@EricPhDing If only there were freely accessible reviews summarizing the history of influenza... https://t.co/Yl8zrxkPJL
@day_natomy @ailsa_graham Oh, I know the background of 1918 H1N1 quite well: https://t.co/Yl8zrxkhUd
@Dave99117584 @19joho @SalvMattera @BallouxFrancois If someone conflates CFR with IFR, in science we don't seek to compromise with them in an argument to moderation, or pander to their 'centrist' fans. We explain why they're wrong. Science is about evide
RT @ejustin46: A CENTURY LATER, H1N1 and its DESCENDANTS are STILL THERE ! Let's hope that we won't have to paraphrase the title of this i…
A CENTURY LATER, H1N1 and its DESCENDANTS are STILL THERE ! Let's hope that we won't have to paraphrase the title of this interesting study with : "SARS-CoV-2 four years of terror, a century of reflection!" https://t.co/FsdTBZpXJP
@JonPloug Fascinating detective work! Yes, the age demographics of deaths during the 1918 influenza pandemic were different than seen with Covid. And that flu killed lots of young men during WWI. Those differences might be signatures of the causal viral ag
@RiderMaelstrom @mauveTriforce @Brkr_Morant @Covid19Ls @LobotomizedM1 @GYamey @InCytometry @MaryanneDemasi That's CFR, not IFR. I get that non-expert contrarians like you + Breaker don't grasp the difference. https://t.co/tsYHEq8pII https://t.co/0mbwrid
@Michigan_Noah @doritmi @thereal_truther I guess I should rename our review “A year of natural blessing - goodbye toxins!” 🤦♂️ https://t.co/OhZ1C2JKnt
3/B Because not all infections end up being reported, IFR will not exceed CFR. But 0.67% was given as a CFR for the 1957 influenza pandemic, not an IFR. So IFR for 1957 was less than 0.67%, making COVID-19 worse in comparison. https://t.co/isEEqoIGso
⤵👏 THIS
@SimRelic Hmmm…people rarely die of the flu. I have some data that suggests otherwise for seasonal flu averages: “resulting in an estimated 3–5 million cases of severe illness and 291,243–645,832 deaths annually worldwide, according to a recent estimate [1
@business "The 1918 H1N1 pandemic virus spread across Europe, North America, and Asia over a 12-month period resulting in an estimated 500 million infections and 50–100 million deaths worldwide, of which ~ 50% of these occurred within the fall of 1918." h
@Versemmelter @ZinCovid_19 @_lnnen_WT @Karl_Lauterbach Fazit: Wir wissen viel und doch noch so wenig - und das, was wir wissen, haben wir scheinbar vergessen 🤔 https://t.co/PHPkz87UZR
@eliaseythorsson Influenza and pneumonia fatality rates in those aged 15–34 years were more than 20 times higher than in previous years and absolute risk of influenza-related death was higher in those < 65 years of age than those > 65 years old https
@CallMeAl10 @Dinocaridid @SailorMouthNJ @tamjak @JonahDispatch Re: "By order of magnitude, this is still broadly in line with the 1957 influenza pandemic (IFR of ~0.67%)" Nope. CFR is not IFR. https://t.co/isEEqoIGso
@HeckofaLiberal @Anicka10 @abirballan @Stanford You're still not addressing your lie about 0.67% being an IFR, when it's actually a CFR, so you move on to a new pathetic evasion... 🥱 https://t.co/8HqFCEnRuX https://t.co/o6m6l1ELB0 "Case fatality rates w
@HeckofaLiberal @Anicka10 @abirballan @Stanford Re: "IFR is based on estimates of all the cases. CFR is based on actual confirmed cases." Yet you pretended the "0.67%" CFR was actually an IFR. You still have no integrity. 🙄 https://t.co/B1q6CxpA0G http
@The_Colonel_Dax @HeckofaLiberal @Jackson90771068 @abirballan @Stanford Re: "ways these numbers can be interpreted" Pretending the CFR is the IFR, as @HeckofaLiberal did, isn't just some different "interpret[ation]". It's a lie. Tone trolling about (imag
@HeckofaLiberal @abirballan @Stanford Re: "Keep in mind that pandemic flu like 1957 had an IFR of roughly 0.67%" No, it didn't. That was its CFR, not its IFR. CFR for SARS-CoV-2 is much higher than 0.67%. https://t.co/O9qJb5P5mo https://t.co/0DRR2GhZMC
@trader_critical Re: “IFR of 9%-17” IFR cannot be more than CFR, and CFR is not that high. But again, thank you for illustrating how many denialist defenders of Ioannidis just make stuff up to suit their ideology. You just have no integrity. 🤷🏾♂️ https
@greg_travis @danjcyr @ZachariaKing28 @Mollie_Whuppie @MLevitt_NP2013 Comparable CFRs as well. https://t.co/YG9Mbiictc https://t.co/AxmJq9lHLZ
@bhetland17 @SaskHealth Literally zero of this is correct. Influenza kills 290,000-650,000 annually (https://t.co/OhZ1C2s9vV). And pandemics in 1957, 1968 and 2009 did not have a 7% fatality rate. You would almost say pandemics are related to global transm
@wayounihan @wordfinga @LavaletteAstrid @mirvatalasnag @rahatheart1 @KTamirisaMD @DocSavageTJU @mmamas1973 @DrIanWeissman @CancerGeek History repeat itself. The 1918 Flu Pandemic: Why It Matters 100 Years Later? Sink or swim & use your common sense👇🏿 h
RT @kumicit: 1957-58インフルエンザの感染者の死亡率は0.67% 1918-20グレートインフルエンザの感染者の死亡率は2.5%を上回る。このときは若い世代にも大きな被害が出ている。 https://t.co/JavoPMr8dW
1957-58インフルエンザの感染者の死亡率は0.67% 1918-20グレートインフルエンザの感染者の死亡率は2.5%を上回る。このときは若い世代にも大きな被害が出ている。 https://t.co/JavoPMr8dW
@MS2513479406 @beandiagram @HCashny @zorinaq Re: "This virus is not more deadly than the 1957/68 flu or any other in above list." You're just making stuff up (as usual) to suit your right-wing ideology. Same thing you do on anthropogenic climate change.
