This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
§Aspirin role in high mortality of Spanish flu pandemic
The evidence of the role of aspirin in the high mortality experienced in the USA by people victim of the Spanish flu was pointed by homeopaths as the time of the epidemic itself. The observations of these homeopaths were gathered in an article of W. A. Dewey published in the Journal of American Institute of Homeopathy in may 1921 (http://pdf.lu/PBkd) soon after the end of the epidemic (December 1920). It is certainly the high training of homeopaths to make clinical observations on their patients which explain their 90 years advance in making a diagnosis that classical medecine has only proposed in 2009. Gérard Gaspard (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Another problem which I would put in the numbers section is the claim that the disease killed mainly young adults, rather than the young or older adults. But this is not borne out by the graph given on the page. Spanish flu was still much more fatal for young children and older people, it is just that it showed higher than normal levels of fatal for those in early and mid adulthood. Whilst I accept that this is a picky point, I think we should strive for accuracy and the claim, as currently presented is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTAllenby (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I notice that despite raising this point in February 2014 the article still contains an obviously factually incorrect statement. Considering that this is supposed to be a key article this is disappointing.
Numbers are still wrong. Case fatality rate was ~2.5% which means 2.5% of infected people died. This is what citation 31 says. This number appears to have been wrongly applied as the percent of 'total world population' that died. And it looks like that person tried back-calculate the case-fatality rate and got an erroneous number that the flu killed 15-20% of infected, a number which has no reference and is not found on other reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Correct me but if 500 million were infected and the fatality rate was 3- 5% would'nt that be 15 to 25 million died ? Patricia Daniels and Stephen Hyslop writing for National Geographic Almanac of world history claimed that 500 million died. 3 rd edition page 25. wherever did they get that number.
Reliable secondary sources use footnotes to indicate where they get their information.
I'd like to suggest an addition to the section on the flu in popular culture. (I'd put it in myself, but the article is semi-protected.) Suggested entry to read:
In the play 1918 by Horton Foote, the presence and threat of the flu (and the tragedy it ultimately causes) is a major element of the plot. The 1979 play was made into a film, released in 1985, which was subsequently edited for broadcast by PBS as the last part of the miniseries "The Story of A Marriage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnneTG (talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the paragraph on Downton Abbey in the Popular Culture section, the final sentence about Matthew dying in a car accident in 1921 is a gratuitous plot spoiler that has no relevance to the article and should be removed. Furthermore, I would argue that Lavinia Swire's death from the 'flu ought not to be given away either, as this is also a major spoiler and, while relevant, is an unnecessarily specific detail for the purpose of the section. It would be sufficient to say this: "The final episode of series two of British televison drama Downton Abbey references the pandemic when several major and minor characters fall ill with Spanish influenza in April 1919." This would actually be more enlightening in terms of describing the program's treatment of the historical subject (i.e. several characters are infected), without giving away the key plot outcome.
"In Japan, 257,363 deaths were attributed to influenza by July 1919, giving an estimated 0.425% mortality rate, much lower than nearly all other Asian countries for which data are available." This sentence has at least two problems. Obviously they don't mean "mortality rate," which would imply over 60 million *infected* Japanese (of whom 234 out of 235 survived). Plus the claim may be factually incorrect; see: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/4/12-0103_article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)