Reply #27: Well if this last study is correct...

[SaveElmer]

And if efficient spread among humans requires infection higher up in the respiratory tract, wouldn't it also lead to the conclusion that it would necessarily be less deadly in that case? Wouldn't that also bolster the case that the virulence of the 1918 virus was due to the immobility of sick soldiers crammed together in trenches and hospitals, where they were repeatedly exposed to the virus, affording more of a chance for severe infection?

Also, if it is that difficult to get sufficient virus deep into the lungs, wouldn't it make sense that young people are disproportionitley(sp) likely to get it, as they would be more likely to be doing the work around fowl that would lead to that.

Sorry my spelling is getting worse as I get older