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."

45 of 830 comments (clear)

  1. It's Captain Tripps! by DurendalMac · · Score: 4, Funny

    Randall Flagg is cackling with glee right now. His plan as almost borne fruit. I'm stocking up on Nozz-a-la and heading for the hills. Who's with me?

    1. Re:It's Captain Tripps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      M-O-O-N. This spells first post.

  2. 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 BushCheney08 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's probably been fourteen years since I've had the clue.

      Ummm...Not gonna comment on that one... : p

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    4. Re:Sensationalist Journalism? by smallpaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you RTFA? It says: "Scientists cannot predict which influenza strain will cause a pandemic or when the next one will break out. They can warn only that another is bound to come and that the conditions now seem ripe."

      Maybe the bird flu is "the big one". Maybe it isn't. Even if it isn't, we should use the opportunity of its media ubiquity to figure out what we will done when the next big flu does hit. When, not if (unless there is a surprising development in medicine!).

    5. Re:Sensationalist Journalism? by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't see what everyone is worried about. Everyone knows that organisms don't change from one form to another, so there's no risk of a human-transmissible strain.

      THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE KANSAS EDUCATION SYSTEM

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. Re:Sensationalist Journalism? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we are 'due for one'.

      Mutation of the flu virus into something seriously dangerous, like the 1918 variety, certainly qualifies as a Poisson process. The time between events in the Poisson distribution follows an Exponential distribution. The exponential distribution is "memoryless", that is, the probability that an event will occur in the first n years of a time interval is the same as the probability that, after any number of years in which an event has not occured, an event will occur in the next n years.

      Shortly, the fact that we haven't had a flu epidemic recently has absolutely no bearing on whether or not one is coming soon. Even more shortly, we are not 'due for one'. This is known as the gambler's fallacy.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    9. Re:Sensationalist Journalism? by temcat · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll worry when there's a few thousand deaths. Until then, eat healthy food, exercise and keep that immune system running. If you're not one of the typical flu victims (elderly, very young or compromised immune system from other causes), you'll have an excellent chance to shrug it off, even if it does spread.

      While I'm not in a position to judge whether it's true or not, but just yesterday I read in a newspaper that H5N1 has especially high lethal rate among healthy young people, and that this is caused not by the virus itself, but by the extremely strong immune response of the organism to this virus. Basically, our immune system kills ourselves! Therefore, the stronger your immune system (above a certain threshold), the more likely that you'll die from this disease.

    10. Re:Sensationalist Journalism? by Saven+Marek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you're not one of the typical flu victims (elderly, very young or compromised immune system from other causes), you'll have an excellent chance to shrug it off, even if it does spread. Same thing said by all the other ignorant people who are blissfully unaware that the immune system reacts so hard and fast it causes extreme rates of inflammation in the lungs, and you die. The better your immune system, the harder that response and inflammation. The elderly, young and those with compromised immune systems are going to be better off than you.

    11. Re:Sensationalist Journalism? by benjamindees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pandemics don't occur in a vacuum. The events themselves alter the probabilities.

      If you're talking about a slot machine then, yes, you have the same odds every time. If you're talking about an event that, by its occurence, affects the odds of its recurrence within a period of time, then talking about being "due" is entirely appropriate. All evidence indicates that flu outbreaks are such events.

      It's like looking at the weight on a pressure cooker. If steam hasn't come out in a while, you can say that it's "due" to come out soon.

      You can argue that pandemics don't *have* to occur, but until we can go at least a few generations without having one, I'd say you'd be wrong.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    12. Re:Sensationalist Journalism? by surfdaddy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Go try to find the book: "A Dancing Matrix: How Science Confronts Emerging Viruses". I read this book in the mid 90's, and it described the already overdue flu pandemic. I guarantee that if you read this you won't take influenza so lightly again.

      The upshot is that flu undergoes cyclic major mutations about every 40 years. There are six mutations in the cycle. The last two major mutations were relatively benign (remember Hong Kong flu in the 70's?). The 1918 pandemic was quite lethal, and being a virus rather than a bacteria, influenza is not going to be quickly cured with antibiotics.

