NationStates Jolt Archive

Re: all the hysteria about Bird Flu in Europe at the moment; I think we should take a step back and consider whether the situation is really so serious.


It's flu - not bubonic plague - a particularly infectious strain perhaps but still only flu. Unlike in the developing world, most people infected would survive due to better medical services, living conditions, etc

The vast majority of fatalities will be amongst the elderly - we have a serious problem in Europe with ageing populations; a few hundred thousand deaths would do little to alleviate this but it wouldn't exactly make things any worse either.

The economy would take a major battering - but we'd get over it.


A little cold perhaps and I'm not saying we shouldn't do everything we can to minimise the impact - maybe a bird flu expert can set me straight.

This is what people are worried about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic).

The economy would take a major battering - but we'd get over it.
That is a big deal - people's livelihoods depend on that.

And besides, it is more than a simple flu - better conditions in Europe don't weaken the disease.
Think of it as a much worse kind of cold. Once one person has it, it is fairly impossible to prevent the rest of the community from getting it too.

And besides, European people like chicken, Asian and African people like living.
With bird flu, neither is happy.

There's a lot of unnecessary hysteria going on right now, but there is a threat. Currently, only birds and people regularly exposed to them are in any danger of contracting the flu. People currently can't transmit the disease to other people. The trouble is when the virus mutates, for instance if the person already has a normal flu, and becomes transmitable from person to person that we're in trouble.

Exactly. And what makes America think it's safe? All it takes is one infected person on a plane, and you can't close your borders to everyone who coughs, or doesn't cough, or who looks groggy or complains of muscle aches or has any flu-like symptoms at all. Then everyone on the plane's infected because of their wonderful air recirculation systems, and you get off the other end with a massively and rapidly-dispersing group of people who'll carry it everywhere. And if a hundred people in New York City had it because of the degrees of separation problem you'd have to surround them with millions upon millions of vaccinated people.

If H5N1 starts jumping from humans to humans there will be trouble, and if it takes out the same proportion of the world population that the H1N1 strain did in 1918 that's between 150,000,000 and 300,000,000 deaths. 300 million deaths, or to put it another way, more than the entire population of the United States, is not good for the world.

Yah, well if it's going to happen, it's going to happen. I don't see any measures being taken to stop it.

If H5N1 starts jumping from humans to humans there will be trouble, and if it takes out the same proportion of the world population that the H1N1 strain did in 1918 that's between 150,000,000 and 300,000,000 deaths. 300 million deaths, or to put it another way, more than the entire population of the United States, is not good for the world.


Last time I checked, the expert estimates for worldwide deaths in the case of an avian flu pandemic are around 25,000,000

You can't take a simple proportion lifted from the 1918 case and apply it to the situation today - oh and by the way - thanks to the other poster who saw fit to inform me that there was a pandemic in 1918, I wasn't aware of that, thanks.

Yah, well if it's going to happen, it's going to happen. I don't see any measures being taken to stop it.There are. The EU banned imports from countries with infection and the German government is stepping up the effort to crack down on illegal imports, which are the gravest threat now.

That is a big deal - people's livelihoods depend on that.

And besides, it is more than a simple flu - better conditions in Europe don't weaken the disease.
Think of it as a much worse kind of cold. Once one person has it, it is fairly impossible to prevent the rest of the community from getting it too.

And besides, European people like chicken, Asian and African people like living.
With bird flu, neither is happy.


I'm afraid better conditions do make a difference to who survives the disease and who doesn't.

There are. The EU banned imports from countries with infection and the German government is stepping up the effort to crack down on illegal imports, which are the gravest threat now.

Thing of it is, transfer and mutation of H5N1 to human transmissible form is most likely to occur in S.E. Asia - specifically china - where there are still between 750,000,000 and a billion people who live with their animals in the same hut and no sanitation. Not from handling chicken breasts in the local super-market.

And as NW points out, it only takes for one person on an infected plane to ship it elsewhere.

I'm afraid better conditions do make a difference to who survives the disease and who doesn't.


Not really.

Perhaps you read about the particular strain of flu that wiped out so many people in america, in the 20's?

Spanish Flu, I think it was called.

Conditions were pretty good then.

Edit: Not the 1920's..

It was the late teens.

