| |
China Sailor
|
Quote: from Broken Leg on 9:39 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
...Most deaths in 1918 as now that are due to influenza are not caused by the primary infection but by secondary infection mostly bacteria and fungal infections which can cause things such as pnuemonia due to the weakened state the body is left in after Influenza. Antibiotics and the antifungals available today that were not available in 1918 would therefore allow many to recover from these secondary infections that couldn't in 1918...
Lets check the stats..
In 1997 an outbreak of H5N1 resulted in 18 human infections and 6 deaths or a 33% fatality rate.
The WHO Sitrep dated 1 November 2005 reports that in the current outbreak there are 122 human infections and 62 deaths or a 51% fatality rate:
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/country/cases_table_2005_11_01/en/index.html
Granted that in the latest period the fatality rate has moderated somewhat (38%), this is still significantly higher than the 1997 figures.
Based on the Scoreboard, it seems to me that modern antibiotics are not affecting the fatality rate in a positive manner...
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 8:12 am on Nov. 2, 2005
|
|
Broken Leg
|
Quote: from China Sailor on 9:50 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
Quote: from Broken Leg on 9:39 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
Lets check the stats..
In 1997 an outbreak of H5N1 resulted in 18 human infections and 6 deaths or a 33% fatality rate.
The WHO Sitrep dated 1 November 2005 reports that in the current outbreak there are 122 human infections and 62 deaths or a 51% fatality rate:
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/country/cases_table_2005_11_01/en/index.html
Granted that in the latest period the fatality rate has moderated somewhat (38%), this is still significantly higher than the 1997 figures.
Based on the Scoreboard, it seems to me that modern antibiotics are not affecting the fatality rate in a positive manner...
There is no way to know what the mortality rate of a human version of the H5N1 virus may be because it does not exist. However,
"At this point, the mortality rate among infected humans is running right at about 50 percent, but that hardly means that is what it would look like if the virus became human-to-human communicable. Remember, the virus needs to mutate before it is a threat to humanity -- there is no reason to expect it to mutate just once. Also, in general, the more communicable a disease becomes the lower its mortality rate tends to be. A virus -- like all life forms -- has a vested interest in not wiping out its host population."
Again be aware you are quoting statistics and making assumptions on the back of 122 cases in the last 2 years worldwide. If you want to start making assumptions on the basis of these statistics then put simply you are much more likely to be killed by lightening than H5N1, or killed in a terroist attack and you've already said you're going to keep going to Bali. Of course it COULD mutate into a virus with 100% mortality, but as I have suggested before if we worry about everything that COULD happen then we'd all be dead from heart attacks anyway.
And as I have suggested before this has all been blown out of all proportion by scientists, doctors and influential people who have a vested interest in the panic caused by influenza pandemic scaremongering.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 9:24 am on Nov. 2, 2005
|
|
DaffyDuck
|
Quote: from China Sailor on 9:50 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
Based on the Scoreboard, it seems to me that modern antibiotics are not affecting the fatality rate in a positive manner...
Uhm, dude, NEWSFLASH - antibiotics have absolutely no effect on viral infections, anyway. I thought you'd already know that, but then again, considering how many people still request antibiotics when flu season approaches...
Quote: from Broken Leg on 11:03 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
And as I have suggested before this has all been blown out of all proportion by scientists, doctors and influential people who have a vested interest in the panic caused by influenza pandemic scaremongering.
As a general concept, THAT I can agree with - a lot of the media exposure of the avian flu issues is just scaremongering, and while a pandemic can and will eventually happen (as has been pointed out, it's a historically regular event), the risk to us (folks outside of Asia), will most likely be minimal... this time around.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 1:07 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
|
|
China Sailor
|
Quote: from DaffyDuck on 3:45 am on Nov. 3, 2005
Quote: from China Sailor on 9:50 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
Based on the Scoreboard, it seems to me that modern antibiotics are not affecting the fatality rate in a positive manner...
Uhm, dude, NEWSFLASH - antibiotics have absolutely no effect on viral infections, anyway. I thought you'd already know that, but then again, considering how many people still request antibiotics when flu season approaches...
Hey Duck,
Read my post just before the one from BL that I quoted and you would see that that is exactly what I said.
If you had read the entire post and the related material you would have realized that I was responding to BL's contention that modern antibiotics would lessen the effect of a flu panedmic.
As for this being scaremongering, I admit I am stirring the pot a little. The media also creates the illusion that avain flu is a threat through their selective reporting on the subject.
However the there has been three outbreaks of H5N1 tracked by WHO and each successive outbreak is worse.
BTW: If you and BL want to discuss the conspiracy aspects of this topic meet me on 'Z' where such discussons are more approprite (The same goes for you madfrog, just be careful the last frog on 'Z' got accidently squashed). PM me and we can set up a thread...
