Talk:Spanish flu

Death Toll

Here is what the sources say on the death toll:

• Knobler S, Mack A, Mahmoud A, Lemon S (eds.). "1: The Story of Influenza". The Threat of Pandemic Influenza: Are We Ready? Workshop Summary (2005). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. pp. 60–61. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

The 1918–1919 influenza pandemic killed more people in absolute numbers than any other disease outbreak in history. A contemporary estimate put the death toll at 21 million, a figure that persists in the media today, but understates the real number. Epidemiologists and scientists have revised that figure several times since then. Each and every revision has been upward. Frank Macfarlane Burnet, who won his Nobel Prize for immunology but who spent most of his life studying influenza, estimated the death toll as probably 50 million, and possibly as high as 100 million. A 2002 epidemiologic study also estimates the deaths at between 50 and 100 million (Johnson and Mueller, 2002).

Knobler cites Mueller. Here is what he has to say

• Johnson NP, Mueller J (2002). "Updating the accounts: global mortality of the 1918-1920 "Spanish" influenza pandemic". Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 76 (1): 105–15. doi:10.1353/bhm.2002.0022. PMID 11875246. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

...A 1991 paper revised the mortality as being in the range 24.7-39.3 million. This paper suggests that it was of the order of 50 million. However, it must be acknowledged that even this vast figure may be substantially lower than the real toll, perhaps as much as 100 percent understated.

I believe the two cited sources are saying the estimate should be "probably 50 million and perhaps as high as 100 million." ---- Work permit (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Arizona University?

In Spanish Flu research, the college is called the University of Arizona. No one calls it Arizona University. 2601:248:5181:B860:135:C82C:4214:8721 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: Small phrasing change (speculation)

In the introductory paragraph "This has led to speculation [...] Thus in 1918, China was spared from the worst ravages of the pandemic," starts by introducing the idea as uncertain, but then words it as having occurred. I would change "was" to "would have been". Small nitpick. Could someone do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceci N'Est Pas Un Contributeur (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Text added by obvious sockpuppet

A user is determined to add some badly written text about China to the article. They have used at least two different usernames to add it: see [1] and [2]. Those accounts were created on 20 and 25 September this year. A third account may be connected having made related edits: [3]. This user's current account has a username relating to pornography which is also inappropriate. Taputa (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I'm the user who added the text that you keep deleting [1], and I am not the same person as User:Lauraspinney or User:Interracial-is-best. Second of all, please show me an objection you have to the text I made. I have cited the following sources in support of what I wrote

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971207000355
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/3401475?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0968344513504525
• https://www.history.com/news/china-epicenter-of-1918-flu-pandemic-historian-says
• https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/1/140123-spanish-flu-1918-china-origins-pandemic-science-health/
• https://books.google.com/books?id=k79_8QX8n44C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Spanish+Influenza+Pandemic+of+1918-1919:+New+Perspectives&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu9oW2qafmAhVSIqwKHayhBQMQ6AEwAHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=China&f=false

Langford, Humphrey, KF Cheng, Saunders-Hastings, Killingray, among many other authors have supported the China origin hypothesis for the 1918 flu pandemic. I have cited published peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary papers that have supported this view. What exactly is wrong with what I wrote? I see you complain about the quality of writing and word choice. Well then, please improve it for me. English is not my first language, so if you think what I wrote needs improvement, please fix incorrect word-choices, grammar, or poor sentence structures. Other than that? What other problem is there with what I wrote?

Laputa-skye (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Two users, created days apart less than three months ago, both adding exactly the same large chunk of text, are very obviously sockpuppets. I therefore do not trust that it is accurate. You need to make the case here for why the article suddenly needs to be significantly changed. Taputa (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Both accounts have also edited Boxer Rebellion, so 2 in common out of the 12 and 5 articles the accounts have edited. If one looks at both sets of contributions, one sees that when one account is active, the other is not. Taputa (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Taputa: If you're going to make sockpuppetry allegations, then you should open a case at WP:SPI and do so properly, rather than continuing to edit war. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I have just reinserted the paragraphs in question. I don't see anything wrong with the English. I don't see in what way the editor's name has something to do with pornography (as Taputa says), nor what that has to do with whether his or her edit should be accepted. There was argument about whether it should be in the lede, but in the end he or she put that paragraph lower down, and then it was still deleted. I think it was unfair, and a case of people ganging up on someone. If someone has some objections to these paragraphs, then improve them, don't just revert! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Less affected areas

