Slashdot Mirror


"Killer Flu" Emerging On Both Sides of the Pacific

mallorean writes "The spread of SARS ( Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ) worldwide is just about making the headlines. The WHO has issued an advisory. American Scientist had two very timely articles relevant to SARS in the current issue. The first is about the rapidly growing antibiotic resistance in bacterial diseases and the origin and possible sources of this resistance. The second article talks about Type A Influenza and the possibility of a world pandemic similar to the 1918 Global Flu Pandemic. The transmittable nature of SARS, the lack of epidemological information and its severe resistance to antibiotics seems tailor made to fit the scenario outlined in the second article ( it even originated in the far east and is a strain of avian flu )." Read below for a related link.

jake-in-a-box points to a New York Times article which says that the illness "has affected hundreds in China and Southeast Asia, and now spread to Vancouver, BC. It does not respond to antibiotics or antivirals and apparently nobody has fully recovered yet. Transmission appears to be via aerosol droplets - coughs, sneezes etc."

25 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Virus vs antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Er, the Flu is a virus, and antibiotics only work against microrganisms and bacteria, therefore it's not suprising that the flu is totally unaffected by antibiotics.

    Duh.

    1. Re:Virus vs antibiotics by KDan · · Score: 5, Informative

      They don't know whether it's a virus yet (according to most of the accounts I've read, findable on Google News).

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    2. Re:Virus vs antibiotics by spotted_dolphin · · Score: 3, Informative

      antibiotics are important to pneumonia
      Antibiotics would only be effect against bacterial pneumonia. There are some cases where pneumonia is thought to be caused by viruses.
      http://www.lungusa.org/diseases/lungpneumoni.html# viral

  2. From bash.org by akpcep · · Score: 3, Funny

    [Thumb] do you know of any major organizations that are similar the CDC?
    [Lucent] who?
    [Thumb] center for disease control
    [Lucent] i said WHO
    [Thumb] what? i'm asking you
    [Lucent] World Health Organization

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:From bash.org by unitron · · Score: 2, Funny
      So even if you can't be Doctor Who you can still aspire to be a WHO doctor?

      Third base.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  3. Difference between this and other diseases? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's the difference between this latest outbreak and any other outbreak?

    These articles talk about a strain influenza virus (and then they talk about a second disease) which is spreading to dozens of countries and which has killed hundreds of people in Asia. WHO issued an advisory. The deaths are tragic, but these happenings don't seem very unusual to me. Thousands of people die from influenza every year, WHO issues advisories every year, viruses spread every year.

    So how is this new disease different? I couldn't get a good sense from the articles.

    Is this just hype? Perhaps now that we're on the verge of war, and many folks (at least here in the US) are scared of a biological attack. Perhaps that fear is just contributing to the hype?

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    1. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by barakn · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What's the difference between this latest outbreak and any other outbreak?

      So how is this new disease different?

      The new illness is probably not influenza. The flu does not present as a pneumonia, although it can weaken the respiratory tract and allow secondary infection by opportunistic bacteria or viruses. Furthermore, there are rapid tests available for the diagnosis of the flu virus. I presume these have been performed and came back negative. So this is a new, dangerous, highly-infectious disease.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    2. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by dhk42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Darn it! I wanted to moderate, but I'm going to have to post because everyone seems to have missed something important here. (donates his moderator points to the ether)

      The really really scary thing about this is that no one who has been infected is getting better.

      That by itself might not be enough to have everyone in an uproar, but throw in moderate mortality and extremely infectious and completely unknown infectious agent and it is definitely time to be concerned.

      Just in case you still don't see the implications, imagine a disease that spreads with the same ease as the flu or the common cold, but from which you never recover. OK, that's scary right? I have a cold (or flu) at the moment, so I know that I find this scary.

      Now imagine that EVERYONE who has caught it is a carrier of it forever, but they don't tend to die, so there are LOTS of carriers. OMG, very scary.

      OK, now imagine that the symptoms can be relatively mild for long periods, meaning people will travel and go to work and to school for quite some time before they seek professional help (and thus be quarantined). Jeez. Too scary for words, really.