      The bird flu virus we see today is about 50% lethal, and has even killed a high percentage of otherwise healthy individuals. I for one find this a pretty frightening scenario, let's hope that when it mutates to an easily-propagatable-between-humans form that its lethality has declined substantially. Imaging the economic effects of a spreading flu that was lethal - people would quit going to work, you could see much commerce grinding to a halt. The CDC has said we should be preparing ourselves for seeing children die, etc., at a numbers that are pretty frightening.

  3. Causing Panic by AndyFewt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep, this is definitely the way to keep the public feeling safe. Tell them something is definitely coming to kill 40 million or more, only 50% of people infected will survive and that there is no cure yet.

    I can see the same panic buying of the drugs that can help just like the panic buying of gas masks which happened when someone said that terrorists would use bio/chem weaps.

    1. Re:Causing Panic by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 4, Funny

      Today's good news:

      Boy Crosses Road Unharmed
      Apartment Building Completed On Time And On Budget
      A Man Loves His Wife And Tells Her Of That Fact
      Ice Cream Is Enjoyed By Many
      Zero Asteroids Hit Earth

      I hope that makes you feel better about humanity.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  4. 8 click-through pages?! by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a one-page, ad-free version of the article. Seriously, when articles are formatted like this, submitters should use the "printer friendly" version of the article as the submission.

  5. Discovery Channel by Dreoth · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Discovery Channel will be having a special on about this at 10:00pm EST, it was on last night and I believe it was nearly a 60% fatality rate. In Holland they had to slaughter nearly 30 million birds (mostly chickens) because the disease spread there. The most cases and deaths have been reported in Vietnam, 41 deaths out of the total of 62. You might want to watch this special, it even talks about how they found out the 1918 flu was originally a complete avian strain, much like how this new one is.

    --
    Fear the turtle farming ninja!
  6. 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.
  7. concern? by Rinisari · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One thing that bothers me about all this sudden talk of pandemics, how much cause for concern is there for the average American citizen? This flu strain is apparently more dangerous than SARS, yet it has recieved nowhere near the amount of press that SARS did, and SARS primarily affected the elderly and people with poor immune systems (there were exceptions, though, back off).

    In my case, I haven't been sick enough to need antibiotics in more than a year and a half. I'm a full time college student living in a thirty year old dorm in western Pennsylvania. I regularly have contact with over 1000 people on any given weekday. At any given moment, there is at least 5 people in my hall who are sick.

    Is this pandemic something that American college students at small schools should worry about? Obviously, there is a much higher chance at a university or much larger school (like Penn State with ~45,000 students from all over the world).

  8. Human Death Fetish by Tim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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)." ...maybe.

    So far, fewer than 150 people worldwide have been infected with HN51. Many of those people were old and poor, and didn't have regular access to modern medical treatment. Estimating a human mortality rate from these cases is virtually impossible.

    It's one thing to say that a flu pandemic is inevitable. But then, so are earthquakes, volcano eruptions, giant asteroids, and the heat death of the universe....

    --
    Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
    1. Re:Human Death Fetish by justins · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Many of those people were old and poor, and didn't have regular access to modern medical treatment.

      Uh... no. Ones with access to modern medical treatment are the only ones accounted for in the WHO statistics. If they never made it to a hospital they won't be accounted for at all.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  9. 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.

  10. Are you paying attention? by sane? · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you're not frightened by a flu pandemic, you haven't understood what it is or what it means. If the average case happens we could likely lose 150m worldwide, most probably from the wage earning, productive heart of each community. The speed and breadth of the disease will run it around the world in a matter of a few weeks with air travel and no medical system will have the chance to do much more than count the corpses. Governments are playing down the numbers, predicting from the basis of mild pandemics and allowing years to act.

    Its no exaggeration to say this is the most significant threat we have faced in decade - orders of magnitude more important than a few terrorists. Yet there still is a sleepwalking feel to people's reaction.

    So how are you prepared?