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

• For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
• If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
• If the page is protected, use one of the following:
  • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
  • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
  • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
  • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
  • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. Information to be added

The death toll in Russia has been estimated at 450,000, though the epidemiologists who suggested this number called it a "shot in the dark" . If it is correct, Russia lost roughly 0.2% of its population, meaning it suffered the lowest influenza-related mortality in Europe. This seems unlikely, given that the country was in the grip of a civil war, and the infrastructure of daily life had broken down. Data collected in Odessa, the most scientifically advanced Russian city at the time, and epidemiological analyses conducted in the 1950s, suggest that Russia's death toll was closer to 1.2%, or 2.7 million people

Estimates for the death toll in China have ranged from 1 million to 9 million , a range which reflects the lack of centralised collection of health data at the time. Iijima assumed that the flu arrived at the ports, and that poor communications prevented it from penetrating the interior, but contemporary newspaper and post office reports, as well as reports from missionary doctors, suggest that it did penetrate the interior and that it was bad there . The Chinese death toll may never be known, however.

Lauraspinney (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 22-DEC-2019

  Edit request declined  

• The |page= parameter has not been included with the Linney source.
• The citations are not formatted according to how a majority of sources in the article are, per WP:CITEVAR.
• Reasons have not been provided for why the requested material should be added.

Regards,  Spintendo  07:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Hello, I am wondering if the percentages stated about Russia are correct. If the numbers of 0.2% or 450,000 people, and 1% or 2.7 million people were correct, that would put the Russian population at that time at 225-270 million, higher than now (approx 145 million) and much higher than reported at that time (60-80 million). So I'm guessing that either the absolutes or the percentages here are wrong. Lennartbj (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Less affected areas

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

• For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
• If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
• If the page is protected, use one of the following:
  • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
  • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
  • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
  • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
  • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. Information to be added... because the current information is out-of-date and because I spent three years (2013-2016) travelling and conducting research to shed more light on what happened in these important areas (China, Russia). As I wrote in my suggested addition, the widely quoted 1991 Patterson & Pyle estimate for the death toll in Russia was, to quote them, a "shot in the dark" - they had no real data to work with. That is why my actual Russian data represent an improvement. With regards to China, the same authors were extrapolating from other countries and again had no local data to work with; I did. This is the second time I've tried to update this section and had my request refused (the first time without explanation). My name is not Linney but Spinney, as correctly spelled in my suggested addition, which I have now modified (below). If the citations are not correctly formatted, I would appreciate some help in doing so. Thank you!

The death toll in Russia has been estimated at 450,000, though the epidemiologists who suggested this number called it a "shot in the dark" . If it is correct, Russia lost roughly 0.2% of its population, meaning it suffered the lowest influenza-related mortality in Europe. This seems unlikely, given that the country was in the grip of a civil war, and the infrastructure of daily life had broken down. Data collected in Odessa, the most scientifically advanced Russian city at the time, and epidemiological analyses conducted in the 1950s, suggest that Russia's death toll was closer to 1.2%, or 2.7 million people

Estimates for the death toll in China have ranged from 1 million to 9 million , a range which reflects the lack of centralised collection of health data at the time. Iijima assumed that the flu arrived at the ports, and that poor communications prevented it from penetrating the interior, but contemporary newspaper and post office reports, as well as reports from missionary doctors, suggest that it did penetrate the interior and that it was bad there . The Chinese death toll may never be known, however.

