Talk:1977 Russian flu/Archive 1

Archive 1

morbidity rate vs attack rate

The 'history of outbreak' section contains the following line "The first outbreak in the U.S was reported in a high school in Cheyenne, where the morbidity rate was more than 70% but involved solely students.[2][6]" Cite 2 (The Lancet) says the following "The first outbreak caused by this strain in the USA was in a high school in Cheyenne, WY, where the attack rate was more than 70%, but involved solely students; no illness was reported among faculty.3 High attack rates were seen in schools and military bases throughout the USA. There were few reports of this H1N1 strain in people older than 26 years and the death rate in affected individuals was low.2" Emphasis mine. Its not clear to me that 'attack rate' from the Lancet is the same as 'morbidity rate' which is what we say. I cant access the Jama article that is cite 6. Can anyone who has access to the Jama network take a look and see how they describe it? Im going to change the text to point to Attack rate unless the Jama article or some other source contradicts this. Bonewah (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I have academic access. Here's what the paper says (page 2262):

"Following rapidly the A/Victoria and A/Texas outbreaks throughout much of the United States, the first documented outbreak of A/USSR influenza in the United States occurred in a high school in Cheyenne, Wyo, in mid-January 1978.25 The clinical attack rate exceeded 70% and involved the student body exclusively, with no reported illness in faculty members."

I agreed to change to "attack rate" here. Perhaps adding a "clinical". The paper uses "morbidity" 12 times, but specifically uses "clinical attack rate" here. --Kutu126b (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

700,000 deaths

We claim in two places that the total death toll was around 700,000. This is cited to 3 sources 1) Novel swine-origin influenza A virus in humans: another pandemic knocking at the door, Reorganize and survive—a recommendation for healthcare services affected by COVID-19—the ophthalmology experience and You’re more likely to die from the H1N1 flu if you were born in 1957. The first cite, Novel swine-origin influenza, does not back up the number cited. The second, Reorganize and survive, cites the first. And the third, You’re more likely to die from the H1N1, is a less than reliable looking news article. Can someone double check to confirm this? If so, are there any other citations that could be used to source total death figures? Ive not read all the citations in this article yet, it might be that we can use something we already cite. Bonewah (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the first paper we used [1] has the 700,000 number listed in their "Table 1 Influenza pandemics since the 20th century". The online Springer version does not show the table within the main content area. You have to click the "Full Size Table" button to see it. The table is linked here [2]". As far as I can remember, the other two sources recognize and cite this paper. --Kutu126b (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Origin of the flu

@User:Alexbrn Stop coming to this page and randomly calling other editors violating Wiki policies without use of Talk Page. Most members in the medical community who studied the flu believed the virus came from a lab leak. Other origin theories discussed by medical professionals are:

1) This medical source [3] revisits the evidence that the 1977 epidemic was not natural and examine three potential origins: a laboratory accident, a live-vaccine trial escape, or deliberate release as a biological weapon.

2) Vincent Racaniello, a professor at Columbia University also discussed [4] "three hypotheses were suggested to explain the re-emergence of the H1N1 virus: a laboratory accident, deliberate release, or a vaccine trial."

3) This medical source [5] mentions "several possibilities have been suggested for the origin and re-emergence of the H1N1 virus, including possibilities of a laboratory accident or the virus deriving from a vaccine trial attempting to generate H1N1 vaccines, possibly as a response to the 1976 swine flu incident in the USA". --Kutu126b (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition, for the response from WHO, China and the Soviet Union

4) Chinese scientists denied the lab leak theory [6]: "Laboratory contamination can be excluded because the laboratories concerned either had never kept H1N1 virus or had not worked with it for a long time."

5) WHO [7] "however, the World Health Organization excluded the lab accident possibility after discussions with influenza virus laboratory researchers in the Soviet Union and China, finding that “the laboratories concerned either had never kept H1N1 virus or had not worked with it for a long time". Kutu126b (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but there's no need to have a huge string of sources (hat's bad style), bad English, and to over-state the case. We can say it simply, with more respect for WP:V core policy using a great source, and without informal English. Since you introduced this content it is not good to edit-it war it back in without consensus, note the WP:ONUS for getting that is on you. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are simply talking about improving the format and citation style, I have no problem with that. But your edits also deleted the content such as the "bio-weapon hypothesis" and the responses from WHO, China and Soviet Union. These are well-supported content by the sources I listed above. And in your edit summary, you literally called these " dodgy claims." This is what I object. Kutu126b (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Blogs and news sources are - yes - dodgy sources, especially when high-quality sources are available (and which you has also used). In general one source per claim is sufficient. Two is sometimes fine. More than two and it starts to look like WP:OR is being done. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, if you are simply talking the sources, I have no problem with that. Feel free to edit and please keep the reliable sources and the content. I may come back and modify some reliable sources afterwards — but will try to avoid the over citation you mentioned. Kutu126b (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Kutu126b you are continuing to edit war, this time repeatedly insert a letter source (not RS). I have raised a query at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You are trying to challenge a scientific consensus with your own opinion. I'll reply you there. Kutu126b (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Im having a hard time trying to figure out what the core of the disagreement is. Would you both say that this is roughly where the disagreement lie? Bonewah (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not really one "core" disagreement, but a few things. The discussion continued at WP:FT/N. I am fine with the version as edited by others, as it now stands. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Is "HINi" definitely that same as H1N1? that looks like a fax error, but just checking? Irtapil (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no HINi. It must have been a typo when I copied it directly from the source! Sorry for the confusion. I've corrected above. --Kutu126b (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