I'm afraid better conditions do make a difference to who survives the disease and who doesn't.
That yes...but even in natural conditions, without medicine, most "pandemics" don't kill 100%.
It's the disruption to life that causes the real damage - and you'll see plenty of that.

Thing of it is, transfer and mutation of H5N1 to human transmissible form is most likely to occur in S.E. Asia - specifically china - where there are still between 750,000,000 and a billion people who live with their animals in the same hut and no sanitation. Not from handling chicken breasts in the local super-market.

And as NW points out, it only takes for one person on an infected plane to ship it elsewhere.True, but when that comes, while no one is allowed to screen for people who are simply showing signs of a disease, they can quarantine any flight from a country that had an outbreak. It may be to late then, though...

True, but when that comes, while no one is allowed to screen for people who are simply showing signs of a disease, they can quarantine any flight from a country that had an outbreak. It may be to late then, though...

:eek:

Hey, I am all for taking measures to stop this. I just don't think there is much that western governments can actually do. The US couldn't keep west nile or SARS out (or even something as easy to quarantine as BSE). I don't think there is anything that can be done about this either. Hopefully it won't happen, or if it does, then it won't be as bad as people are saying.

We need another World War.

Not really.

Perhaps you read about the particular strain of flu that wiped out so many people in america, in the 20's?



That was in the whole world as well idiot.

Not really.

Perhaps you read about the particular strain of flu that wiped out so many people in america, in the 20's?

Spanish Flu, I think it was called.

Conditions were pretty good then.

Edit: Not the 1920's..

It was the late teens.

Once again this cretin enters the debate with their particular brand of ignorant self-righteousness

That's right. Standards of medical care and housing available to the whole population (not just the rich) in 1918 were practically the same as they are today.

That was in the whole world as well idiot.


Piss off.

Maybe you should do a bit of reading, and find out where the first reported cases were located.

Its called a "history" book.

Read one sometime.

Once again this cretin enters the debate with their particular brand of ignorant self-righteousness

That's right. Standards of medical care and housing available to the whole population (not just the rich) in 1918 were practically the same as they are today.



Cretin?

I like you already.

However, you should know that medical care at that time was nearly irrelevant, as there was simply no vaccinations to be had, or any way to prepare against this particular strain of disease.

As far as ignorant self-righteous goes, I think your just being a flaming jerk.

I'm sorry - what amazing technological/scientific/medical advancement has there been in the treatment of influenza (or, for that matter, any virus) since the 1918-19 Spanish Flu pandemic?

Flu is treated with bed rest, more or less. Paracetamol can be taken to reduce fever, antihistamines can help clear the nasal cavity, but these treat the symptoms, not the cause.

Yes, it is possible to be vaccinated, but influenza is well known for its ability to mutate rapidly, so much that a flu shot one year means nothing the next. Plus, you need to vaccinate before the outbreak. It's pointless waiting until after it's happened. Should H5N1 mutate to a form that is transmissable between humans, then it will move quickly. Particularly nowadays, with travelling times (ie flight) well within the dormant phase of the virus.

Cretin?

I like you already.

However, you should know that medical care at that time was nearly irrelevant, as there was simply no vaccinations to be had, or any way to prepare against this particular strain of disease.

As far as ignorant self-righteous goes, I think your just being a flaming jerk.


And I think you should learn how to punctuate

And I think you should learn how to punctuate


"I think I love you, so what am I so afraid of?
Im afraid that Im not sure of, a love there is no cure for....."
-Sean Cassidy.

I'm sorry - what amazing technological/scientific/medical advancement has there been in the treatment of influenza (or, for that matter, any virus) since the 1918-19 Spanish Flu pandemic?

Flu is treated with bed rest, more or less. Paracetamol can be taken to reduce fever, antihistamines can help clear the nasal cavity, but these treat the symptoms, not the cause.

Yes, it is possible to be vaccinated, but influenza is well known for its ability to mutate rapidly, so much that a flu shot one year means nothing the next. Plus, you need to vaccinate before the outbreak. It's pointless waiting until after it's happened. Should H5N1 mutate to a form that is transmissable between humans, then it will move quickly. Particularly nowadays, with travelling times (ie flight) well within the dormant phase of the virus.



Bed rest, my point exactly. And better living conditions (heating, access to information/services, etc) make bed rest all the more likely to succeed.

