avian flu, Exaggeration or reality?

joeshredd · Oct 6, 2005

alco141 said:
looks like the answer to the social security problem to me, as many of the dead would be over the age of 65 and under the age of 12 or so.

alex

As Nathan S pointed out, the pandemic of 1918 was an avian flu base... and Alex didn't see the story - most of the victims were young and healthy humans from 20 to 40... So who's gonna be around to work and pay taxes if this happens again?
Yes, we may only lose one or two percent of the world's population, and most of that from Thrid World countries 'cause they can't afford to fight it... but can the US afford to take that risk again? Hence the mania now griping the health community... exacerbated by stories like the mystery flu in Canada which has now claimed 16 in one small location... imagine if that bug had hit a home in a major metropolitan area where lots of folks would be in and out visiting, working.. instead of a small populationm of the same people day in day out like in Canada...

ld57 · Oct 6, 2005

HK2001 said:
SO what do you think? Is it over hyped? or is there a serious risk here?

I don't know if there's a risk or not, but I'm sure that gasoline prices will go up as a result.. :grumpy:

Watchful · Oct 6, 2005

(By the way, nice thread there HK2001... I think the topic is exceptionally appropriate to survival. Didn't want that to go unsaid.)

Temper · Oct 6, 2005

skammer said:
If you were tying to point out a spelling error, it is bad manners to correct in a pubilc forum.

If that was not the case my appologies.

Skam

No I wasn't, apology accepted.

Temper · Oct 6, 2005

Joel Stave said:
I dont know about that. Current world population is approx 6 billion. 100 million is about 1.7 percent of that. Not that large a relative change on a global scale.

To be honest, after thinking about it I think the number conservative. If you have ever been to a busy Asian city like Tokyo and seen the sheer amount of contact people have with each other on subways and even in the streets, I think that wiping out the population here (around 16 mil) wouldnt be too big of a problem for this flu. There are also a few other decent sized places like New Dehli and the Chinese cities. There is no way that any kind of help is coming to these people and the conditions around this neck of the woods (warm and humid) are perfect for it. Plus worldwide there is a huge number of aged people (Baby boomers) we know that this flu can kill even the young and healthy but I dare say that the older people have very little chance of surviving once they get it.

Japan has around 126 mil people. IIRC about 20%+ are over 65 so about 24 mil there

skammer · Oct 6, 2005

The outbreak in the Canadian nursing home is now reported a form of Legionaires disease.

I however do not trust any government to tell the truth for fear of panic.

Skam

joeshredd · Oct 6, 2005

skammer said:
The outbreak in the Canadian nursing home is now reported a form of Legionaires disease.

I however do not trust any government to tell the truth for fear of panic.

Skam

Ya beat me to it!

All's I gotta say is that within 36 hours, over 70 people (IIRC) have been diagnosed and 16 have died and it's taken them, what 48 hours to fianlly determine what it is? And it's a known disease...

So, go back to Temper's post and ask what the total would be if the same thing happened where he's talking about? I think this is a good illustration of how a virulent pathogen can spread without assistance and would hate to ever see how it would pan out if it happened in, say Pittsburg or NY...

doctom54 · Oct 6, 2005

Just a couple of points to consider.
As previously noted the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1919 did affect young healthy people unlike the flus we get currently.
Everyone in the world was exposed EXCEPT for a very few people on a small number of Pacific islands (running to the woods won't help).
Tamiflu (a drug) is effective and other counties have stockpiled more than the US. The US is investing money in possible vaccines.
Avian Flu may never make the leap to person to person transmission but it is a pretty fair bet if this one doesn't another will and cause another pandemic.

skammer · Oct 7, 2005

doctom54 said:
Everyone in the world was exposed EXCEPT for a very few people on a small number of Pacific islands (running to the woods won't help).
Tamiflu (a drug) is effective and other counties have stockpiled more than the US. The US is investing money in possible vaccines.

Who says everyone in the world was exposed? Thats an empty bold statement. The fact some people on small islands proves isolation is a valid method of avoiding transmission. The benefits of normal hygene today was not known then either.

What we know now about disease tranmission is light years beyond what we did in 1918. If a pandemic does happen the gvnmt will force people into close proximity to contain the infection virtually assuring death to those inside the zone.

I dont plan on being caught in the zone

Tamiflu is only useful against the known genetic makeup of some flu's and is in extreme short supply in most countries not to mention the impossible plan to desperse it in a timely manner. The Katrina storm is a real wakeup call for the sheeple and brings to light the govnmts impotence in such situations.
Avian and others are subject to mutant change any time so its likely of limited value (hit an miss). It calms the sheeple tho

FOR NOW!

Better hope mother nature gives us a pass for another 100 yrs till we get our heads out our a sses.