Lauraspinney (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

References

You've stated that there is information in the article which is out of date. You have proposed here information that you say 'updates' the incorrect information, but you have not given the passage from the article which your proposed text is meant to replace. That is required for a substitution of text to be considered. Please provide the text which is to be replaced. If this is to be a straight addition to the article, then the text needs to be modified. It currently uses Wikipedia's voice to make certain assertions ("This seems unlikely, given that the country was in the grip of a civil war, and the infrastructure of daily life had broken down.") Those claims cannot be made using Wikipedia's voice, they need to be properly attributed to the author(s) making them. Regards,  Spintendo  20:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Less affected areas

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

• For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
• If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
• If the page is protected, use one of the following:
  • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
  • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
  • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
  • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
  • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. Information to be added. Spintendo, may I just laud your rigour and say that I wish it had been applied to the rest of the Spanish flu article, where theories are aired that are entirely speculative and have nothing other than circumstantial evidence to back them up (I'm referring to theories that favour one origin of the pandemic over any other, since there is no way of choosing between these currently). I have no theory, by the way. I'm just trying to provide better - though certainly not definitive - information. When I originally made my addition, there was existing text on China and Russia in this section. It has since been removed, again for reasons that have not been explained, but that I suspect have to do with the intervention and subsequent blocking of a sockpuppet. I hope the following passes muster. The point is that, until my book, Russia and China were considered to have been lightly affected. My information suggests that was not the case.

The death toll in Russia has been estimated at 450,000, though the epidemiologists who suggested this number called it a "shot in the dark" . If it is correct, Russia lost roughly 0.2% of its population, meaning it suffered the lowest influenza-related mortality in Europe. This is unlikely, according to the science journalist Laura Spinney, given that the country was in the grip of a civil war, and the infrastructure of daily life had broken down. Data collected in Odessa, the most scientifically advanced Russian city at the time, and epidemiological analyses conducted in the 1950s, suggest that Russia's death toll was closer to 1.2%, or 2.7 million people

Estimates for the death toll in China have ranged from 1 million to 9 million , a range which reflects the lack of centralised collection of health data at the time. Iijima assumed that the flu arrived at the ports, and that poor communications prevented it from penetrating the interior, but contemporary newspaper and post office reports, as well as reports from missionary doctors, collected by Spinney, suggest that it did penetrate the interior and that it was bad there . The Chinese death toll may never be known, however.

Lauraspinney (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

References

​ Done, I reworded a couple of sentences. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Þjarkur but the references aren't working correctly. Ref 22 does not link to my book, Pale Rider (please see ref in text above).

81.29.176.246 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

• For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
• If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
• If the page is protected, use one of the following:
  • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
  • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
  • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
  • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
  • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. A reference needs correcting in the following two paragraphs (the Spinney one doesn't currently work - I hope I've put it in the right format now; please help/advise if not). Also the text on China is currently inaccurate, since it doesn't capture the ongoing debate over that country. I think it's important to say why this debate exists (because there was no centralised collection of health data in China at the time; this was the warlord period). If a reference is needed for this latter statement, either Iijima or Spinney could be given.

Extended content

The death toll in Russia was estimated at 450,000 in 1991, though the epidemiologists who suggested this number called it a "shot in the dark". If it is correct, Russia lost roughly 0.2% of its population, meaning it suffered the lowest influenza-related mortality in Europe. Another study considers this number unlikely given that the country was in the grip of a civil war, and suggests that Russia's death toll was closer to 1.2%, or 2.7 million people. The Chinese death toll may never be known, because there was no centralised collection of health data in China at the time. Some estimates suggest it was mild there , but these assume that the flu arrived at the ports and that poor communications prevented it from penetrating the interior. Other studies suggest these assumptions are not valid. Spinney, Laura (2017). Pale Rider: The Spanish Flu of 1918 and How it Changed The World. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 978-1-910702-37-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Lauraspinney (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

References

The ref tag as it was formatted by Thjarkur has been corrected (it was not displaying because the ref tag name ":0" was already engaged by another reference). Whether or not the text that this ref tag was placed under is incorrect, I'll leave for them to fix.  Spintendo  18:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I had worked on this in my sandbox and didn't notice the clash. Have fixed. Dazoutti added "to 2.7 million" to Russia but did not explain whether this was information from the cited source, feel free to add again if this is what the cited source says. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Journal Article Confirms Experimental Bacterial Meningitis Vaccine Administered at Fort Riley Shortly Before First 1918 Flu Outbreak

