Loren Pechtel

No. The legislation was about making them not liable for problems with a vaccine produced to order under the extreme rush conditions that would apply if H5N1 turns into something that spreads between humans well. That's very different from applying it to all cases. Without such a protection the drug companies are certianly not about to short-circut the normal safety testing and if they do it at the normal speed it won't be delivered until after the need is gone.

Peter Watts

Good one!

doghouse

If you report it, it's hype.
If you don't report it, it's a coverup.

Roland98

You don't think this should be studied and reported? Again, everything is always presented in the "could happen" tense. Scientists do this stuff for a living--we make predictions, we study past epidemics in order to be able to prevent and/or control future ones, etc. I don't see how this is a bad thing, as long as no one says it's definitely going to happen with this virus. :huh:

The 1918 pandemic is brought up because this virus has many of the same signatures. It's coming directly from bird to human, and it can induce a deadly "cytokine storm" that kills even healthy people quickly. Many people hadn't even heard of the Spanish flu until the last few weeks...I think it's an illustrative example of what a really bad influenza pandemic can do. Again, I think knowledge is inherently a good thing, but no one has told people to panic. I honestly don't know how to control how they react, even when scientists have said over and over that we can't predict with any certainty 1) IF this virus will take hold of the human population, and 2) if it does, what the mortality rates will be.

People want to protect their families from any danger. Can't say I blame them, even though I think it's stupid to try to stockpile this for a mere "potential" threat. It's just like people with cipro after the anthrax attacks--people aren't rational, period.

I dunno--I also think watching the news and being informed is a good thing. You've still not given any alternatives.

Um, no. A few deaths were due to eating infected meat; others were due to simply being in close contact with poultry or their feces, and others were due to human-to-human transmission between the ill and their caretakers. So far, it's not efficiently transmitted this way, but it's an RNA virus with a high mutation rate, and that's the worry--this thing could mutate tomorrow and be efficiently transmitted HTH. Wouldn't you rather that you know a bit about it now, even if that doesn't come to pass?

Roland98

Exactly.

skepticalbip

I really am at a loss for words. We are informed about diseases such as maleria... Without hype, most people have been given a basic understanding of the threat and dangers and this disease that actually exists and kills, every year, a number of people on the same order of magnatude that is being "predicted" for a strain of virus that (I will repeat) does not yet exist and may never exist. If you can not see the difference between "hype" and "inform" and recognize that this scare is absolutely hyped, then I have no idea how to point out the obvious to you.

chapka

This is the sort of response I used to get when explaining to people that New Orleans was likely to be almost completely destroyed by a hurricane sometime in the next few decades. (It's still the reaction I get when I explain that it's likely that sometime this century a volcanic eruption outside Naples will kill thousands, if not millions.) People are bad at understanding low-probability, high-impact events like another 1918-scale avian flu pandemic. Therefore, most people will probably either overreact or underreact to this kind of public health information. But we're at a state where public health education is important anyway.

Technically, these events may never happen. But if they do, they'll be disastrous. And in the case of bird flu, the odds aren't that low. There've already been three avian flu pandemics in the last hundred years, which have killed a combined 600,000 people. Worldwide, the 1918 pandemic may have killed 50 million people. Furthermore, a set of related flu strains have been detected in animals which are relatively virulent in humans; the WHO has identified this as a likely pandemic precursor. This is not a "may never happen" situation; it's likely a "matter of time" situation, and it makes sense to be prepared for it (by good public policy, obviously, not by stockpiling Tamiflu).

For the record: according to the CDC, malaria kills about 1,000 people in the United States each year, and about 700,000 worldwide. The 1918 pandemic in a much more lightly populated and interconnected globe killed 600,000 people just in the United States, and up to 50 million worldwide. That's 70 years' worth of malaria for the world at large, and 6,000 years' worth for the United States.

Roland98

And how many people in the US give two shits about malaria? Very few.

And I apologize for not seeing the difference, but you've not exactly been forthcoming in explaining it to me, either. Is it the sheer amount of coverage? The public reaction? Feel free to read all my posts on here. I've not only discussed the issue, but I've also linked to other media I've done on bird flu--articles I've written, interviews I've given. I've been very careful to say this is a possibility, that it doesn't deserve panic, that ordinary flu kills magnitudes more people than H5N1 has thus far, and that there are simple steps anyone can take to help prevent development of *any* infectious illness, not just "bird flu." I think I've been very careful to "inform," and indeed, I've worked hard to dispel any "hype." But I don't feel any guilt for discussing a virus that "does not yet exist and may never exist." Hell, we talk a lot about the more nebulous "emerging infectious diseases" and even pay money to do surveillance for them, without even knowing if they'll be bacterial, viral, or other. This is how one prepares for a potential threat, even if it "doesn't exist yet."

Loren Pechtel

There's a big difference. Malaria is only a serious threat to the poor or those with damaged immune systems.

I've had it, 1 infection + 3 recurrences. The temperature swings aren't too pleasant but other than that I've been hit worse by allergy. As soon as I figure out it's malaria again I take the drugs, end of problem.

skepticalbip

I understand that there is a major difference between malaria and the flu. You can add that maleria isn't communicable between humans. The only commonality would probably be that malaria is a disease that kills many people and this may one day develop into a disease that kills many people, possibly as many as killed by malaria in one year.

I was only trying to point out the difference between "informing" the public about a disease and "hyping". We have been informed about maleria but this particular strain of flu that may not happen is definately being hyped. I think the opening line in the post immediately before yours even reveals why those hyping it feel justified in doing so.
The public doesn't show the interest desired so it is hyped to create that interest. But then my defination of "HYPE" may be a little off. Webster defines it as:
Personally I see a hell of a lot of attempts to create interest in this predicted pandemic through flamboyant and dramatic methods. This fits my understanding of hype.