officer of Shanghai made the following report for May, 1918: "Towards the end of the month, reports were received of outbreaks of 'fever' which rapidly affected a large proportion of the employees of various offices, shops, police stations, etc. As a result of clinical and laboratory observations of cases admitted to the Chinese Isolation Hospital the disease was recognized as epidemic influenza.
The same disease was reported to have appeared in Peking before reaching Shanghai, but subsequent reports showed that most of the river ports were almost simultaneously infected; that is to say the rate of spread conformed to the rate of conveyance by railways and boats of infected persons". It was reported present in Chunkking, China, July 27 th. and time half of population was stated to be affected. A report of Shangai describes the prevalence of the disease, affecting about 50 percent of population. In August the disease was reintroduced in the United States and by the end of the month it had acquired a foothold in Boston. The pandemic has crossed the Atlantic in both directions in six months's time

.

2) The 1918 flu in Europe, excerpts,

(...) The influenza which attacked our troops in Europe was influenza imported from the United States. Alberto Lutraria, Health Commissioner of Italy, has reported that the disease was brought to that country from America.
A point of significance is the fact that during March and April there was an unusually large troop movement from the United States to the American Expeditionary Forces...it appeared at a time when large numbers of Americans were arriving in Europe, which is indeed an outstanding feature correlated in time with the onset of the epidemic.
We see then that by April the disease has been transferred to France and is prevalent in the various armies. The fact that MacNeal, as we have previously recorded, believed that there was influenza in France in 1917, must not be overlooked. Those earlier cases were scattered and did not so far as we know occur in the form of small epidemics. Even if these were true influenza it is reasonable to assume that they were sporadic cases and were not genetically associated with the epidemic spreading from America and daily increasing in virulence, which we are now following...in Great Britain, it was imported by the troops from France. In England the disease first attracted attention in June, appearing first in the coast towns, chiefly at the beginning among the military and naval forces.
In the same month that the disease broke out in Scotland it appeared in Spain. Within a short time it had spread rapidly through all the provinces.
In Spain the disease appeared in epidemic form about the middle of May and this outbreak received great publicity, sufficient to lead to the popular appellation of Spanish influenza.
The very rapid and extensive spread of the disease in Spain would indicate that it had been introduced from without rather than transformed from the endemic state in that country. This also appears to accord with the view of those who have studied the epidemic in Spain.

By October of 1918 the severe form of the disease had become prevalent in every continent, and by December it had reached the farthest islands of the Southern Pacific ocean. From April, 1918, when the disease appeared in France, to October, when it was reported in Madagascar, is six months. From October, 1889, with the disease prevailing in Petrograd, to July, 1890, when it appeared in Madagascar, is nine months.
It required seven months after the disease became epidemic in France this time for it to appear in Iceland, and nine months in 1889-90.
The month of June saw the spread into England which we have already described, and the continuation from the German West front back into the enemy territory. In June the disease had also spread to Norway, to the West Indies, South America, India and China. The rapid spread from Europe to distant India may be accounted for with the same mechanism as that by which the disease was spread from America to France and from France to England, viz. by army transports.

--------------

The main argument for a Chinese origin- the lack of a "grievous experience in 1918"- is not supported by the contemporary research. Much on the contrary, in China the virus originated an epidemic hecatomb, beginning toward the end of May, as described above.

---

Is that some sort of light therapy?

I'm not in the mood to teach you.

Have you not claimed you are a medical professional?

Yes, but not in the field of intensive care. And unlike you, I'm not omniscient.

[Stario]

Let the records show that Stario is labeling a difference of a factor of about 10 as "slightly higher" IFR number.

EDIT:
Actually it was a mistake to provide stats from x2 different countries/regions Geneva + USA. I shall do a bit of research and see what the differences are for both viruses within the same county (i want to get stats from USA mostly), out of curiosity...

One point I want to quickly make- is when we talk about IFR percentages such as 0.007% influenza ( let's call it virus A), and COVID-19 -0.0016% (lets call it virus B)- although we see a difference between Virus A and Virus B in these IFR numbers -we need to note these IFR percentages are still so low your chances of dying from either influenza or COVID-19 (in the 0-17 year group), is still pretty much zero- they are both statistically insignificant.