Following meningitis outbreaks in 1917, the U.S. military attempted to develop a bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses which they began administering experimentally in multiple series from late 1917 through February 1918 to soldiers at Fort Riley, Kansas where shortly thereafter the first known incidences of "Spanish Flu" were documented. The first case was Albert Gitchell who reported his illness on March 4, 1918. The administration of experimental vaccinations is confirmed by a journal article obtained from the National Institute of Health published by Dr. Frederick L. Gates, M.D., U.S. Army Medical Corp. from the Base Hospital at Fort Riley, Kansas, in cooperation with The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, entitled "A Report on Antimeningitis Vaccinations and Observations in Agglutinins in the Blood of Chronic Meningococcus Carriers," The Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol. XXVIII, submitted for publication July 1918. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126288/pdf/449.pdf Brom4880 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Chinese version of the article

The Chinese version of the article has been redacted so as not to mention any link with China. I am not a native Chinese speaker and do not feel my language level is good enough to add the mentions and sources redacted in the Chinese version of the article.

Furthermore, the Chinese version of the article actually blames Spain for the 1918 outbreak. Such rewriting of history and spread of misleading information is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.16.166.214 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

how about: The Prohibition Pandemic? Robbiekabali (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe that it should continue to be called Spanish Flu. It is the name people know the pandemic from, and has been that name for more than 100 years. We should not let political correctness change things that don’t need to be changed. PJM70 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting a name change.

I suggest that the title of this article be changed to "1918 Influenza Pandemic" or "1918 Flu Pandemic" as "Spanish Flu" is a very informal name and has the potential to carry false implications with it, something I don't think I've seen on any other Wikipedia article. Even the opening line says "1918 Influenza Pandemic" and specifically denotes "Spanish Flu" as a nickname for the event. I just find it weird that this article would be titled "Spanish Flu" and not say one of the titles I suggested or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.213.47 (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd disagree. "Spanish flu" is the name it's generally known by; encyclopaedias are supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and I'm unconvinced that there would be a net gain by obfuscating a long-recognised name. --Vometia (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You could always redirect people to "1918 Flu Pandemic" but it's much better to head the article with an outright lie, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.124.123 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Even the first line says that is a colloquial name. Just take the example of the 'Asian flu': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H2N2#Asian_flu Jesusinacka (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

The calculation of the mortality rate is wrong here: "In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected, and 500,000 to 675,000 died (4.8 to 6.4 percent)."

If 28% of the population became infected, that is 29,400,000 people. 500,000 to 675,000 of those people dying is 1.7 to 2.3 percent Asg1986 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I took that percentage out for now. It looks like a misplaced decimal point. By my math, those numbers come to 0.48 to 0.64 percent of the 105 million population (or as you say, 1.7 to 2.3 percent of the infected population). Pinging User:Eric Kvaalen who added this to the article earlier today. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ElHef: Thanks for pinging me. You're right. I used the Google Search box at the top of my browser to do the division, and just did (5)/105 and (675)/105, and then used the answers without thinking enough about where the decimal point should go! It's strange that the death rate was ten times lower than worldwide. I've fix'd it now. By the way, you could have just fix'd it yourself, but I'm glad that you pointed out my error to me. Asg1986, I mean percent of the total population. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

What is so strange? I could find only two places where both infected/deaths are known (USA and Japan), and they have consistent mortality rates! --Ilya-zz (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ilya-zz: It's true that the percentage of those affected who died was similar in Japan and in the US (at least 1.7% in Japan and between 1.7 and 2.3% in the US). But this is a lot lower than the figure of 10% or 20% at the beginning of the section Spanish flu#Around the globe. Actually, what I meant was that it's strange that the percentage of the whole population that died was so low, (much lower than the 3 to 6 percent in the lede) but that's because a low percentage of those who caught the illness in Japan or the US died. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

