reading the whole context of the Bresalier paper, it becomes clear to me that
when he speaks about the absence of catarrh in 1890,
then he must have meant the frequent absence of respiratory catarrhal symptoms
in Russian flu cases in England,1889/90.
And not the absence of the disease "catarrhal fever" or "bronchial catarrh(same as bronchitis ?)"
which were common classifications before(and after ?) 1889 in England and elsewhere for
commonly occurring diseases.
If there was indeed widespread mild H1-influenza in England before ~1892 then this
"catarrhal fever" should be the most likely classification that they gave to it.
The registrar general used "influenza", though.
Now, to explain the age-distribution curve of deaths in 1918 and according to our
modern pandemic understanding that H1 should have vanished after 1892.
But I can't find anything about it. They must have noticed the decrease of the
previously common catarrhial fever that came in waves like mild influenza ?!?
If it existed.
when he speaks about the absence of catarrh in 1890,
then he must have meant the frequent absence of respiratory catarrhal symptoms
in Russian flu cases in England,1889/90.
And not the absence of the disease "catarrhal fever" or "bronchial catarrh(same as bronchitis ?)"
which were common classifications before(and after ?) 1889 in England and elsewhere for
commonly occurring diseases.
If there was indeed widespread mild H1-influenza in England before ~1892 then this
"catarrhal fever" should be the most likely classification that they gave to it.
The registrar general used "influenza", though.
Now, to explain the age-distribution curve of deaths in 1918 and according to our
modern pandemic understanding that H1 should have vanished after 1892.
But I can't find anything about it. They must have noticed the decrease of the
previously common catarrhial fever that came in waves like mild influenza ?!?
If it existed.
Comment