[PointOfViewGun]

Whatever this "factor" it shows that from 0-17 years age, Influenza has a higher IFR% than COVID19 and therefore is deadlier for children/young people than COVID-19.

The other point I want to quickly make- is when we talk about IFR percentages such as 0.007% influenza ( let's call it virus A), and COVID-19 -0.037% (lets call it virus B)- although we see over x5 fold difference between Virus A and Virus B in these IFR numbers -we need to note these IFR percentages are still so low your chances of dying from either influenza or COVID-19 (in the 0-17 year group), is still pretty much zero- they are both statistically insignificant.

If I was your typical scaremonger I'll have you believe that COVID-19 is over x5 fold deadlier than Influenza for our children (0-4 year) and almost x6 fold deadlier in 5-17 year age group -IFR of 0.017% (COVID-19) vs 0.003% (Influenza). Yet we don't lock down every year due to seasonal influenza. Surely our children/young people are more valuable than the very old 65+ age group.

You're saying that 0.007% is larger than 0.037%? Seriously?

[Stario]

You're saying that 0.007% is larger than 0.037%? Seriously?

NO what i meant is 0.007% is larger than 0.0016% (the later From Geneva paper here).
Though better would be to compare both viruses within a single country. I guess out of curiosity this is my next research project.

[Infidel144]

What a nerve, what a trollish attitude, blaming me because I don't have divinatory powers and at the same time you come here to advertise a (flawed) paper that you never read (!!!), written by an epidemiologist who knows two doctors who "saved" hundreds of lives from a certain death.

So, is that a yes, you are disappointed? In addition to you, a medical professional, not bothering to come here and note that the paper you cited was fraudulent and had to be retracted, despite claiming you knew on the eve or same day that it was retracted.
Should I also take it that the errata does not substantively change that there is still a large number of excess deaths observed (more than the coronavirus deaths) than can be accounted for by coronavirus deaths.

The archaevirological research after 1955, determining the complete coding sequence of the 1918 flu virus took 9 years and after that experiments to further map the genetic basis of virulence of the 1918 virus in various animal models were planned, but it's impossible to address what specific host factors in 1918 accounted for the high mortality fatality, and these causes were never explained by the pathological and virological parameters examined. We know today that the 1918 virus is an avian-influenza like virus derived from an unknown source, with little difference from avian virus isolated today.

We still don't know the genotypic traits that gave the 1918 virus a high virulence. Several studies found virulence to be a multigenic trait, with a role for all viral segments. Although there is a study that points to the impact a single viral gene can have on virulence.

That being said, the epidemiological research is our best source. According to Mark Humphries, pointing to a Chinese origin, Chinese laborers were the source of transmission to Europe. The primary source of the hypothesis is shown in the quotation "A curious, mild febrile disease reported among Chinese labor troops on the coast of France early in the spring of 1918...Hans Zinsser 1922"

However, in 2105, Dennis Shanks, Director of the Australian Defense Forces Malaria and Infectious Diseases, reviewed the official mortality lists from the Britain and France mortality, respectively, and published the data, showing that the Chinese laborers peak mortality rates from flu lagged rather than proceeded the other nearby military camps. If they did incubate the virus, then one would expect that they would seek fall sick fall before rather than after. He found no evidence of flu pandemic origin in Chinese laborers in France, he found no evidence of an Asian connection to its onset.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that Edwin Jordan reviewed epidemiologic data on rates of clinical influenza by age, collected between 1900 and 1918. The data provided good evidence for the emergence of an antigenically novel influenza virus in 1918, not before.

During the pandemic, influenza mortality widely varied across populations and locations, even in the same geographic space. In the US mobilization camps, the mortality was higher among soldiers (0.34–4.3%) than among officer trainees (0-1.0%) and the susceptibility largely varied based on host epidemiological characteristics rather than the inherent virulence of the virus. Death caused by Spanish flu occurred after eight days of illness due to secondary bacterial infection.

So, it seems that, much as I have been quoting, there are various possible origins for the Spanish Flu.
This would be unlike you who made definitive statements of fact as to its origin. Repeatedly.

Nonetheless, John Barry, as I said before, now points now to a Chinese origin. He was asked why he has decided to change his mind from the "definitive account" of the US origin, to a Chinese origin. He replies: "Work since then caused me back away from that".