For clarity, in the "Aspirin Poisoning" section change: "They questioned the universal applicability of the aspirin theory, given the high mortality rate in countries such as India, where there was little or no access to aspirin at the time compared to the rate where aspirin was plentiful."

to: "They questioned the universal applicability of the aspirin theory, given the high mortality rate in countries such as India, where there was little or no access to aspirin at the time compared to the death rate in regions where aspirin was plentiful." Sfletchertaylor (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

More on Death Toll

I propose to change the layout of quotes about mortality. The minor reason is that (Knobler, 2005) only quotes (Johnson and Mueller, 2002); what is the purpose to refering to them both at the same place?! (Currently this is [43][5] in Spanish_flu#Around_the_globe.)

The second reason is that (Patterson and Pyle, 1991) is also misquoted in the text of the article, as 40–50 instead of their “24.7–39.3”, with “the prefered number 30”. (I copy these quotes from Johnson and Mueller, 2002, p.108; cannot find the original paper now.)

---

The major reason is that (Johnson and Mueller, 2002) seems very questionable. They write:

   The tables represent the compilation of our knowledge of the pandemic.

So let’s look in their tables, and compare these tables with their conclusions:

Continent/Country	Total	Remark
Africa	∼2,375,000	Sub-Saharan is much more than the sum of the entries; no explanation is given
Americas	∼1,540,000	There is a reasonable match with the entries
China	4M – 9.5M	(in millions)
India	18,500,000
Indonesia	1,500,000
Rest of Asia	1,354,000 –	This is the sum of the remaining entries in the table 320+92+388+94+25+215+220 (minimums)
Rest of Asia	– 2,649,000	This is the sum of the remaining entries in the table 320+92+388+94+25+430+1300 (maximums)
Europe	∼2,300,000	There is a reasonable match with the entries
Oceania	85,000

CONCLUSION: the global total is 31.6–38.5 million deaths. This more or less matches the estimate 24.7–39.3 of (Patterson and Pyle, 1991, p.15, as quoted in Johnson and Mueller; currently [3] in the list of references).

So: the numbers 50–100 millions in the conclusion of Johnson and Mueller are taken out of thin air. (Similarly for their total for Asia! In their table they give the total for Asia 26M – 36M, while the summation gives 4+18.5+1.5+1.35=25.35; 9.5+18.5+1.5+2.65=32.15. This gives a discrepancy of 650,000–3,850,000 taken out of thin air.)

CONCLUSION: Quoting the (sensationalistic?) global totals from Johnson and Mueller leads to a massive overblow of scientifically obtained data.

---

Proposal: Replace direct references to Johnson and Mueller by the table above, with the global total of 31.6–38.5 million appended. Mention their (sensational) claims of 50M and 100M as a complementary information, next to this table. --Ilya-zz (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lauraspinney: Hi Laura. What do you say about the above? I see there's a quote in the article from your book that somewhat contradicts it:

“In terms of single events causing major loss of life, it surpassed the First World War (17 million dead), the Second World War (60 million dead), and possibly both put together.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I sent e-mail to Laura and she replied, giving me a new 2018 reference, so I have edited the article to include its estimate, which is only 17 million. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

please could someone just sort this out? Thanks. It’s 25th Feb today and still no correlation between the lede and the Mortality section. Lede has 50 million odd dead out of 500 million infected. 1st para of Mortality section has WHO saying 2-3% of those infected and then contradicts itself with approx 30 million deaths or 1.7% of the then world pop. It’s rather a mess, but altho it’s all historic, due to the coronavirus thing it’s actually of high importance. Boscaswell talk 10:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of presenting Johnson and Muellers table. We should also note their 50m, possible 100m number but if this number is not the most reliable number we should not default to using it as the sole number in the lede. The lede itself is misleading since the only numbers quoted are the two highest numbers from one source. ---- Work permit (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Case-fatality ratio

This article lists infection and fatality totals as follows:

 "It infected 500 million people around the world... The death toll is estimated to have been 40 million to 50 million, and possibly as high as 100 million"

 "It is estimated that approximately 30 million were killed by the flu, ... Other estimates range from 17 to 55 million fatalities."

