Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cynthia of Syracuse · 10-25-2005, 03:06 PM

Quoted 'cause it deserves repeating:

Quote:

Originally Posted by chapka

Actually, I'd argue that there's one more thing (probably the most useful) you can do: support basic scientific research.

There was a good article in the Economist a few weeks back about some of the interesting research that's going on to try to make influenza vaccines easier and faster to develop and to make them more effective at lower doses. There's also antiviral research going on that could result in something more effective than Tamiflu (which public health types don't expect to do much more than hopefully slow the spread of any dangerous strain).

Government fuding of biological research can help. But more important is that the government doesn't actively interfere in biological and medical research, either with idiotic policies like Bush's stem-cell "compromise," or by attempting to brainwash potential future scientists into believing that basic biological concepts such as evolution are evil.

:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

PetDr · 10-25-2005, 04:49 PM

Basically it's most virulent in its present form. It has a low morbidity and high mortality rate. This is really a big problem in those countries with little or no food safety regulations, and those areas that think it's normal routine to eat an animal (sometimes even uncooked) after it has died from unknown causes.

If this particular virus developes the ability to transfer from human to human, then it will likely have a much lower mortality rate, albeit with a higher morbidity rate and subsequently higher total number of deaths. IIRC, the present mortality rate, for bird to human cases, is around 30%.

Quote:

From 1997 to 2005 there have been 119 reported cases of H5N1 in humans, with 60 of those being fatal.

Link to quoted ISU pdf file.

The point is; Don't eat ducks-blood-soup, unless you kill the duck with your own hands. :huh:

Loren Pechtel · 10-26-2005, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagV

I wouldn't be too concerned, like doghouse said, its dependent on it mutating so that human-to-human transmission is possible. To me it seems like media-hype, anyone who reads the Herald Sun in melbourne could see that over the past week or so the issue they're telling people to be scared of has gone from 'terrorists are everywhere' to 'bird flu will come and get ya!'. And im sure the drug companies are laughing all the way to the bank.

The problem is that the flu is known for mutating. It's very prone to swapping gene segments with other strains of flu.

The dangerous scenario is that something gets sick with *BOTH* H5N1 and a strain that's good at infecting humans. Then you might get a new bug that's got the deadliness of H5N1 and the transmissibility of the other strain.

Jinksy · 10-26-2005, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland98

Depends on what precautions you mean. I'm certainly not stockpiling masks and Tamiflu, but it's always good sense to be careful with your sneezes and germ sharing, and to have an emergency supply of food, water, and other essentials on hand for any potential disaster.

What d'you mean by 'an emergency supply'? I'm not rich enough to afford a survivalist bunker out in the countryside. I could maybe buy a few tins of vegetables and stuff to last me a few days. Is that what you mean?

Roland98 · 10-26-2005, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinksy

What d'you mean by 'an emergency supply'? I'm not rich enough to afford a survivalist bunker out in the countryside. I could maybe buy a few tins of vegetables and stuff to last me a few days. Is that what you mean?

A minimum of a 3-day supply of food and water is recommended. There are a lot of links on preparedness (for any disaster situation, not only a flu pandemic) here on the Flu Wiki.

PetDr · 10-27-2005, 10:30 AM

Obviously in my earlier post I didn't recall correctly. The mortality rate in humans is 50%, not 30%.

It would be very disturbing if the virulence increased from a mutation allowing human to human transmission. However, such mutations usually result in lowered virulence. The typical scenario is that before mutation, or when there's only bird to human transmission, the mortality rate is high, as stated above. Post mutation, when human to human transmission can occur, mortality rates are usually significantly less than 1%.
Remember, the 1918 pandemic had an unusually high mortality rate at 2.5%. And it's sometimes labeled as the deadliest epidemic on record.

At any rate, we won't know any real information on virulence untill/if it mutates to allow human to human transmission. But, it never hurts to take some minimal precautions.

Roland98 · 10-27-2005, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetDr

Obviously in my earlier post I didn't recall correctly. The mortality rate in humans is 50%, not 30%.

It would be very disturbing if the virulence increased from a mutation allowing human to human transmission. However, such mutations usually result in lowered virulence. The typical scenario is that before mutation, or when there's only bird to human transmission, the mortality rate is high, as stated above. Post mutation, when human to human transmission can occur, mortality rates are usually significantly less than 1%.
Remember, the 1918 pandemic had an unusually high mortality rate at 2.5%. And it's sometimes labeled as the deadliest epidemic on record.

At any rate, we won't know any real information on virulence untill/if it mutates to allow human to human transmission. But, it never hurts to take some minimal precautions.

That 50% figure is probably artificially high, due to the fact that we're only seeing the sickest of patients--those who are hospitalized. Several studies have been carried out looking at asymptomatic flu infections, and there are likely cases of mildly symptomatic H5N1 infections that we're missing because we don't have any active surveillance in humans. The mortality rate is likely already much closer to the 2% level than we have observed clinically.

PetDr · 10-27-2005, 11:01 AM

Your probably right. It's like the West Nile Virus. It has an extremely high morbidity, albeit subclinical, and an extremely low mortality.
Obviously the mortality rates are higher for H5N1, and due to its present limited specification, so are the morbidity rates.

I believe one family had 2 teenage children infected and become seriously ill, one died, and the other was sick for several months from complications. The parents and younger children had titers to the H5N1 bug but didn't show clinical signs of infection.

mirage · 10-27-2005, 05:33 PM

I've only just got it.

Avian.

Flew.

What an excellent disease.

Jinksy · 11-01-2005, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirage

I've only just got it.

I'm so sorry... I hope you pull through.

(one bad joke deserves another :Cheeky: )

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-27-2005, 10:30 AM	#16
PetDr Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Santa Clarita, CA Posts: 45	Obviously in my earlier post I didn't recall correctly. The mortality rate in humans is 50%, not 30%. It would be very disturbing if the virulence increased from a mutation allowing human to human transmission. However, such mutations usually result in lowered virulence. The typical scenario is that before mutation, or when there's only bird to human transmission, the mortality rate is high, as stated above. Post mutation, when human to human transmission can occur, mortality rates are usually significantly less than 1%. Remember, the 1918 pandemic had an unusually high mortality rate at 2.5%. And it's sometimes labeled as the deadliest epidemic on record. At any rate, we won't know any real information on virulence untill/if it mutates to allow human to human transmission. But, it never hurts to take some minimal precautions.

10-27-2005, 11:01 AM	#18
PetDr Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Santa Clarita, CA Posts: 45	Your probably right. It's like the West Nile Virus. It has an extremely high morbidity, albeit subclinical, and an extremely low mortality. Obviously the mortality rates are higher for H5N1, and due to its present limited specification, so are the morbidity rates. I believe one family had 2 teenage children infected and become seriously ill, one died, and the other was sick for several months from complications. The parents and younger children had titers to the H5N1 bug but didn't show clinical signs of infection.

10-27-2005, 05:33 PM	#19
mirage Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: UK Posts: 8,524	I've only just got it. Avian. Flew. What an excellent disease.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.