That is just amazing. Where did you learn that Barry had changed his opinion?

And lets see if you can be clear:
Do you acknowledge that there are various hypotheses as to the origin of the Spanish Flu?

I'm not in the mood to teach you.

hmmm....
"Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a two-stage treatment that combines light energy with a drug (photosensitizer) designed to destroy cancerous and precancerous cells after light activation."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-pro...t/pac-20385027

I'm vaguely recalling some "discussion" earlier in the thread revolving around 'light therapy'. Were you involved in that?

Yes, but not in the field of intensive care.

I don't recall saying anything about your field being intensive care.
So in fact you claim you are a professional in the field of medicine.

And unlike you, I'm not omniscient.

Yet you are the one that has been making definitive statements of fact...

[PointOfViewGun]

NO what i meant is 0.007% is larger than 0.0016% (the later From Geneva paper here).
Though better would be to compare both viruses within a single country. I guess out of curiosity this is my next research project.

You're all over the place, aren't you? To cover up your math mistake you're going back to comparing numbers from Switzerland and USA. Even then, you're still comparing different age groups. You should get basic numbers right first.

[swabian]

Unspecific comment:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1525439...d-last-week-2/

This corresponds with the general death toll through the age groups above 40. It's very high and has to be alarming, there is no doubt about that.

There is often the argument, that sars-cov-2 mostly causes deaths in conjunction with vulnerabilities which lead to respiratory failure.

Those vulnerabilities are directly caused by sc2 (sars-Cov-2). Respiratory problems for example are often counted as "vulnerabilities" that lead to death, but they are in truth caused by sc2. The documentation of fatality causes related to sc2 is sometimes unintuitive and perhaps misleading in a number of cases. The virus consistently attacks healthy people, causes a number of problems that are then listed as "vulnerabilities" and can cause death in healthy individuals even below the age of 45.
It's about as dangerous as the so called "Spanish Flu" and most likely even more so, because of it's complexity and unusual adaptabilty. To not take it very seriously by now is dangerous and illusory.

Sad that people still think they can "debate" this problem away with extremely weak argumentation.

I also have information from a friend trapped in China saying that the problem there is probably 10 times worse than publicly stated. She says the central government undertakes painstaking efforts to save face in front of the world and subsequently in front of the Chinese population. No foreign nationals are allowed to leave the country as of yet.

[Stario]

You're all over the place, aren't you? To cover up your math mistake you're going back to comparing numbers from Switzerland and USA. Even then, you're still comparing different age groups. You should get basic numbers right first.

My point we got a country like Switzerland with a COVID-19 IRF of 0.0016% (5-9 years), and IFR=0.00032% (10-19 years) - again pretty much zero.

Then we got a country like the USA with an Influenza IFR of 0.007% (0-4 years) years and 0.003% (5-17years). Mind you 0.003% v 0.00032% -this is in about x10 fold higher/deadlier. AND these influenza IFRs have been roughly in the same ballpark over the past decade (with some influenza seasons worse while other seasons mild).

Yet we don't see the US driving a truck through civil liberties and the economy -not once- in the past 10 years because of influenza!? Do they not care about their children/young people?! NO the FACT is these IFRs are so low they are statistically insignificant - your chances of dying if you're a child/young adult are pretty much zero from both of the viruses.

[swabian]

My point we got a country like Switzerland with a COVID-19 IRF of 0.0016% (5-9 years), and IFR=0.00032% (10-19 years) - again pretty much zero.

Then we got a country like the USA with an Influenza IFR of 0.007% (0-4 years) years and 0.003% (5-17years). Mind you 0.003% v 0.00032% -this is in about x10 fold higher/deadlier. AND these influenza IFRs have been roughly in the same ballpark over the past decade (with some influenza seasons worse while other seasons mild).

Yet we don't see the US driving a truck through civil liberties and the economy -not once- in the past 10 years because of influenza!? Do they not care about their children/young people?! NO the FACT is these IFRs are so low they are statistically insignificant - your chances of dying if you're a child/young adult are pretty much zero from both of the viruses.

You're talking about two viruses. Which one is the one and what is the other?

[PointOfViewGun]

My point we got a country like Switzerland with a COVID-19 IRF of 0.0016% (5-9 years), and IFR=0.00032% (10-19 years) - again pretty much zero.

