Slashdot Mirror


A Flu Pandemic?

Pedrito writes "Scientific American is running a story in this month's issue about preparing for a flu pandemic. What this article tries to convey is that a pandemic is definitely coming. Whether it's from the H5N1 strain (which would likely cause hundreds of millions of deaths) or another strain a few years down the road. There have been 3 other flu pandemics in the past 100 years. The 1918 strain being the worst, with 40 million killed. The reason H5N1 is being followed so closely is because it's already spread to people and because it's incredibly lethal (a roughly 50% fatality rate at th moment). Even if the fatality rate dropped to 5% when and if it mutates into an easily communicable form, it would be twice as deadly as the 1918 virus."

9 of 830 comments (clear)

  1. Sensationalist Journalism? by external400kdiskette · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whilst this sort of thing has happened before saying it's definitely going to mutate is an overstatement. The same kind of sensationalist journalism not to long ago likened mad cow disease to a new sort of plague with predictions of obscene death rates when in reality it was statistically low. It could end up the same for this with a few hundred people dieing over several years ... nothing huge is definitely going to happen.

    1. Re:Sensationalist Journalism? by stevelinton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Certainly H5N1 could go that way, but the flu virus is incredibly flexible, and there is
      absolutely no reason why it won't come up with another variant as communicable and as lethal as the 1918 variant. If it does, the experts tell us that nothing modern medicine has come up with will help a whole lot. Basically it will infect everyone and kill a proportion and then the rest of us will be immune. Unless we can find a treatment that blocks, or ameliorates all varants of the influenza virus at once, or a way to mass produce a new vaccine in weeks rather than years, then we are still wide open to whatever mutation comes along.

    2. Re:Sensationalist Journalism? by kenrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whilst this sort of thing has happened before saying it's definitely going to mutate is an overstatement.

      Hardly - influenza viruses display both antigenic shift and drift: they are gentically one of the more unstable family of viruses. It is inevitable that H5N1 will mutate. What is debatable is whether it will mutate to a form where it is more infectious to a human host, or maybe some other (e.g. porcine).

      Whilst sensationalist journalism is never good, it is important not to sideline flu - there will be a pandemic sometime in the near future, maybe not with H5N1, but we are 'due for one'.

      --
      Not a member of the General Public
    3. Re:Sensationalist Journalism? by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Saying "we're due for one" makes you a nice sucker for Las Vegas. You are never "due" for a hit. You had the same odds last time as you do this time. If you roll two dice 200 times without getting snake eyes, you are not "due" for them. You still have the same 1 in 36 odds as you did last roll.

      Some may look back and say "the odds of going THIS LONG without a hit are incredibly low" which is true, but you are factoring known events that have already happened into your odds, and that's just wrong. If it has already happened (or not happened) then the odds of that past outcome are 100% since we know what occurred. So those results don't have any effect on the odds of something happening tomorrow.

      So we are no more "due" for a major outbreak this year than we were last year. OVERdue maybe, but not due.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:Sensationalist Journalism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AID's hasn't killed anyone. Other diseases kill a person with AIDs.

      Also, life has a 100% fatality rate.

  2. still waiting by BushCheney08 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm still waiting for SARS to get me, cos that's what I was told was going to kill me before. And then there was West Nile Virus. And we can't forget those killer bees that'll be here any day now. Shouldn't we all be dead from ebola by now, too? Or how about monkey pox?

    --
    Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
  3. About those numbers... by Ari1413 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I keep seeing these 50+% mortality figures being thrown around, which seems slightly misleading to me. Imagine if 100 people get a disease. 30 might get it asymptomatically. 60 might get the disease to such an extent that they're "sick" (feeling flu-ish, missing work, etc). 10 might get it to the extent that they wind up in the hospital. If 5 of those 10 die, what's the mortality of the disease? It might seem like 50% to a doctor treating these patients, but the actual number would be 5 percent.

    Because we can only report mortality of cases which we actually see, health officials are already biased towards observing the most severe forms of the disease. With something like, say, HIV, or ebola, it might be safe to say that all reported cases = ALL cases. But with something like a strain of the flu, which people suffer to varying degrees, I'd guess there's some much larger number of cases that are simply never seen in hospitals.

  4. There's is a reason by DrYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a reason that would limit the lethality of new mutant :
    - The point of a virus is not killing its host, but making copies of it self.
    - The lethality of H5N1 is a bad secondary effect.
    - If a new mutant kills its host to quickly, it'll run out of hosts and wont replicate anymore.

    Example :
    - If one catch a new über-mortal flu
    - brings it home
    - infect familiy member
    - the über-mortal flu kills very quickly and the whole family drops dead the same evening
    - The virus will be "stuck" and won't be able to infect anyone else.

    -> That's one of the reason we didn't see a Ebola pandemia

    But, if it is a slower virus,
    and the people survive at least a few couple of weeks (or don't die at all),
    they will have plenty of time to go to work the next days, and transmit the flu to all co-workers, etc...

    The kind of pandemia you see in movies, when some (hibernating/comating patient wakes up / austronaute lands / whatever else) and see everyone dead is not very likely.

    The danger will be if a flu virus like H5N1 can both cross infect birds, but is almost harmless to them, and humans, and is highly lethal, then there's some chance of such a "everyone drops suddenly dead" scenario. ...

    To put it in more Slashdot-friendly terms :
    Imagine an internet worm.
    If the worm crashes Windows immediatly after infecting the PC, even before having time to replicate and send copies to the whole Outlook addresse book,there's no way it could become widespread.
    A few PC will crashes and that's the whole story.
    But if the virus, silently installs backdoors/trojans/spywares and silently begins replicating, THEN you'll have a lot of infected boxen.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  5. Re:Factors in our favor by captainktainer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Factors working against us:

    * As a whole, people do not get as sick as in previous generations. The constant fuss over cleanliness reduces the general health of the immune system because of its lack of exposure to many diseases.

    * Vitamin deficiencies are not as rare as one might think; while scurvy is no longer common, most people in the civilized world consume processed foods, which generally lack vital nutrients. As such, their body mass is maintained or expanded, but the gains made in nutritional science have not, as a whole, trickled down very far into the general population.

    * Palliative diseases are of little use against a virus that causes tissue death in the lungs, encephalitis, and destruction of tissue membranes due to necrosis and apoptosis. H5N1 appears to cause a broad-spectrum attack on the human body in ways that aren't helped by rehydration or salt balance.

    * The vast majority of people may live in their own bedrooms, but are more likely to congregate in large, relatively cramped areas for work, school (especially school!), and purchasing. The rise of mass transit means that especially in urban areas, people are crammed together for long periods of time sharing the same air. For instance, in Tokyo, one person could infect sixty to a hundred people on the ride to the Akihabara district with one sneeze. Same in New York on the A, 4/5/6, 1/2, or 7 lines.

    Furthermore, many more people live in apartments with central ventilation. One infectious person can thus infect dozens, even hundreds, of people with whom he has no direct contact.

    * International and cross-continental travel is much more common, leading to the possibility of faster spread. If the virus has a long presymptomatic infectious period, one overnight flight from China could lead to an infection that spreads through half of San Francisco and hopscotches to New York within a matter of days, catching public health authorities off guard.

    * A virus that spreads via aerosolized particles isn't as susceptible to sanitary conditions as many other diseases. It helps, but isn't as useful in preventative care as you suggest.