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 1:27 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
|
|
China Sailor
|
The following link is about a CNN special on the Avain Flu issues where they not only talk to government officals and experts, they also talk to villagers impacted by the outbreak.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/11/02/birdflu.tv/index.html
Disclaimer: This is not intended to scare anyone unless they are a weak-willed wussy that would be afraid to leave their house much less than travel to BKK....
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 1:57 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
|
|
DaffyDuck
|
Quote: from China Sailor on 3:35 am on Nov. 3, 2005
they also talk to villagers impacted by the outbreak.
"We have dead chicken all the time, so we did not feel this was bad"
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:10 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
|
|
Evil Penivel
|
I guess this sort of, maybe, sounds like a plan:
U.S. Could Restrict Travel to Prevent Flu
WASHINGTON - Sustained person-to-person spread of the bird flu or any other super-influenza strain anywhere in the world could prompt the United States to implement travel restrictions or other steps to block a brewing pandemic, say federal plans released Wednesday.
If a super-flu begins spreading here, states and cities will have to ration scarce medications and triage panicked patients to prevent them from overwhelming hospitals and spreading infection inside emergency rooms, the plan says.
It provides long-awaited guidance to the front-line local officials urging them to figure out now how they would prevent that _ and to practice their own plans to make sure they'll work.
Pandemics, or worldwide outbreaks, strike when the easy-to-mutate influenza virus shifts to a strain that people have never experienced before, something that happened three times in the last century.
It's impossible to predict the toll of the next pandemic, but a bad one could infect up to a third of the population and, depending on its virulence, kill anywhere from 209,000 to 1.9 million Americans, say the Bush administration's new Pandemic Influenza Plan.
The illness will spread fastest among school-aged children, infecting about 40 percent of them, and decline with age, the plan estimates. It puts the health costs alone, not counting disruption to the economy, at $181 billion for even a moderately bad pandemic.
It's also impossible to predict when the next pandemic will strike. But concern is rising that the Asian bird flu, called the H5N1 strain, might trigger the next one if it eventually becomes easily spread from person-to-person.
With a public increasingly jittery about the H5N1 spread among birds and a drumbeat of criticism that the nation is woefully unprepared, President Bush on Tuesday outlined a $7.1 billion strategy to get ready for the next pandemic. Topping his list is improving systems to detect and contain the next super-flu before it reaches the United States _ and overhauling the vaccine industry so that eventually, scientists could quickly brew enough for everyone within months of a pandemic's appearance.
That vaccine improvement will take years to implement _ and the details released Wednesday stress that early on, the public will be depending on scarce supplies of anti-flu drugs and stockpiled vaccines and old-fashioned ways of limiting viral spread.
Stockpiled drugs "are not the equivalent of preparedness," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt told a Senate subcommittee Wednesday as he unveiled the details.
Indeed, the plan stresses that if a pandemic begins, Americans should limit visits to doctors and hospitals unless absolutely necessary and hospitals should triage those seeking care so that suspected super-flu cases have limited contact with other patients, the plan says.
But critics battered Bush's plan for the federal government to stockpile enough of the anti-flu drugs Tamiflu and Relenza to treat 44 million people and make states buy another 31 million treatment courses, mostly with their own money, to cover the rest of the anticipated need.
"States are extremely nervous about what's going to be required of them," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., told Leavitt.
And Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he doesn't trust the administration's assessment of the nation's health care needs and demanded that Leavitt provide more information about its response to the evolving bird flu.
"Could we have acted sooner to avoid the situation we are in now, in effect running for cover?" he said. "We need a better way of finding out what the hell is going on."
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:59 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
|
|
DaffyDuck
|
a) I believe the estimates of infection rates, and fatality numbers are still placing us ahead of the odds (well, those of us between our 20s and our 40s). In a widespread situation, most likely the usual prime fatalities will be the very old and the very young - which I would estimate to represent the center of a fatality bell curve.
b) Should a pandemic occur, you can generally wait it out, if you have the luxury of being able to do so, by avoiding places of large concentration of people - which would include planes, trains, buses, and places like malls.
c) prime infection route in such cases is invariably via the hands to your mucus mebranes (eyes, mouth, etc..) Start making it a habit right now, to frequently wash your hands, or carry alcoholic handwashes with you. This holds particularly true when you use public facilities like internet cafes, bars, etc...
Just a handful of things to keep in mind, just to be prepared, if you want to be (aside from just being healthy common sense bits of advice)
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 7:01 pm on Nov. 2, 2005
|
|
China Sailor
|
EP,
I would take any of the political side of this thread to the 'Z' Forum where it is better suited.
It is interesting to note that NPR reported yesterday on the priority list for flu treatment/vaccianation in case of a pandemic:
1. Those in patients in hospitals already
2. First line care givers
3. Emergency Response Personnel (Police, Fire)
4. Government Officals (of course)
blah, blah, blah.