H1N1 found in 1960s

I removed this sentence:

"After 1957, the H1N1 strain was not circulating around the world until its reappearance in 1977."

It was supposedly supported by multiple references:

<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":4" />

But i've found at least one reference to H1N1 in the 1960s.

The following sentence works well enough on it's own, and seems more accurate.

"The 1977 strain was almost identical to (but not the same as) the strain in the 1950s."

Irtapil (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is also definitely calls into question the lack of observations in that timeframe. "Before that year (1977), it was believed that only one human subtype circulated each flu season?" according to Vincent Racaniello. It's a blog post, but he's a fairly reputable virologist and science communicator. Irtapil (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand why you removed the sentence and mentioned another irrelevant H1N1 strain in the 1960s. Not all H1N1 strains are the same, and in this article we are specifically talking about the strain in 1950s and the strain in 1977. Before 1977, it was mainly the H3N2 virus that circulated during the flu season worldwide. That's why Vincent Racaniello said that in his blog. The paper you cited talks about the rare incidence of an H1N1 strain in Russia, but this strain does not circulate afterwards (so it's actually an isolated event), and the paper specifically says this strain was not dominant at the time (compared to H2N2) and is not similar to the strains discussed in this article. So I think it has nothing to do with this article. Kutu126b (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll make some clarifications. Kutu126b (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Rename page to '1977 Eurasian flu'

This pandemic was not known to the West until years after it happened and is only JUST starting to become known online with any decent knowledge. So with no real common name settled on, the burden is on us to pick one that makes sense and fits with the naming of the time, without being contradictive.

Eurasian Flu is more descriptive, and isn't taken. Russian Flu generally refers to the 1890s pandemic(which is also sometimes called the Asiatic Flu, but we can't use that for that one because Asiatic Flu is ALSO used as an alternate name for Asian Flu.

At the time and up until very recently pandemics were named after locations, so it's not like we're backpaging anything.

Nobody uses the name "Eurasian Flu", and your claim that "Russian Flu generally refers to the 1890s pandemic" is simply false. "Russian flu" is common name for the 1977 pandemic. The official document from WHO [8] (page 41) and a whole lot of medical papers [9][10][11] all use "Russian flu". --Kutu126b (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Secondary / Tertiary sources

Can we have secondary or tertiary sources, especially for the claim that it is a vaccine challenge gone wrong ? J mareeswaran (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Estimate of the number of deaths

The estimate of the number of deaths presented in the article (700 000) does not seem reliable. Ref 8 is a Covid paper citing Ref 7; Ref 9 is a now unavailable news article which presented a number without justification. Ref 7 proposes the value in a table (Table 1), but without any justification. There does not seem to be scientific articles backing this estimate, which is at odds with the notion that this flu was mild ("atypically mild for a new epidemic strain" in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/). TenaciousTanuki (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The death figure estimate was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal Medical Microbiology and Immunology, and has been cited by other papers. These are reliable sources WP:RS. You are entitled to have your opinion or educated suspicion, but please do not publish your original research or original opinions WP:NOR in Wikipedia. If you have questions regarding the methodology of the paper, I suggest you should contact the authors of the paper directly or the medical journal, but not here in Wikipedia, which is not a forum WP:FORUM or a research journal WP:NOTGUIDE. Thank you. --Kutu126b (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks for your input. Would it be OK to correct the sentence to remove the word estimate (which implies calculations; the original source just gives a number without justifying it)?

And would it be OK to add a sentence to point out that the number is at odds with the rest of the paragraph (700000 deaths is much more than regular flu at the time)? TenaciousTanuki (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

For the word "estimate", it is actually taken from the paper [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00430-009-0118-5/tables/1], which states "Deaths (estimated)". I think the paper must have assumed certain methodology for the estimate, and if you are interested I'd still suggest you contact the authors. Otherwise, you will need to find other reliable sources (by Wikipedia standard) which express similar suspicion as yours, and then we can cite those sources in this article, in addition to the above paper. In any case, here in Wikipedia we cannot "correct" or "point out" that some quoted number from a paper is wrong just because we think it's wrong -- this will be counted as original research WP:NOR.. Kutu126b (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)