By these numbers, the case-fatality ratio would be 3.4-20%, which doesn't comport with the 2-3% case-fatality ratio cited by the WHO in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykessler (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The WHO document cited by the article in turn cites another document, which itself is also not the source of the case-fatality ratio being reported. The ultimate source appears to be this 2006 paper by Jeffery K. Taubenbergerand David M. Morens: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291398/ . The authors give the case-fatality ratio as "greater than 2.5 percent" rather than a specific value or even a range. Their estimate is in turn based on three other sources for number of infections and number of deaths, but they combine the numbers from the sources in ways which produce inconsistent and unreliable results for case-fatality ratios and mortality rates.

This section probably needs a good deal of untangling after exploring the various sources. Here is a twitter thread discussing some of the issues: https://twitter.com/ferrisjabr/status/1232052631826100224 73.122.251.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is quite a serious oversight. Is there something an occasional editor can do? (bring this to attention?) Jonsku99 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

I think a section clearing describing the spread of the outbreak from the start to the finish could really benefit the article. There's already quite a bit of the info in the article but it's in many different sections and seems incomplete. I appreciate that it'd be more helpful if I actually started doing this myself but I really don't feel skilled enough to do it. Perhaps there's someone else who is more able? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanivanovich (talk • contribs) 09:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Same strain or not?

There is some confusion in the section Deadly second wave.

"In the trenches, natural selection was reversed. Soldiers with a mild strain stayed where they were, while the severely ill were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals, spreading the deadlier virus."

"The fact that most of those who recovered from first-wave infections had become immune showed that it must have been the same strain of flu."

Was it the same strain or not? Even if there is disagreement on this, the section should state as such rather than simply stating two contradictory theses one after the other.

It's also conceivable that strains were similar enough that the immune system response worked, but if so, this should be explained. Of course, it's possible to find contradictory expert sources, but internal consistency should be maintained.

--100.4.146.206 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The numbers dont add up

The WHO report they use as a source is not about the Spanish Flu, but simply mentions it in passing. It does indeed say 2-3% of those infected died, but gives no source for this, and also claims this represents 20-50 million people.

The trouble with that is the higher range of this estimate (50 million as 2% of total cases) gives a figure of 2.5 billion total cases. Which is higher than the entire population of the world at the time!(1.8 billion).

So something is clearly amiss.

Worse still, the WHO is the only source we have found so far that claims a death toll of 20 million. Most sources, such as the CDC (and see here), broadly agree that between 50 million and 100 million people died of the Spanish Flu (although one recent study wildly differs, see below). In order for 50-100 million deaths to be 2-3% of total cases there would have had to be 2.5 billion – 5 billion cases. JustSwanzy (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)JustSwanzy

References

Mortality Rate

Who changed the mortality rate? With an estimated 50 million deaths, a claim of 2% mortality would increase the world population from 1.8 billion to 2.5 billion.

Another estimate was 100 million deaths which implies 100% infection and a world population of 5 billion. The world population was 1.8 billion to 1.9 billion. Tazhawkeye (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Serious problem with Spanish flu article?

Seems there may be a serious problem with the Wikipedia Spanish flu article according to recent news.

An earlier entry, apparently correct, was changed to one that may not have been correct (on February 22, 2020). Earlier and Current edit => It is estimated that one third of the global population was infected, and the World Health Organization estimates that 2–3% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio).[failed verification]

I tried to restore the apparently incorrect entry to one that was correct - and this time with several updated references - as follows: New edit => The global mortality rate from the 1918–1919 pandemic is not known, but an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio). About a third of the world population was infected, and something between 1% and 5.6% of the entire global population of over 1800 million died.

However - my edit was reverted and a discussion requested.

If interested - some of my own thinking about this Spanish flu information:

Fatalities (est) = as high as 100 million.

Infected (est) = 620 million ("one-third" of world population).

World population 1920 = 1,860 million.

Case-fatality ratio (CFR) => 2.5%.

This CFR may be much too low according to others.