I note that this plan does not consider recent research that shows that the primary vector for the flu is pre-school and elementary school children.
Best bet to count on if it hits --> stay away from sick people...
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 7:13 am on Nov. 3, 2005
|
|
Golden Star
|
The following has landed in my inbox earlier this week. Food for thought.
Pandemics: Past and Future
What precisely is a pandemic? The short version is that it is an epidemic that is everywhere. Epidemics affect large numbers of people in a relatively contained region. Pandemics are in effect the same, but without the geographic limitations. In 1854 a cholera epidemic struck London. The European settling of the Americas brought disease pandemics to the Native Americans that nearly eliminated them as an ethnic classification.
In 1918 the influenza outbreak spread in two waves. The first hit in March, and was only marginally more dangerous than the flu outbreaks of the previous six years. But in the trenches of war-torn France, the virus mutated into a new, more virulent strain that swept back across the world, ultimately killing anywhere from 20 million to 100 million people. Some one in four Americans became infected -- nearly all in one horrid month in October, and some 550,000 -- about 0.5 percent of the total population -- succumbed. Playing that figure forward to today's population, theoretically 1.6 million Americans would die. Suddenly the fear makes a bit more sense, right?
Wrong.
There are four major differences between the 1918 scenario and any new flu pandemic development:
First -- and this one could actually make the death toll higher -- is the virus itself. No one knows how lethal H5N1 (or any animal pathogen) would be if it adapted to human hosts. Not knowing that makes it impossible to reliably predict the as-yet-unmutated virus' mortality rate.
At this point, the mortality rate among infected humans is running right at about 50 percent, but that hardly means that is what it would look like if the virus became human-to-human communicable. Remember, the virus needs to mutate before it is a threat to humanity -- there is no reason to expect it to mutate just once. Also, in general, the more communicable a disease becomes the lower its mortality rate tends to be. A virus -- like all life forms -- has a vested interest in not wiping out its host population.
One of the features that made the 1918 panic so unnerving is the "W" nature of the mortality curve. For reasons unknown, the virus proved more effective than most at killing people in the prime of their lives -- those in the 15- to 44-year-old age brackets. While there is no reason to expect the next pandemic virus to not have such a feature, similarly there is no reason to expect the next pandemic virus to share that feature.
Second, 1918 was not exactly a "typical" year. World War I, while coming to a close, was still raging. The war was unique in that it was fought largely in trenches, among the least sanitary of human habitats. Soldiers not only faced degrading health from their "quarters" in wartime, but even when they were not fighting at the front they were living in barracks. Such conditions ensured that they were: a) not in the best of health, and b) constantly exposed to whatever airborne diseases afflicted the rest of their unit.
As such, the military circumstances and style of the war ensured that soldiers were not only extraordinarily susceptible to catching the flu, but also extraordinarily susceptible to dying of it. Over half of U.S. war dead in World War I -- some 65,000 men -- were the result not of combat but of the flu pandemic.
And it should be no surprise that in 1918, circulation of military personnel was the leading vector for infecting civilian populations the world over. Nevertheless, while the United States is obviously involved in a war in 2005, it is not involved in anything close to trench warfare, and the total percentage of the U.S. population involved in Iraq and Afghanistan -- 0.005 percent -- is middling compared to the 2.0 percent involvement in World War I.
Third, health and nutrition levels have radically changed in the past 87 years. Though fears of obesity and insufficient school lunch nutrition are all the rage in the media, no one would seriously postulate that overall American health today is in worse shape than it was in 1918. The healthier a person is going into a sickness, the better his or her chances are of emerging from it. Sometimes it really is just that simple.
Indeed, a huge consideration in any modern-day pandemic is availability of and access to medical care. Poorer people tend to live in closer quarters and are more likely to have occupations (military, services, construction, etc.) in which they regularly encounter large numbers of people. According to a 1931 study of the 1918 flu pandemic by the U.S. Public Health Service, the poor were about 20 percent to 30 percent more likely to contract the flu, and overall mortality rates of the "well-to-do" were less than half that of the "poor" and "very poor."
But the fourth factor, which will pull some of the strength out of any new pandemic, is even more basic than starting health: antibiotics. The 1918 pandemic virus was similar to the more standard influenza virus in that the majority of those who perished died not from the primary attack of the flu but from secondary infections -- typically bacteria or fungal -- that triggered pneumonia. While antibiotics are hardly a silver bullet and they are useless against viruses, they raise the simple possibility of treatment for bacterial or fungal illnesses. Penicillin -- the first commercialized antibiotic -- was not discovered until 1929, 11 years too late to help when panic gripped the world in 1918.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 7:33 am on Nov. 3, 2005
|
|
| |
|