  11. So why is Tamiflu withdrawn from customers? by dindi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Being somwhat affiliated with a few online pharmacies, I know, that Tamiflu (possibly a cure, or at least a good suport medicine to avoid getting any flu) has been withdrawn form public pharmacies and are stocked by the government.

    Why is that happening ?
    Is this flu propaganda for the drug companies, and fear mongerin ?

    These questions came up almost every day looking at searches for that medication, and many claim that this flue, when getting ins a country with decent medical practices/health services has a very small fatality rate. Most people get it in developing countries, and get it in agricultural professions (e.g. farmers being exposed to chickens)....

    Before you start trolling on online pharmacies, I never send spam, or sell dangerous meds such as hydrocodone, so don't bother. .....

    Anyway I am exposed to medication news because it became part of my revenue, and dunno what to think anymore about that flu panic....

    Most people I know say, that it is just a panic by the drug mob to boost sales, but the stocking of flu meds by governments send me a different message....

    1. Re:So why is Tamiflu withdrawn from customers? by __aaijsn7246 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You raise some very interesting questions. Fortunately, I do not have to worry so much about the government restricting sales of Tamiflu, as I acquired a personal stockpile well over a year ago now. It does pay to be a geek and read the medical journals. Bird flu is quite a serious pathogen.. H5N1 may not be the exact strain which jumps the species barrier, but if we are to learn anything from history, there *will* be another pandemic. This is guaranteed unless of course you don't believe in evolution. Sadly, a Hegel quote comes to mind: "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."

      I'm quite surprised at some of the posters here laughing about a flu pandemic. I know it's popular to go for the +5 Funny moderation, but the knee jerk reaction of a scaremongering media isn't always correct. It would be wise to recheck some of your basic assumptions. Many posters have expressed their lack of concern, believing that their "strong immune systems" will save them. This is precisely the problem with H5N1 - it turns your own immune system against you (re: cytokine storm).

      If you believe that the government program to stockpile Tamiflu will save you, think again. From what I have read, Bush plans to distribute supplies of vaccine and antiviral drugs to the elderly as a priority. I guess they must be a strong voting block. ;) Yet the flu disproportionately kills off young people thanks to our robust immune systems. So I feel it pays to have a personal supply for yourself and loved ones (hey, I really love all of you out there and would like it if we could have infinite Tamiflu but that just isn't possible) - current murine models (H. Yen et al. Virulence may determine the necessary duration and dosage of oseltamivir treatment for highly pathogenic A/Vietnam/1203/04 (H5N1) influenza virus in mice. Journal of Infectious Diseases DOI:10.1086/432008 (2005).) show that Tamiflu is most efficacious when taken for 10 days rather than 5.

      A few weeks ago I was visiting Canada, and had a chance to watch one of their national television interview shows. I forget the name but it was approximately "One to one" - where a (famous?) reporter interviews an expert on a currently hot topic in the news. The topic happened to be bird flu, and the expert interviewed was, IIRC, a top MD working at high levels of the government within the health care bureaus. Of course he was also really a PR guy and seemed famous also for giving 10,000 interviews a year. Anyways.. he said he personally had a supply of Tamiflu for himself and his family! When asked, "Is that because you are a medical professional and will be dealing with people who are sick and doing research on the virus... or because you think it is just common sense for anyone to do this to be careful?" - he replied, "A bit of both." Not the exact quotes of course and I am writing this while very tired... but if anyone wants me to dig out a transcript or the exact name and air date of the show I can easily do so. To make matters more interesting, the next day on the news I saw that Canada was totally restricting the sale of Tamiflu!

      Now before anyone jumps on me for being a totally insane, dogmatic, selfish troll - I agree the government has a huge role to play, and it is important that people who are really sick do manage to get Tamiflu. If everyone were to stockpile it beforehand, there would be quite a shortage. But... it is very nice to be forward thinking and preparing for these events on the individual basis. After all, what is best for the entire society during an outbreak might not be best for you individually. As for resistance - yes - please don't abuse the drug and take it unless it is certain that you have no other options. We are already beginning to lose the war with antibiotics as they have been so overprescribed, let's not do the same with our new antivirals.