My own calculation => Case-Fatalities Ratio = 100 million/620 million = 16% CFR

Comments Welcome from other Editors - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Reference 1 isn't "news"; it's a batshit-insane conspiracy theory website. That being said, the 2-3% figure really is problematic; however, there's considerable variation in sources about the actual death toll and number of cases. There are a couple approaches here: decide on the best sources and 1) give ranges for each sourced to the lot; 2) give a list of pairs of numbers so as not to commingle a low death toll with a high number of cases (or vice-versa). In either case, calculation of the fatality rate is a trivial matter at that point. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A follow up article by the same writer explains how the wrong figure of 2.5% was obtained. Firstly she makes the obvious point that “a death-rate of 50-100 million and a CFR of 2.5% can’t co-exist” based on the world population at the time. She says “ A recent Twitter thread by Ferres Jabr, a science writer for the NYT magazine, does a lot to expose how the two twisted and irreconcilable stats – 50-100 million dead and a CFR of 2.5% originally came about“. In summary:

But in 2002 a new study corrected the lacuna in non-Western cases and produced the estimate of worldwide deaths we are familiar with now – 50-100 million. This meant the CFR was no longer 2.5% but now 10-20% of total estimated cases. Then a later study, from 2006, used these updated fatality figures, but omitted to update the CFR, citing it as still 2.5%. Which meant it was offering the impossible and contradictory number recently adopted by Wikipedia.

Burrobert (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone going to attempt to fix the error? I haven’t been watching the page long enough to know its history including the reason for using that death rate. I suggest removing mention of the death rate until a sensible figure can be found. Any ideas? Burrobert (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Burrobert: added following edit summary => "rm questionable text/refs per suggestion on talk at => Talk:Spanish flu#Serious problem with Spanish flu article? - at least until better text/refs are determined." - hope that's now ok - please comment if otherwise of course - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

excellent thanks Drbogdan.Burrobert (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

1918 flu, not Spanish flu

It is well established today that this flu was neither originated nor particularly spread in Spain. Furthermore, it is also well established that naming pandemias after regions is misleading (from a mechanistic point of view) and also stigmatizing. Why not having then the official name 1918 flu as the primary article name which other names redirect to? Gaianauta (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a rename to 1918 flu pandemic with a redirect from "Spanish flu" makes sense for the reasons Gaianauta states. A search returns lots of hits on it, such as the CDC, History.com, Britannica, CBS, and so on. Schazjmd (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Legacy 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

I added a sentence regarding the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic today, which has been reverted by Deacon Vorbis for being "vague". I don't see why that's a reason to remove it; it certainly can be made less vague by building upon it and expanding it. I think the connection is clearly there, and relevance is easily checked by how many sources are making the connection. Adding my proposed addition to the Legacy section below.Renerpho (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Comparisons have also been drawn between the Spanish flu pandemic and the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, in particular when it comes to the recommendation of social distancing.

A few comments. First, being vague is definitely a reason not to include something. If a comparison was made, what was it? Is it a valid comparison? It's like saying, "A comparison has been made between apples and oranges, particularly in regards to their appropriateness in fruit salad." It's so generic as to be meaningless.

This is potentially a bit too soon as well; it's obvious to want to do this based on current events, but is there anything specific to the current pandemic that makes the comparison particularly worth mentioning versus comparisons to others? If there is something worth saying here (and there very well might be), it might be more appropriate in an article on the current outbreak, making the comparison to a historical event—at least until things have quieted down some and it can be given at least a little historical perspective. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what you mean (the apple analogy was clear). I'll leave it out and see if it's worth thinking about alternatives. Renerpho (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

References

SUPPORT: Modern secondary sources are moving over to this title. Lizzie Harrison 21:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia's own articles, it was actually an Injustice to Center the focus on Spain itself, and ironic that's Spain's free press at the time was partially the cause of this because other countries where's suppressing their coverage during wartime. Bobsearch (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2020