      How long before a significant fraction of the population of the earth could be infected by such a disease?

      Let's just hope the actual disease turns out not to be as bad as my hypothetical one.

      -dhk-

    3. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by allism · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, an article posted a little further down from here says that one person has recovered. Here's the link.

      Not that I'm getting my hopes up over one person, but maybe the 'no one has recovered' is media hype.

  4. Re:Antibiotics are not for viral infections by kmellis · · Score: 2, Informative
    This isn't influenza, as far as they know. They haven't identified a pathogen. They don't know whether its a bacteria or virus. I repeat: they don't know what this is. They'll naturally try both antibiotics and antivirals until they figure it out.

    SARS is acting like an airborne pathogen, which is scary.

  5. The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    My mom died from a case of the flu that turned into pneumonia in 1995. Anti-biotics *are* relevant to flu viruses, because the flu can ofter turn into pneumonia through a weakened immune system. That is why it is so important for people to take anti-biotics sparingly and only when absolutely necessary. When the doctor gives you them please take *all* of them and please do not use anti-biotic soap or any of those kinds of products.

    1. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by cmburns69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Antibiotic soap is really not the problem most people think it is. Its antibiotic properties work on completely different principles than the antibiotics your doctor gives you.

      If everybody uses these topical antibiotics, they will become less effective and eventually completely non-effective, but it will not affect the potency of your doctors penicillin.

      An online Starcraft RPG? Only at

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    2. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by X-rated+Ouroboros · · Score: 5, Informative

      please do not use anti-biotic soap or any of those kinds of products.

      Not to imply that the AC made this mistake, but don't confuse "Anti-Bacterial" with "Anti-Biotic". Soap is naturally antibacterial, so having this on the label is right up there with selling water by trumping up the fact that it's wet. BUT, one manufacturer does it, so they all do it...
      Oh, the best part is that the mechanical action of washing your hands is what does most of the work in sanitizing your hands, soap can actually make you MORE susceptible to illness by removing a variety of products your skin exudes onto its surface to combat infection (membrane lysing ribozymes and the like) and drying the skin.

      The main abusers of antibiotics are livestock industries, though, not poorly informed doctors and irresponsible patients. Just about every animal is given astounding amounts of antibiotics but not so much for their disease fighting effects (in fact, certain antibiotic classes have been so abused that there are bacterial strains that can use them as FOOD). Someone noticed that animals given antibiotics gained weight more rapidly and reached a higher average weight overall than similarly treated animals that were not given the antibiotics. At first it was thought "oh, it's just because they're more healthy" but, in fact, the antibiotics themselves were causing the animals to bulk up, as proven by the fact that many of the antibiotics still given to livestock are no longer effective as antibiotics (go go evolution) yet the animals still bring more meat to market in less time.

      So, why get upset about argindustrialists overusing admittedly ineffective antibiotics? Because they also do still give the animals doses of currently effective antibiotics... and I don't expect Frank the Farmhand to draw the distinction between the two, so we find abuses of the newer, still effective, antibiotics simply because of the conditioning to overdose the animals.

      The thing that bothers me most about the general availability of antibiotics is that, while Carla the Crackwhore is only destroying her life, Henry the Hypochondriac is busily breeding the new strains of this, that, and/or the other that may just spread around the world one day and kill us all. Tuberculosis is already a growing problem. Post operative infection (by antibiotic/antiviral resistant strains, of course) is a major player in hospital deaths these days. It is my opinion that antibiotics should be controlled with handling restrictions silimar to Schedule I, Class A drugs... as they pose a greater threat to more people than heroin ever has.

      --
      Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
    3. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by andrewski · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think that soap that claims to be anti-bacterial has Triclosan as its active ingredient. Soap is not 'naturally' anti-bacterial - many bacteria enjoy very basic environments, and some can probably live off of it.

  6. Re:Antibiotics are not for viral infections by KnightNavro · · Score: 2, Informative

    If it isn't a virus, it isn't the flu. The flu is caused by the influenza virus, so if it isn't caused by that virus, calling it the flu (as in the Slashdot headline) is misleading.