      All in all - play it smart, educate yourself, and learn the true risks. I'm much more worried about influenza compared to terrorist attack. There is always the group that will follow the crowd in hysterics, and go overboard to protect themselves. But that doesn't mean they are *always* wrong. There is also the group which seeks to protect itself because it is the right course of action.

  12. Highly lethal viruses by JohnsonWax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Highly lethal viruses tend to not spread terribly far if they incubate quickly for the simple reason that those who are infected die before they can infect many others. This is one of the reasons why Ebola tends to be limited to individual communities - nobody lives long enough to get it to the next community.

    A 5% fatal virus will leave 95% of those infected to act as carriers - and because of the low fatality rate, some percentage of those won't realize that they're sick and will take it on planes, etc. without being diagnosed.

  13. Re:Pandemic by Fourier · · Score: 4, Informative

    Am I the only one, having a somewhat strong immune system, that is not in the least bit worried about a pandemic?

    Start worrying. Many of the deaths from the 1918 pandemic and from H5N1 have been related to a "cytokine storm," resulting in an overly vigorous immune response. The typical "healthy young adult" is very much at risk.

  14. 50% may be wayyyy too high by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please remember that this is 50% mortality among REPORTED cases. There may be plenty of people out there who get sick with mild or moderate symptoms and treat it like the regular flu, stay home, take lots of liquids, etc. The mortality rate is among people who are admitted to the hospital, and this is probably only people already showing severe symptoms.

  15. The 1957 influenza epidemic by eric76 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The influenza virus in the 1957 influenza epidemic may have actually been considerably worse than that in the 1918 epidemic.

    What made a difference was the incredible advances in medicine between the epidemics.

    As for the avian influenza, there is little indication that the virus is being spread between humans and no indication that it spreads easily between humans. If and when the virus mutates and that becomes possible, the mutation may also change the severity of the resulting illness.

    Prepare for the worst and be thankful for the best.

  16. Factors in our favor by StefanJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We all know that the news cycle runs on hype, and that there are always charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, and fear mongers waiting to pounce when danger threatens.

    However, immediately dismissing pandemic warnings is foolish. It makes sense to develop a vaccine and work on contingency plans.

    That said:

    There are a lot of differences between 1918 and 2005, and 1963 and 2005.
    Diabetes and obesity epidemic aside, people are a lot healthier:

    * Vitamin deficiences and plain malnutrition are rareities.

    * Lice, bedbugs, intestinal worms and such, while not unknown and on the rise in certain populations, are very, very rare on the whole.

    * The vast majority of people sleep in their own beds, in warm bedrooms.

    * Simple palliative medicines like aspirin, decongestants, anti-diarrheals, and re-hydration drinks can turn what in 1918 were deadly menaces into something merely serious.

    * Most people take hot soapy showers every day; soap and hot running water are available in restaurants and workplaces.

    A pandemic would certainly be bad news for people on the margins, especially the very poor, very old, and recent illegal immigrants crammed into shared housing. But on the whole, the factors listed above will work together to turn a life-threatening menace into something serious -- possibly temporarily debilitating -- but survivable for most people.

    Stefan

    P.S. Hey! You! Wash your goddamn hands after you use the bathroom and cover you mouth when you sneeze. Yeah, you!

    1. 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.

  17. In 1918, the young and healthy were dead by night by coyote-san · · Score: 5, Informative

    Short subject line -- in the 1918 pandemic the young and healthy were often fine in the morning and dead by nightfall. Even in the more common situation where it took a few days to kill, it struck the young and healthy disproportionately harder.

    The problem? An immune system has to be _reactive_. Your immune system has to develop sensitivity to the new virus and that takes some time. The usual flu strain isn't a problem since it's very similar to the strains we've already seen (in infection or innoculation) and our immune system can quickly respond. There's also a lot of natural selection going on over time -- a virus would rather see us miserable and contagious for a week than dead and non-contagious within a day.

    But we have no natural immunity to an entirely new strain, and some can kill before our immune system can develop an effective response.

