The End is Nigh: WHO confirms human-to-human birdflu case

ElCadaver · Post by **ElCadaver** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:18 am

http://uk.reuters.com/article/healthNew ... 9220071227

As someone who has studied epidemiology, this is concerning
First it was ' it will never be found in any animal other than birds'
Then it was ' well it can pass from birds to pigs, but definately not to humans'
then it's 'oops, it's in europe and a horse has it'.... and now this.

ThinkTank · Post by **ThinkTank** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:38 am

Not suprising really.

When the propaga.. *cough* news, repeatedly reassures you of somthing theres a 50/50 chance its because its a massive pile of horseshit.

After all in the first page you have.

"but said there was no apparent risk of it spreading wider"

"no evidence of sustained or community human-to-human transmission"

"The others all recovered"

"All the evidence suggests that the outbreak within this family does not pose a broader risk"

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:42 pm

Considering that AIDS came from animals (monkeys/chimps), and where the flu virus comes from, I'm not really concerned. The deaths attributed to the bird flu is not that high, when you look at the number of people who must have gotten the disease and NOT died, or gotten a little sick or hardly sick at all. The normal flu kills about 30k a year in the US anyways.

Unless the bird flu has a proven high mortality rate from a percentage of the people who get it, then it is nothing to really worry about. It's a case of the media blowing things out of proportion, as usual.

HATEFACE · Post by **HATEFACE** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:53 pm

Why do you hate freedom?

Mikayla · Post by **Mikayla** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:12 pm

Zak:

Unless the bird flu has a proven high mortality rate from a percentage of the people who get it, then it is nothing to really worry about. It's a case of the media blowing things out of proportion, as usual.

Did you bother reading the article Zak? It mentions the mortality rate: 211 dead out of 343 infected since 2003. Lets see, thats um .. a little bit higher than a 61% mortality rate. In the world of 'flus' thats pretty f***ing lethal.

Cassiel · Post by **Cassiel** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:34 pm

If we have a really nasty flu epidemic of any sort, a lot of people will die. You can cross off the old and very young for starters, and after that it will come down to gradations of luck.

Bird flu's just the one people are getting excited about right now.

HATEFACE · Post by **HATEFACE** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:43 pm

Let's all freak out over the article!!! Mikayla! Save me from the bird flu! Maybe we could live under ground like in that movie twelve monkeys.
This can't be solved by closing our borders and having a more watchful eye on imports and exports! Globalism will not destroy our delicate ecosystems! It's too late, we're all dead!!! This plus global warming?! FUCKING HELL! GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER!!!

Mikayla · Post by **Mikayla** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:51 pm

Heliohudson:

GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER!!!

Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don't we try that.

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:59 pm

Mikayla wrote:Did you bother reading the article Zak? It mentions the mortality rate: 211 dead out of 343 infected since 2003. Lets see, thats um .. a little bit higher than a 61% mortality rate. In the world of 'flus' thats pretty f***ing lethal.

Yeah, though I would like a little more breakdown on the numbers. Age ranges, plus how many of those people had access to good, modern medical care. If most of those 70 year olds in rural China it's a bit different than 25 year olds in Hong Kong.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:18 pm

If the modern bird flu is related to the old flu pandemic of 1918, and there is evidence that it is, then it won't be just the young and the old. The prior flu pandemic was frightening precisely because young healthy adults had such a high mortality rate, though I suspect that was simply because they were out and about more. A children's rhyme of the time becomes quite foretelling now....

I had a little bird,
Its name was Enza.
I opened the window,
And in-flu-enza.

BTW, the mortality rate was a mere 2.5% overall, though some areas like India were as high as 5%, and humidity was linked with the more severe regional outbreaks. Prior pandemic flu's had mortality rates of less than 0.1 %. A 61% mortality rate in a pandemic airborne virus would be the end of civilization as we know it.

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:29 am

Mikayla wrote:Zak:
Unless the bird flu has a proven high mortality rate from a percentage of the people who get it, then it is nothing to really worry about. It's a case of the media blowing things out of proportion, as usual.
Did you bother reading the article Zak? It mentions the mortality rate: 211 dead out of 343 infected since 2003. Lets see, thats um .. a little bit higher than a 61% mortality rate. In the world of 'flus' thats pretty f***ing lethal.

Yes. I did read it. However ..

211 people out of 343 infections reported since 2003

That's what they knew, and put into their records. The number of people who did get it, but did not report to the hospital, or had a milder illness if any. Not everyone has a bad illness. In a normal year, only the people who have a bad illness report to the hospitals for the flu. Out of the millions who get it, that is a tiny tiny number.

If they had confirmed that there were only 343 infections period, then yes, that is a high mortality rate. Until they can do that, I'm not going to worry much. Considering where they infections have been happening, I'm willign to bet that they are missing most of the cases.

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:33 am

Mulu wrote: BTW, the mortality rate was a mere 2.5% overall, though some areas like India were as high as 5%, and humidity was linked with the more severe regional outbreaks. Prior pandemic flu's had mortality rates of less than 0.1 %. A 61% mortality rate in a pandemic airborne virus would be the end of civilization as we know it.

If that happens now, more people would die in the panic about it than by the flu itself. Leading to other diseases. Panics are never good, and the media would not help in calming people.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:01 am

Zakharra wrote: If they had confirmed that there were only 343 infections period, then yes, that is a high mortality rate. Until they can do that, I'm not going to worry much. Considering where they infections have been happening, I'm willign to bet that they are missing most of the cases.

211 of 343 is still reason to pause.

Afterall, if 2 out of 3 reported bird flu sufferers ended up stone cold dead, what makes you so confident that the mortality rate of all the unreported cases is not in the same ball park?

With all the corruption in many impoverished towns and villages, i doubt many of them want to be put under the microscope by having the WHO roll into town with the eyes of their countries government squarely focused on them.

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:31 am

Swift wrote: 211 of 343 is still reason to pause.

Afterall, if 2 out of 3 reported bird flu sufferers ended up stone cold dead, what makes you so confident that the mortality rate of all the unreported cases is not in the same ball park?

With all the corruption in many impoverished towns and villages, i doubt many of them want to be put under the microscope by having the WHO roll into town with the eyes of their countries government squarely focused on them.

Simple. There's nobody dying in huge numbers in the countryside. If it is a 2/3's death ratio, there would be no way to hide the numbers of people dying. All it takes is one cell phone call or picture, or blog post to break a story like that. It would be a herculean task to hide something like that. Especially as mobile as the world is today. You can go from Podunk, Indonesia to Grand Rapids, USA in mere hours.

Cassiel · Post by **Cassiel** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:21 am

Zakharra wrote: Simple. There's nobody dying in huge numbers in the countryside. If it is a 2/3's death ratio, there would be no way to hide the numbers of people dying. All it takes is one cell phone call or picture, or blog post to break a story like that. It would be a herculean task to hide something like that. Especially as mobile as the world is today. You can go from Podunk, Indonesia to Grand Rapids, USA in mere hours.

Typically in the developing world the reverse of what you suggest is true - mortality and morbidity rates for everything are under-reported because people don't know or are unable to notify the relevant authorities. HIV rates in subsaharan Africa, maternal mortality in India, you name it and on the ground it's higher than it is.

Also, I believe with bird flu there have been pretty extensive contact-tracing efforts to avoid precisely this sort of under-reporting. So I'd guess those numbers are pretty accurate - certainly if you bootstrap them I'd suggest they'd still be pretty dramatic.