Skam

frediver · Oct 7, 2005

If the history is correct everyone in the world was exposed to the 1918 flu. That is the reason it died out, the only reason. It had knowhere to go.
Can't hide from this type of problem. Sooner or later you will need to surface, then you will be infected.
What bothers me about this story is what is likely not being said. Got to read between the lines for this one.
You know who is reporting/telling you this information, now ask why.
<><

Watchful · Oct 7, 2005

frediver said:
If the history is correct everyone in the world was exposed to the 1918 flu. That is the reason it died out, the only reason. It had knowhere to go.

That's right, actually. With a very small exception of South Seas islanders, this is a correct claim: every single person on the world in 1917-1918 was exposed (hence pandemic, as opposed to epidemic).

The fact that any of us are alive today is because at least one of our (great)(grand)parents either didn't get terribly sick or resisted it.

skammer · Oct 7, 2005

I dont buy it.

It was nearly 100 yrs ago and anything can be claimed with little to back it up but hearsay.

Being forced into a quarantined situation so you get reinfected and reinfected is what will happen. The fact I "may" not avoid exposure is almost irrelevant when the altrenative is a quarantine zone.

These are issues we must think about because martial law will happen no question. It got real close in Toronto during the tiny SARS outbreak.

Skam

Watchful · Oct 7, 2005

Skam's just itchin' for a squabble! Hope that itch isn't something more serious... that's one of the first symptoms, no?

skammer · Oct 7, 2005

Watchful said:
Skam's just itchin' for a squabble! Hope that itch isn't something more serious... that's one of the first symptoms, no?

Haha, seriously no troll or squable intended. I personally have my own beliefs reguarding this and every issue no matter how twisted

.

You may agree or not no problem here. I would think with such an explosive issue thinking outside a normal box may interest some, maybe not

.

Skam

RunzWithScissors · Oct 7, 2005

A hundred years ago wasn't the stone age. They had writing and newspapers and fairly rapid communication with the transatlantic telegraph cable. People knew of the germ theory and antiseptic and all sorts of "modern ideas".

You act like this happened so long ago but it was after Einstein came up with his realitivity theory.

The flu killed more people than WWI which wasn't an easy task.

skammer · Oct 7, 2005

RunzWithScissors said:
A hundred years ago wasn't the stone age. They had writing and newspapers and fairly rapid communication with the transatlantic telegraph cable. People knew of the germ theory and antiseptic and all sorts of "modern ideas".
You act like this happened so long ago but it was after Einstein came up with his realitivity theory.
The flu killed more people than WWI which wasn't an easy task.

Microbial science WAS in the stone age in 1918 compared to today, hell in 1945 it was just beginning to emerge. To think otherwise is missinformed.

Skam

longbow50 · Oct 7, 2005

I read somewhere, or saw it on TV, that when the people were told to wear masks when in public, they only covered their mouths, leaving the nose without protection. That would seem to indicate that they weren't exactly up to par about a few things.

RunzWithScissors · Oct 7, 2005

Microbial science or no you seem to have doubts about the spread of the disease and the numbers killed.

Paul Ehrlich found a cure for syphilis in 1910 after discovering differential staining years before so they knew something of microbes.

Chad

skammer · Oct 7, 2005

RunzWithScissors said:
Microbial science or no you seem to have doubts about the spread of the disease and the numbers killed.

Chad

You are mistaken about the above and I have my own beliefs however twisted in your opinion they are.

Skam

skammer · Oct 7, 2005

Interesting little bit of info from the WHO:

"Central to preparedness planning is an estimate of how deadly the next pandemic is likely to be. Experts' answers to this fundamental question have ranged from 2 million to over 50 million. All these answers are scientifically grounded. The reasons for the wide range of estimates are manyfold.·

Some estimates are based on extrapolations from past pandemics but significant details of these events are disputed, including the true numbers of deaths that resulted. The most precise predictions are based on the pandemic in 1968 but even in this case estimates vary from one million to four million deaths. Similarly, the number of deaths from the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 is posited by different investigators to range from 20 million to well over 50 million. ·

Extrapolations are problematic because the world in 2004 is a different place from 1918. The impact of greatly improved nutrition and health care needs to be weighed against the contribution the increase in international travel would have in terms of global spread. ·

The specific characteristics of a future pandemic virus cannot be predicted. It may affect between 20-50% of the total population. It is also unknown how pathogenic a novel virus would be, and which age groups will be affected. ·

The level of preparedness will also influence the final death toll. Even moderate pandemics can inflict a considerable burden on the unprepared and disadvantaged. Planning to maintain health care systems will be especially crucial. Good health care will play a central role in reducing the impact, yet the pandemic itself may disrupt the supply of essential medicines and health care workers may fall ill. "

Tanslation: The more we know the less we know. Its anyones guess and there is no hard and fast facts with this.

Skam