I think evidence for 1889-1890 pandemic being caused by OC43 is pretty dubious. There is good seroarchaeology evidence (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2557748/ …) that there was a flu pandemic (probably H3N8) in 1889-1890. In addition, ... (1/3)
-
-
Replying to @jbloom_lab @zeynep
... after OC43 / 1889-90 idea started to gain popular press, I went back & read some historical accounts of 1889-90 pandemic (eg, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1279164530 … & https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3337889379 …). Drs were already quite familiar with influenza then, and they all thought 1889-90 was flu. (2/3)
3 replies 5 retweets 56 likes -
Replying to @jbloom_lab @zeynep
As far as I can tell, argument for 1889-90 being OC43 comes from one study that briefly does a molecular clock analysis that put divergence of OC43 and BCoV in late 1800s, and then popular media ran with it without much examination. (3/3)
6 replies 8 retweets 69 likes -
Replying to @jbloom_lab @zeynep
My take as well. I read the articles arguing in support of OC43 and it's really weak. The evidence for influenza is much stronger.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Thank you both. My thoughts exactly. And even if the OC43 timing worked, to say it caused the pandemic is a wild guess.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
It's definitely more than a wild guess imo, but yes, as Jesse etc. point out, there is substantive disagreement, as well as suspicion over another HCoV. There will surely be more work. That said, point remains: pandemics can end with depletion of immunologically naive population.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
I agree, basically. Isn't clear OC43 caused pandemic in 1889 & can't assume
#SARSCoV2 will become common cold. Hopefully, but some endemic viruses (eg flu) remain serious. But pandemic will become less-severe endemic as more immunity. BTW, here's flu mortality in 1918 & after:pic.twitter.com/e4fG9XMllh
3 replies 2 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @jbloom_lab @zeynep and
Flu mortality stats from here (https://www.jstor.org/stable/30114117 ). Also has stats for H2N2 and H3N2 in pandemic and subsequent seasons, which were never nearly as deadly as 1918.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Right, exactly. We also have the 1977 H1N1, sparing those older than ~26 because of exposure to ~1957 wave. So, two question/differences. One: We have vaccines, much better than for flu. Two: if first exposure (infection or vaccine) is in adulthood, does that change things?
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Yes, agree vaccines much better than for flu. Although important to note that normally flu immunity doesn't protect for 20 years because the virus evolves: 1977 was special case of re-appearance of unchanged virus. CoV undergo antigenic evolution too (https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009453 …).
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes
(Yeah I know about 1977... Didn't mention that part so as not to bring in research activities and pandemics into this discussion
)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.