![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a4cb9e53-9f83-42ea-ba63-49eb81a0e04c.jpeg)
In theory: yes, most likely. In practice? No.
In theory: yes, most likely. In practice? No.
Like you are averse to using the SI-System?
The phylogenetic results, combined with these other lines of evidence, suggest that the high mortality in 1918 among adults aged ∼20 to ∼40 y may have been due primarily to their childhood exposure to a doubly heterosubtypic putative H3N8 virus, which we estimate circulated from ∼1889–1900. All other age groups (except immunologically naive infants) were likely partially protected by childhood exposure to N1 and/or H1-related antigens.
The Spanish flu apparently had the N1 complex present, to which the 20-40y population wasn’t exposed. At least that’s my limited understanding after skimming the paper.
They argue that people born before 1889 (?) were exposed to a virus similar to the Spanish flu, whereas people born in a timeframe directly thereafter were not. They experienced a different virus that wasn’t as closely related. Thus their antibodies weren’t as prepared.
Get a feddit.de account. They defederated with most porn servers, so their all is almost porn free. If you want you can use an alt for porn on another server.
Or for historical context: “der Deutsche Michel” - “the German Michael “
Dogs would be a good example for ring species, which show the outer limits of the species definition, if they they occurred in the wild in their many diverse forms. But since they are not, I’d group them as one species still, as their origin is artificial and so are, at least partly, their means of reproduction.