  7. CBC Article... by Sentry21 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The CBC has a story on the cases in Canada as well.

    --Dan

    1. Re:CBC Article... by jake-in-a-box · · Score: 2, Informative

      In a follow-up report the Times reports that SAR does not appear to be propagated by casual contact. It takes continuous exposure, such as would be seen by family members or care-givers. This is reassuring, because if it were to be spread easily it could be a problem. The statement that neither virus nor bacterial agent can be identified is interesting. Exactly what is meant by "a previously unknown infectious agent" is unclear.

      Epidemiologists have been watching for indications of a repeat of the 1918 Swine Flu and expect it to emanate from Southeast Asia, primarily because so many people live in close proximity to other animals, as in the farm animals live on the first floor and the family lives on the second floor.

      --
      To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
  8. solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If we only used antibiotics in humans, only when they are clearly warranted (dangerous infection that is plausibly of bacterial origin), and with proper isolation of the patients, there would probably not be enough evolutionary pressure on bacteria to develop resistance.

    Instead, we feed antibiotics to livestock and hand them out to anybody who asks for them. It's not surprising that that leads to resistance. The consequence is already a lot of disease that would have been treatable otherwise, and it will likely be lots of deaths in the future. And simply researching new antibiotics won't be a solution: they'll become ineffective as quickly as the current crop; this is a race that we are losing.

    If you prescribe or take antibiotics unnecessarily, or if you buy meat from animals that have been fed antibiotics, you are responsible for the deaths of others pretty much as if you put a gun to their head; it's just that you are never going to meet the people you killed.

    1. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by dacarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is, there are people who insist on amoxycillin to treat their strain of the common cold. I don't know why doctors don't just kick them out of their offices....

      --
      This sig no verb.
  9. Geeks to the rescue by braddeicide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We need more Distributed Computing disease curing programs aka http://folding.stanford.edu/

    tecks and scientists unite! :)

    (stop looking abroad while there's problems at home (SETI))

  10. Re:Good by VendingMenace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    nature is not "fighting back" any more that is was when mammals took over for reptiles after thee climate changed. Nature does not fight back, it evolves :)

  11. Scary by tsa · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is really scary. I have a heart disorder. People with heart disorders are extra vulnerable to the flu, so I hope my doctors will warn me in time and tell me what (not) to do... I heard it takes about 10 years to make a vaccin against a new type of flu so that will probably come too late.
    I think I'll stay indoors and only invite people if I really have to :-)

    --

    -- Cheers!

  12. Why antibiotics are fed to the livestock by Muhammar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cows and pigs are not supposed eat grains and soya all the time - but it makes them grow quick and their meat is more tender & juicy (=intramuscular fat). High calory/low fieber diet can make the animals sick - the bacteria in the gut would produce a lot of acidic products that irritate/cause inflamation of the gut, resulting in indigestion, diarrhea and poor absorbtion of the feed. But if you suppress bacteria by adding antibiotics, you can feed this stuff with impunity.

    Although, the antibiotic resistance may not have anything to do with this: the pathogen looks to me more like a virus, quite possibly of the influenza variety. Please remember that influenza viruses are *exceptionaly* variable, fast- mutating. They have their natural reservoir in birds (wild population and chicken as weel) and also pigs, and only infect humans when they mutate. Influenza virus needs the host to have a protease capable of activating the key virus protein. Most often these proteases are specific to the particular tissue and animal species - that is until the key virus protein eventualy mutates and a new host becames vulnerable to it.
    When the mutation would happen is unpredictable and if the new influenza virus is only a cousin-relative to the common influenza virus, the neuramidinaze inhibitors may not work at all on it.
    Muhammar

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  13. Omega Post! by dexter+riley · · Score: 4, Funny

    So few posts about a killer bug sweeping the globe? This could mean only one thing...

    I am the LAST SLASHDOT READER ALIVE ON EARTH!!!

    Last Post!!!







    ...damn, I'm lonely.