Then we got a country like the USA with an Influenza IFR of 0.007% (0-4 years) years and 0.003% (5-17years). Mind you 0.003% v 0.00032% -this is in about x10 fold higher/deadlier. AND these influenza IFRs have been roughly in the same ballpark over the past decade (with some influenza seasons worse while other seasons mild).

Yet we don't see the US driving a truck through civil liberties and the economy -not once- in the past 10 years because of influenza!? Do they not care about their children/young people?! NO the FACT is these IFRs are so low they are statistically insignificant - your chances of dying if you're a child/young adult are pretty much zero from both of the viruses.

The FACT is that you messed this up. You compared numbers on different countries with different healthcare systems on different viruses. You even mixed up your numbers. What you're essentially doing, however, is lying through selective use of statistics. Moreover, I didn't pay attention before but the data you're getting from, but its only from the Geneva canton. The data pool is even smaller than I thought. Why don't you provide actual influenza numbers for Geneva? Its idiotic to compare USA with Switzerland.

By your logic, seat belts and snow tires are stupid measures since the "IFR" of vehicular accidents is very low...

[Stario]

You compared numbers on different countries with different healthcare systems on different viruses. Its idiotic to compare USA with Switzerland.

For younger people, "seasonal flu", in many cases, is a deadlier virus...

Here are the USA stats since you wanted USA:

During the 2018-19 flu season, the CDC reported approximately 480 flu deaths (ages 0-17).

Comparably, 90 American youth have died from C19 complications from the beginning of the pandemic through mid-August, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

More than 46,000 children were hospitalized for flu in that 2018-19 period. The hospitalisation rate among children 5 to 17 was 39.2 children per 100,000 children. For C19, hospitalisation rate is 6 per 100,000 children ages 5 to 17.

These numbers indicate, more children died from flu complications than from C19 and were hospitalised at higher rates for the flu.

So should we now start driving a truck through our economy and civil liberties every flu season? After all its deadlier for our kids/young people. Surely they are more important than the elderly? And we seemed to have gone full panic mode trying to lengthen the lives (by a few months as I already proved) for a bunch of over 70+ living at nursing homes with multiple comorbidities IE. cancers, heart disease, chronic lung disease (since this is were most of the deaths are coming from).

[PointOfViewGun]

For younger people, "seasonal flu", in many cases, is a deadlier virus...
Here are the USA stats since you wanted USA:
During the 2018-19 flu season, the CDC reported approximately 480 flu deaths (ages 0-17).
Comparably, 90 American youth have died from C19 complications from the beginning of the pandemic through mid-August, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
More than 46,000 children were hospitalized for flu in that 2018-19 period. The hospitalisation rate among children 5 to 17 was 39.2 children per 100,000 children. For C19, hospitalisation rate is 6 per 100,000 children ages 5 to 17.
These numbers indicate, more children died from flu complications than from C19 and were hospitalised at higher rates for the flu.
So should we now start driving a truck through our economy and civil liberties every flu season? After all its deadlier for our kids/young people. Surely they are more important than the elderly? And we seemed to have gone full panic mode trying to lengthen the lives (by a few months as I already proved) for a bunch of over 70+ living at nursing homes with multiple comorbidities IE. cancers, heart disease, chronic lung disease (since this is were most of the deaths are coming from).

Sigh... No, seasonal flue is not deadlier than COVID19. We have gone through USA stats:

For influenza, the IFR is indeed 0.007% for the age group of 0 to 4 years. 0.007322% to be exact. This is true for influenza without any active measures to contain it. For the 5 to 17 age group, the number is 0.002753%. Overall, for all age groups combined, influenza's IFR is 0.097%.

For COVID19, the IFR is not 0.0016% for USA. It's 0.037151% for the age group of 0 to 4 years. This is true for COVID19 with active and often extreme measures to contain it. For the 5 to 17 age group, the number is 0.017021%. Overall, for all age groups combined, COVID19's IFR is 2.79%.

For the combined age group of 0 to 17, influenza's IFR is 0.004223%, meanwhile COVID19's IFR for the same age group is 0.020813%. This time, pay attention to decimal points.

Why are you going full panic mode and driving a truck through facts here?