    That's why older people faired better in 1918. They hadn't seen the same strain, but they had seen enough variety that they had a stronger initial response than their younger peers.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  18. Re:In 1918, the young and healthy were dead by nig by Guy+Harris · · Score: 5, Informative
    An immune system has to be _reactive_.

    But not too reactive. The suggestion has been made that the problem isn't that our immune systems don't react to H5N1, it's that it reacts too vigorously, as per, for example, this article, Bird Flu Triggers Immune System 'Storm'.

    Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health is quoted in that article as saying that this might be why the young and healthy get stricken more severely (presumably he's referring to H5N1, but perhaps that happened with the 1918 flu as well):

    "This is basically a cytokine storm induced by this specific virus, which then leads to respiratory distress syndrome," Osterholm said. "This also makes sense of why you tend to see a preponderance of severe illness in those who tend to be the healthiest, because the ability to increase the production of cytokines is actually higher in those who are not immune-compromised. It's more likely in those who are otherwise healthy."
  19. Offtopic?!? Hey Mods, B-O-O-K that spells book! by Mudcathi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Two posters comment on a thread about a SUPERFLU with direct references to a bestselling book about a SUPERFLU, and moderators rate both posts as offtopic?? Where are we getting moderators these days, the Republic of Illiteracia? FWIW, I thought both posts were quite topical AND funny. "M-O-O-N" indeed :))

    --

    "He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb

    1. Re:Offtopic?!? Hey Mods, B-O-O-K that spells book! by supabeast! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Since when does being well read on Stephen King count as being literate?"

      Being literate does not assume that one only reads great works. It is just as important to be aware of highly influential works, and as the most eminent horror -and possibly the most popular American - writer of the late-twentieth century, it is important for a literate individual to be aware of King's major works simply so that one is able to comprehend King's influence on other writers, as well as the influence other writers have had on King.

      That said, not all of Steven King's books are long-winded, profane, oversexed retellings of campfire stories. Books like Carrie, The Shining, and probably a few other King novels will long be remembered as American classics, and as for all of the crappy books, well, nobody was forced to buy them.

  20. 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 ]
    1. Re:There's is a reason by brit74 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      Actually, the reason we don't see an Ebola epidemic is because ebola is spread by contact with blood and/or secretions of an infected person. I'm sure you're aware that flus spread easier than that. The one thing ebola had going for it was the fact it caused people to bleed. Other than that, it's not much more virulent than AIDS.

      I'd also point-out something else: the Black Death killed very quickly - most people died four to seven days after infection, which is about the same amount of time that H5N1 takes to kill a person. Your "whole family drops dead the same evening" scenario is not realistic given what we already know about H5N1.

      The Black Death is believed to be carried by fleas on rats. The rats (along with lots of other mammals) were dying from the Black Death as well. So, your "if a flu virus like H5N1 can both cross infect birds, but is almost harmless to them, and humans, and is highly lethal," scenario doesn't need to be true in order for H5N1 to be a big problem.

      So, the Black Death was killing its hosts and doing it quickly, but that didn't stop it from wiping out a third of europe's population within a few years. In many cities, it wiped out 50-60% of the population. So, the Black Death had the attributes (according to you) would've caused it to burn itself out too quickly to be a real problem. Yet, it killed 1/3rd of europe's population.

      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. ...

      I don't think this is the danger. We're talking about the possibility of millions of deaths, which is less severe that your "everyone drops suddenly dead scenario", but also more likely to happen.

  21. Re:it would change the pharmaceutical industry by thogard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about the budget for Viagra marketing budget being more than the entire R&D budget of the company that makes nearly all of the existing flu vaccines. Then there is the stomach ulcer research in the US that brought out billions of dollars every year in anti-acids while a few guys doing real research fond the culprit and that wiped billions off the ulcer business. Check the drugs that are given in the 3rd world where the doctors may have one chance to immunize a kid for everything for their entire life. Most of those drugs aren't made by the US drug industry even though it spends many times more than every one else. If you want to find your own examples, look at the annual report of the different companies.

  22. Re:Pandemic by truckaxle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok. Am I the only one, having a somewhat weak immune system, that is not in the least bit worried about a pandemic? ....