@MS2513479406 @HCashny @zorinaq And SARS-CoV-2 has a higher CFR. "Case fatality rates were approximately 0.67% [for the 1957–1958 Asian flu pandemic]" https://t.co/0mbwridjqu https://t.co/07scT1UJGa https://t.co/lqFjhyCoyZ
@MS2513479406 @Jasperlope Re: "That's" So you basically can't admit you're wrong when evidence debunks your position. Good to know; it shows you're driven more by ideology and denialism, than by honest interest in evidence. Don't lie to me about flu pand
@MS2513479406 @zorinaq @GidMK @DrEricDing @SafaMote @JasonSalemi @youyanggu @koko_vivian @firefoxx66 @CT_Bergstrom @nataliexdean Re: "from 57 and 68 flu pandemics" U don't what you're talking about; this is not your field: https://t.co/2mbTxhGiz8 Re: "If
RT @mtmalinen: Interestingly, the same occurred during the Spring and Fall waves of the "Spanish flu" in 1918. Those infected in the first…
RT @mtmalinen: Interestingly, the same occurred during the Spring and Fall waves of the "Spanish flu" in 1918. Those infected in the first…
Interestingly, the same occurred during the Spring and Fall waves of the "Spanish flu" in 1918. Those infected in the first wave, had around 94% protection against the second wave. 🤔 #coronavirus #HerdImmunity 👉https://t.co/J4AY6sRJYO
@greg_travis @BallouxFrancois Re: "What you are calling "spreading fear" the rest of us call facing reality and acting responsibly." Exactly. But remember, you're dealing with someone who conflates CFR with IFR in a way that illegitimately downplays SAR
@max___Q Re: "You're actually" You're not going to move the goalposts to another topic, just because you got caught in a lie. Why did you pretend the IFR for 1957 for ~0.6%, when that's actually the CFR, not the IFR? https://t.co/0mbwridjqu https://t.co
@max___Q Re: "The IFR for that disease is 0.65, and literally no one else agrees with you." I respond to trolls like u, b/c it helps show others people how dishonest u COVID-19 denialists. You'll lie no matter what, and u have no honest interest in eviden
@max___Q @TechyTeacher32 @WolperEW @gallowayj @nicolergalloway @stltoday Re: "The IFR for the 1957 flu was around 0.6." You're a liar. 🙂 That's the CFR, not the IFR, no matter how many times you deceitfully pretend otherwise. https://t.co/0mbwridjqu htt
@max___Q @TechyTeacher32 @WolperEW @gallowayj @nicolergalloway @stltoday Re: "You lack reading comprehension. I said the IFR for C19 was similar to 1957" You lack integrity, which is common among you politically-motivated, COVID-19 contrarians. Once agai
@max___Q @TechyTeacher32 @WolperEW @gallowayj @nicolergalloway @stltoday Re: "less severe that 1957" https://t.co/2mbTxhGiz8 Re: "Where was your fear in 2017-18? When 80,000 died?" About an order of magnitude less than for SARS-CoV-2. 2017 - 2018: 61,0
@max___Q @TechyTeacher32 @WolperEW @gallowayj @nicolergalloway @stltoday Re: "I said this was roughly same IFR as 57 pandemic (~0.6%)." You confused CFR with IFR. The *CFR* (not the CFR) for 1957 was ~0.6%. The *CFR* for SARS-CoV-2 is ~3%. So ~5X worse.