Spanish flu → 1918 influenza pandemic – Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Health_incidents_and_outbreaks, the guideline says we need to have where and when it happened. This title was listed in the guideline as 1918 influenza pandemic, but I removed it for now to get a consensus on whether there should a move. Interstellarity (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support move. Spanish flu is another name for this epidemic, and we can keep a redirect; but the correct name is the 1918 influenza pandemic. This disease did not start in Spain, so it should not be called the Spanish flu. Even today, WHO cautions against using the term "Wuhan coronavirus" for nCoV-19; but at least that would be accurate given that nCoV19 did start in Wuhan.
• Support move. I guess the main argument to keep would be WP:COMMONNAME. And while it's hardly an exhaustive survey, I feel like the proposed name comes up much more commonly, and certainly feels like a more formal, official title as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  To clarify just a little, I think even COMMONNAME favors the move. At worst, it's a tossup, and in that case, I think we should defer to something more "official". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose move. It is widely know as the Spanish flu. It is as much a historical event than a medical one. Are you going to apply this guideline to Black Death too ?--Aréat (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  But this is widely known as the 1918 influenza pandemic. I had hardly ever seen it referred to as anything else. The analogy with the Black Death doesn't really work either, since no one ever refers to that by the year or the bacterium which caused it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Aréat: I feel that the title Black Death is fine because that is what it is most commonly called. I feel in this case, it is common to refer to it either way. Interstellarity (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support move. Over time, the colloquial "Spanish flu" name has been overtaken by more precise and more accurate naming by reliable sources, the CDC, History.com, Britannica, CBS, and so on. Schazjmd (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. Yes we know it may not have been from Spain. But that's its indelible name now._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. a change will hurt our users--and will not help Spain any. Rjensen (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, nominator cited a ignored the clause of "If there is an established, common name for an event ... use that name." at the beginning of the cited guideline. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 19:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support move. It isn't simply either/or, since there could be a redirect from "Spanish flu". Spanish WP of course already has "Pandemia de gripe de 1918". Errantius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yes definitely. Gah seriously we have it at Spanish flu. 1918 influenza pandemic is what the CDC[4] Britannica[5], and WHO[6] call it. Though would go with 1918-20 influenza pandemic maybe Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• support per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Move. 1918 influenza pandemic is more "official", used by WHO/CDC and other institutions, it's happened in modern times and we know a lot more about this pandemic compared to other historic pandemics (such as Black Death). "Spanish Flu" is more like something belong in history class.Ckfasdf (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name. "Spanish flu" is by far more popular than any other "more official" name. While not perfect, Google search results clearly illustrate that:
  • "Spanish flu" 13M results
  • "1918 influenza" 644k results
  • "1918 flu" 429k results
  • "1918 pandemic" 118k results + "pandemic of 1918" 233k results Renata (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. PlanetStar 04:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Ridiculous proposal. -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • some recent scholarship: 1) "The Spanish Flu and the Sanitary Dictatorship: Mexico's Response to the 1918 Influenza Pandemic." The Americas 76.3 (2019): 443-465. (2) "Health shocks and human capital accumulation: the case of Spanish flu in Italian regions." Regional Studies 50.9 (2016): 1496-1508. (3) " GRIPE ESPANHOLA: UMA HISTORIOGRAFIA CENTENÁRIA REVISITADA" Ler Historia (France). 2018, Issue 73, p21-43. (4) "LA GRIPPE ESPAGNOLE EN ITALIE, 1918-1920." Nuova Rivista Storica (Italy) 2015, Vol. 99 Issue 1, pp 195-226. (5) "The Recent Wave of ‘Spanish’ Flu Historiography." Social History of Medicine (2014), Vol. 27 Issue 4, p789-808. Rjensen (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. As it HAS been known by both names, the year date is much more specific and immediately associated to the pandemic than the vague, incorrect and misleading geographical naming. Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong death rate

The 2.5% death rate mentioned at the end of the "Around the globe" in Mortality is erroneous and is contradictory to the No. of deaths/No. of cases in the same study (which gives ≈10% CFR). Read more here: Is Not the Spanish Flu 2001:8F8:1333:956C:7983:AF6E:29FB:76FD (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Yes - *entirely* agree - text now removed from the main article until better text/refs determined - please see related discussion above at => "Talk:Spanish flu#Serious problem with Spanish flu article?" - thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)