  23. %50 fatal is a complete lie by sanermind · · Score: 5, Informative
    Ah chicken little... so convinient to completely ignore obvious scientific demonstration that it's fatality is FAR less in the actuality.
    Some experts like Peter Palese of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York said the H5N1 viruses are a false alarm. He notes that studies of serum collected in 1992 from people in rural China indicated that millions there had antibodies to the H5N1 strain. That means they had been infected with an H5N1 bird virus and recovered, apparently without incident.
    ...From this article on the international herald tribune.
    --

    ---
    the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
  24. Why is this modded as 'insightful'?? by hqm · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Spanish Flu (1918) killed young healthy people very quickly, it turned their lungs into sponge rubber. It was not at all like the "flu" that we are used to. People who blithely confuse the yearly 'achy go to bed for a few days' flu with the killer flu should read the books written during that period about what it was like. People were dying all over the place, sometimes within 24 hours of contracting the disease.

  25. Amantadine by Ranger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember back in the 90's taking some Amantadine to help fight the flu. And I wondered why the news keeps going on and on about Tamiflu. So I did a quick check and yes Amantadine is an antiviral drug, but thanks to the fucking Chinese they have made it useless to fight H5N1 because they'd been abusing it the way our ranchers abuse antibiotics. Amantadine costs a lot less but it doesn't matter. Now we have to use the much more expensive Tamiflu.

    It gets better. One of the primary ingredients for making Tamiflu is something called Shikimic acid which is difficult to produce and is extracted from star anise that is only grown in four provinces in China. And their is a global shortage of star anise so that's why their's a global shortage of Tamiflu. Anyway it probably won't matter since H5N1 will probably develop a resistance to Tamiflu because of overuse. Anyway, we'll just have to wait and how the next pandemic evolves.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  26. Flu Pandemic - What To Do (no, really) by btg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a lot of speculation in this thread, and very little of it seems to be from public health practitioners. Every major health organisation in the world has actually thought about this problem, so you could go and google their FAQs and advice pages if you want, but let me summarise.

    1. H5N1 is not a pandemic virus. The scary thing is a mutation of H5N1. Forget about the statistical wrangling over 50%. The morbidity (deatharifficness) of the human cases is based on small numbers, and a human-to-human strain could have different characteristics in any case. Just accept that the current concern is real and that random computer programmers do not "know better".

    2. PLEASE don't try and buy up Tamiflu. You don't know what to do with it, you don't know how to diagnose flu properly and it's needed elsewhere. If you think you, or someone else has something which you think should be treated with Tamiflu GET TO A FRICKING HOSPITAL. If it's the correct treatment they will have it.

    3. IMPORTANT: If you are "at risk" of initial infection of H5N1 (professional chicken-kisser etc etc) or you are a high-risk flu group (old, asthma, child etc) then GET A FLU JAB for seasonal influenza.

    Note: This will not do anything to stop you getting H5N1 (sorry), although it may (unproven) help you survive. The idea is that if you don't get "normal" flu in the first place then there is less chance of you getting H5N1 _at the same time_, which could result in in-cell reassortment (genetic mutation) of the virus. In other words, H5N1 could cross with whatever flu you got to make a new flu. That could then result in you being patient zero for the killer-flu we're all scared of. (which would suck)

    4. If you want to be ultra-paranoid, you could postpone non-essential travel to, eg, SE Asia or put off your "All Eastern Europe Cockfighting" tour. Your call.

    5. Frankly, for the majority here I doubt that there is anything in particular you should be doing differently right now. BUT just keep a weather eye on the news - if ever the pandemic hits then these recommendations will instantly be out the window and people will be talking about masks, quarantine and emergency plans.

    The sky is NOT currently falling. It is fair odds that unless you happen to indulge in "the love that dare not speak its name" with poultry or enjoy fresh duck's blood soup then there's not much you can do - the sky will fall or it won't. However, the reason health agencies are making a lot of noise is that _were_ the sky to fall, right now, global preparedness is not as good as it could be.

    Thanks.