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @CollignonPeter @GidMK Re: "Spanish flu 1918/19, mortality was 1 to 2% in those in 20s to 30s" Source: https://t.co/N6…
@CollignonPeter @GidMK Re: "Spanish flu 1918/19, mortality was 1 to 2% in those in 20s to 30s" Source: https://t.co/N6xf88zMRJ Spanish flu's CFR is comparable to that of SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19. The IFR for Spanish flu is pretty obscure. https://t.co/YG9M
RT @AtomsksSanakan: Re: "As a reminder to the 'COVID-19 is like a seasonal flu' folks (a.k.a. Ioannidis' crew): It ain't the flu. If its l…
@HenningT6 Re: "Most people confuse SARS-CoV-2 with a flu, but they still don't see that the flu-comparison would mean the real flu e.g. Spanish flu and not the Common Cold." Yup. https://t.co/YG9Mbiictc
RT @AtomsksSanakan: Re: "As a reminder to the 'COVID-19 is like a seasonal flu' folks (a.k.a. Ioannidis' crew): It ain't the flu. If its l…
Re: "As a reminder to the 'COVID-19 is like a seasonal flu' folks (a.k.a. Ioannidis' crew): It ain't the flu. If its left unmitigated, the only valid flu comparison in terms of total deaths would be 1918." https://t.co/vZIuQAz7Bs https://t.co/0mbwridjqu
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @GidMK We can add this to @BallouxFrancois incorrectly downplaying the severity of SARS-CoV-2-induced COVID-19 by confl…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @GidMK We can add this to @BallouxFrancois incorrectly downplaying the severity of SARS-CoV-2-induced COVID-19 by confl…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @GidMK We can add this to @BallouxFrancois incorrectly downplaying the severity of SARS-CoV-2-induced COVID-19 by confl…
@GidMK We can add this to @BallouxFrancois incorrectly downplaying the severity of SARS-CoV-2-induced COVID-19 by conflating CFR with IFR. For *months*. https://t.co/WMipwanSaf https://t.co/Tlcbh28o6S
@AlexBerenson @CDCgov Re: "So it's laughable for Berenson to claim SARS-CoV-2 is category 2. If left unmitigated (as per the CDC document), then it's category 5. 1918 would then be the only apt flu comparison." https://t.co/vZIuQAz7Bs https://t.co/0mbwri
RT @crabb_vicki: This is a very informative article about the 1918 influenza pandemic written by my favorite virologist, Jason Kindrachuk!…
This is a very informative article about the 1918 influenza pandemic written by my favorite virologist, Jason Kindrachuk! I recommend following Jason!
RT @CovidSerology: @BallouxFrancois Prof Francois, the IFR for the 1957 flu pandemic is not 0.67%. That's the CFR for that pandemic. A like…
@BallouxFrancois Prof Francois, the IFR for the 1957 flu pandemic is not 0.67%. That's the CFR for that pandemic. A like for like comparable IFR is likely 0.35% which is likely assuming a 50% asymptomatic ratio for the 1957 flu. https://t.co/UpC2ayk0BH
@jessieabbate @BallouxFrancois @WvSchaik ‘Further, more than 99% of fatal infections occurred in those < 65 years of age and nearly 50% of all influenza-related deaths during the 1918 pandemic were in those aged 20–40 ‘ https://t.co/O51yqn60Zc
@LiamMul06011618 @JohnAALogan @AlistairHaimes The second wave of the 1918 pandemic differed from the first in that much higher morbidity and mortality rates were reported, with the majority of all fatalities associated with the pandemic occurring during th
@BioBreakout Do you read? The influenza pandemic of 1918 was less lethal than COVID-19. https://t.co/fPSpE4dYYd
Lessons from 1918-19 flu pandemic https://t.co/z6ckTCPZUL 1st Wave: Mar 1918 morbidity rates high / mortality rates "normal" 2nd Wave: Aug 1918 morbidity rates and mortatility rates high 3rd Wave: Jan 1919 morbidity rates low/ mortality rates high @Ep
@kevinault Absolutely https://t.co/OhZ1C2s9vV
@Suenowlarsen @HenningTveit @JNTHN_LCKWD Here’s a link to our recent review of this. I’m not guessing, I’m an emerging virus researcher https://t.co/xLiJMSEyp2
RT @KindrachukJason: Congrats to Michaela for her second influenza paper published in 2019...a unique perspectives piece on the 1918-1919 p…
Congrats Michaela!
RT @BMC_series: Michaela Nickol and @KindrachukJason reflect on the great influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 a century onward, in their articl…
Travel back in time - if you lived 100 yr ago, would you vaccinate (if only it existed)...🔮 A year of terror and a century of reflection: perspectives on the great influenza pandemic of 1918–1919 | BMC Infectious Diseases | Full Text https://t.co/LUxz9ZwBl
RT @BMC_series: Michaela Nickol and @KindrachukJason reflect on the great influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 a century onward, in their articl…
RT @BMC_series: Michaela Nickol and @KindrachukJason reflect on the great influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 a century onward, in their articl…
RT @BMC_series: Michaela Nickol and @KindrachukJason reflect on the great influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 a century onward, in their articl…
RT @BMC_series: Michaela Nickol and @KindrachukJason reflect on the great influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 a century onward, in their articl…
Michaela Nickol and @KindrachukJason reflect on the great influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 a century onward, in their article recently published in BMC Infectious Diseases. https://t.co/HtWDaX18k7 #BMCInfectDis @umanitoba https://t.co/8zYJvCoHZE
Congrats to Michaela for her second influenza paper published in 2019...a unique perspectives piece on the 1918-1919 pandemic. Great work! https://t.co/OhZ1C2s9vV #proudPI #1918flu