As for the drugs, yes they only alleviate the symptoms but that's precisely why they would help. It was the symptoms themselves that killed so many people in 1918.

"I think I love you, so what am I so afraid of?
Im afraid that Im not sure of, a love there is no cure for....."
-Sean Cassidy.

Hello

I like to have the last word but sometimes I haven't really got much of a point to make.

In circumstances like these I find it's often a good trick to just cut and paste some unrelated quotation/song lyric


The power of love is a curious thing
Make a one man weep, make another man sing
Change a hawk to a little white dove
More than a feeling that’s the power of love

Why does everyone feel the need to go as far back as 1918 to suggest what might happen with Bird Flu? Just look at the SARS epidemic - that should provide a decent enough background as to how the virus could spread (if it ever mutates to be human transmissible, that is).

Bed rest, my point exactly. And better living conditions (heating, access to information/services, etc) make bed rest all the more likely to succeed.

As for the drugs, yes they only alleviate the symptoms but that's precisely why they would help. It was the symptoms themselves that killed so many people in 1918.

The problem is that the 1918 variant kills people within 24 to 72 hours of exposure. I'm not sure what symptoms you plan to alleviate, other than death.

The effect of the influenza epidemic was so severe that the average life span in the US was depressed by 10 years. The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5% compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1%. The death rate for 15 to 34-year-olds of influenza and pneumonia were 20 times higher in 1918 than in previous years (Taubenberger). People were struck with illness on the street and died rapid deaths. One anectode shared of 1918 was of four women playing bridge together late into the night. Overnight, three of the women died from influenza (Hoagg). Others told stories of people on their way to work suddenly developing the flu and dying within hours (Henig). One physician writes that patients with seemingly ordinary influenza would rapidly "develop the most viscous type of pneumonia that has ever been seen" and later when cyanosis appeared in the patients, "it is simply a struggle for air until they suffocate," (Grist, 1979). Another physician recalls that the influenza patients "died struggling to clear their airways of a blood-tinged froth that sometimes gushed from their nose and mouth," (Starr, 1976). The physicians of the time were helpless against this powerful agent of influenza.

We do have thera-flu now though.

The problem is that the 1918 variant kills people within 24 to 72 hours of exposure. I'm not sure what symptoms you plan to alleviate, other than death.

The effect of the influenza epidemic was so severe that the average life span in the US was depressed by 10 years. The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5% compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1%. The death rate for 15 to 34-year-olds of influenza and pneumonia were 20 times higher in 1918 than in previous years (Taubenberger). People were struck with illness on the street and died rapid deaths. One anectode shared of 1918 was of four women playing bridge together late into the night. Overnight, three of the women died from influenza (Hoagg). Others told stories of people on their way to work suddenly developing the flu and dying within hours (Henig). One physician writes that patients with seemingly ordinary influenza would rapidly "develop the most viscous type of pneumonia that has ever been seen" and later when cyanosis appeared in the patients, "it is simply a struggle for air until they suffocate," (Grist, 1979). Another physician recalls that the influenza patients "died struggling to clear their airways of a blood-tinged froth that sometimes gushed from their nose and mouth," (Starr, 1976). The physicians of the time were helpless against this powerful agent of influenza.


Death is precisely the sympton I seek to alleviate. We're not all paupers these days who have little option when ill with the flu but to wish that we had a piece of coal to boil some water with.


And what's the rest of your post supposed to illustrate, other than your ability to used the ctrl and 'c' key at the same time?

Death is precisely the sympton I seek to alleviate. We're not all paupers these days who have little option when ill with the flu but to wish that we had a piece of coal to boil some water with.

And what's the rest of your post supposed to illustrate, other than your ability to used the ctrl and 'c' key at the same time?

Other than a vaccine, there isn't much that could be done against the current bird flu.

Maybe you haven't read, but the current crop of antivirals don't work against the H5N1 virus.

A recent New England Journal of Medicine review article on human cases of avian influenza made reference to an H5N1 isolate from Viet Nam shown to be partially resistant to oseltamivir, Tamiflu's generic name. That discovery was made public in mid-May 2005 in the report of a meeting of experts the World Health Organization convened in Manila to determine whether the pandemic risk from H5N1 had risen.

Now, you were saying about a lump of coal?

You're talking about a killer virus that we have no drugs to use against. We're just waiting for it to mutate to a form that passes from human to human.

