4 ms·
The tldr here is that they looked for people in the sample who's bones had evidence of wear that would normally be fixed in "healthy" people. They found some, a
by superkuh 3y ago
The tldr here is that they looked for people in the sample who's bones had evidence of wear that would normally be fixed in "healthy" people. They found some, a bit more than expected for the sample size. What it does not say is anything about age or anything about healthy people not also dying. What this paper suggests is that the 1918 influenza a H1N1 killed a lot of people who were unhealthy too.
And the idea that Cleveland only had one 7 month long wave of 1918 H1N1 is also ... a big leap not really supported.
It's too bad the actual paper is behind a paywall. You can never tell what is a wired journalist misunderstanding and what's actually in the paper.
- gwern 3y agoThe Wired writeup is one of the more misleading ones. You're right: what the paper finds is that Spanish Flu disproportionately killed the young cohorts... it just may have been within young cohorts disproportionately killing young people with subtle hidden frailties. The real importance of this work is that it supports the interpretation that Spanish Flu was so deadly because young people missed a cycle of flu which would have immunized them to it as effectively as it had immunized (the surviving) elderly people, as opposed to some sort of intrinsic-youth-targeting factor unique to Spanish Flu.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> disproportionately killing young people with subtle hidden frailties. I'm really curious how many of the surviving elderly lacked those hidden frailties. That is, all else held equal, how many of the youth killed by the Spanish Flu would have died of other causes prior to becoming elderly?