Once that happens, there isn't anything in the formulary that would stop it.

BTW, the "consolidation" effect from this form of the flu is actually a complete hemorrhagic destruction of lung tissue. There isn't a drug on earth that would stop that.

Other than a vaccine, there isn't much that could be done against the current bird flu.

Maybe you haven't read, but the current crop of antivirals don't work against the H5N1 virus.

A recent New England Journal of Medicine review article on human cases of avian influenza made reference to an H5N1 isolate from Viet Nam shown to be partially resistant to oseltamivir, Tamiflu's generic name. That discovery was made public in mid-May 2005 in the report of a meeting of experts the World Health Organization convened in Manila to determine whether the pandemic risk from H5N1 had risen.

Now, you were saying about a lump of coal?

You're talking about a killer virus that we have no drugs to use against. We're just waiting for it to mutate to a form that passes from human to human.

Once that happens, there isn't anything in the formulary that would stop it.

BTW, the "consolidation" effect from this form of the flu is actually a complete hemorrhagic destruction of lung tissue. There isn't a drug on earth that would stop that.


Only a tiny fraction of those infected with the 1918 flu actually died, the only reason the total numbers were so high was that so many people were infected.

The odds of survival are shifted in our favour when you consider the advancements of almost a century in all areas of society - it would be wrong to dismiss that out of hand.

I never suggested that a pandemic today wouldn't be a disaster. I just don't like this assertion you're making that it'll be like the black death, with people dropping dead in the street in their millions.

Yes, I did mention a lump of coal, well done, but I didn't mention anti-virals. Why not try to understand what you're reading and responding to next time and you might be able to construct a post that actually makes sense and doesn't read like it's been pasted together from various internet resources

Last time I checked, the expert estimates for worldwide deaths in the case of an avian flu pandemic are around 25,000,000


The is both an upper boundry and lower boundry, I think (not having the figures hand, doing this from memory) that is has been estimated that the the flu may kill between 25,000,000 to 350,000,000. Big difference, I know. It depends of how easy it is to catch how likely it is to kill and how many might be exposed to it. None of these things can be accurately given at the moment.

At the moment your better of trying to guess the amount of deaths using the tried and tested method of guesswork, a biro and the back of a fag packet.

Only a tiny fraction of those infected with the 1918 flu actually died, the only reason the total numbers were so high was that so many people were infected.

The odds of survival are shifted in our favour when you consider the advancements of almost a century in all areas of society - it would be wrong to dismiss that out of hand.

I never suggested that a pandemic today wouldn't be a disaster. I just don't like this assertion you're making that it'll be like the black death, with people dropping dead in the street in their millions.

Yes, I did mention a lump of coal, well done, but I didn't mention anti-virals. Why not try to understand what you're reading and responding to next time and you might be able to construct a post that actually makes sense and doesn't read like it's been pasted together from various internet resources


We send more people from more countries more quickly around the globe than we did in 1918.

There isn't a vaccine. And there is no way to produce enough vaccine quickly enough for everyone in the US or Europe, let alone the world.

Treating lung hemorrhage and destruction of lung tissue is not something that you can stop with palliative treatments. You either live or you die. Your lungs are either destroyed enough to kill you or they are not.

The 1918 virus was an avian flu virus - H1N1.

It's not anything like the regular flu virii that we get from year to year.

The is both an upper boundry and lower boundry, I think (not having the figures hand, doing this from memory) that is has been estimated that the the flu may kill between 25,000,000 to 350,000,000. Big difference, I know. It depends of how easy it is to catch how likely it is to kill and how many might be exposed to it. None of these things can be accurately given at the moment.

At the moment your better of trying to guess the amount of deaths using the tried and tested method of guesswork, a biro and the back of a fag packet.


I've given an approximate median figure - the range I've seen quoted is between 2 and 50 million (BBC)

I've given an approximate median figure - the boundary I've seen quoted is between 2 and 50 million

OK, made slight mistake, the figures given by the UN's Dr. David Nabarro (who ahs been put in charge to coordinate the UN's response is the avian flu migrates to humans), reported in the Guardian (6/10/05 or 10/06/05 for you Americans) are 5 million to 150 million.

I can give you the rest of figures if you really want (but they are not that interesting tbh). However, out of interest, where did you get your figures from?

OK, made slight mistake, the figures given by the UN's Dr. David Nabarro (who ahs been put in charge to coordinate the UN's response is the avian flu migrates to humans), reported in the Guardian (6/10/05 or 10/06/05 for you Americans) are 5 million to 150 million.

I can give you the rest of figures if you really want (but they are not that interesting tbh). However, out of interest, where did you get your figures from?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4292426.stm

They show a lower WHO estimate in the article.

It's my opinion, though, that they are pulling these numbers out of their butts.

They have no real idea. While they talk about numbers, they have no idea how high or low it will go.

Funny though - governments seem to be jumping through their asses trying to scramble for a plan. They wouldn't be doing that for just a few million worldwide.

People who've contracted bird flu have died at a higher rate than people who in the past contracted smallpox. One in every two die from bird flu. Smallpox killed one in three roughly. Bird flu isn't as contagious as smallpox, but evolution's a wonderfull thing. Sooner or later it very well might be just as contagious. Certainly people without access to healthcare and people with weaker immune systems will be hit hardest, but even so it has the possibility of killing loads of people in the developed world. Personally I think if it does mutate into a contagious human disease things will get very interesting very fast. Remember the old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times"?

It's my opinion, though, that they are pulling these numbers out of their butts.

They have no real idea. While they talk about numbers, they have no idea how high or low it will go.

Well as I said above there best method is a biro a back of a fag packet and a lot of guesswork.

Funny though - governments seem to be jumping through their asses trying to scramble for a plan. They wouldn't be doing that for just a few million worldwide.

Just covering their arses. Also, cannot speak for other countries, but in the UK the papers really are doing there level best to whip up hysteria about. There are quite a few people that I know who are completely terrified of it (in fact one has stockpiled food :confused: ), the government kinda has to do something.

Well as I said above there best method is a biro a back of a fag packet and a lot of guesswork.

Just covering their arses. Also, cannot speak for other countries, but in the UK the papers really are doing there level best to whip up hysteria about. There are quite a few people that I know who are completely terrified of it (in fact one has stockpiled food :confused: ), the government kinda has to do something.

Long before bird flu, I've already prepared for potential disaster.

Food, water, weapons, medical supplies - I was ready before avian flu was news.

If it does get really, really bad, don't count on the government to come to your neighborhood immediately and do something to help. They'll be overwhelmed.

The death rates WHO are going on are based on infection rates (which are pretty well-known, considering this is a 'flu virus), response rates and kill rates.

Obviously they don't know the kill rate, but are estimating it to be between 2% and 55%. Hence the huge range of 5 to 150 million.
Normal 'flu has a kill rate of something like 0.2%. So they figure this 'flu could be between 10x and 275x worse than what one suffers through each year.

The biggest problem is that the time from exposure to full-blown infection to life-threatening illness is only a few hours. So most people mightn't realise they have the bird 'flu until they're too sick to do anything about it. This is another factor WHO have used in their figures. Also the strain on local hospitals and availability of medicines is another factor.

There's so much that they don't know about the virus (infection rates, kill rates), as well as the populace response and local/national govt response (and after Katrina, would you trust the govt to effectively deal with this problem? - And of course there's China, which is liable to hush up any outbreaks for as long as possible) that they can't do much more than offer a very large range.

Of course WHO are probably using the worst-case scenario in the hope of mobilising govts into action, in the hope of stopping it before it even begins.

Long before bird flu, I've already prepared for potential disaster.

Food, water, weapons, medical supplies - I was ready before avian flu was news.

Different culture I suppose, not that I mean as a nation we depend on the government more (though I admit, we most probably do). But that it is very rare anything that requires that level stockpiling in this country.

If it does get really, really bad, don't count on the government to come to your neighborhood immediately and do something to help. They'll be overwhelmed.

Oh I know that, I don't live in a particuarly high priority place. Got enough food and drink to last me a while, though nothing compared to the stockpiling of that other person I know :). My "stockpiling" is simply due to the fact I don't like shopping, except to get fresh fruit and veg.

Weapons though, well that's a different matter. Our government isn't particuarly keen about allowing us to defend ourselves. So if worst comes to worst I only really have a bread knife and some bleach. Luckily my flat is quite secure (I hope). But meh, I'm taking the whole thing with a pinch of salt seeing as there is a lot of media hype.