Tests Show That Deadly New Flu Could Spread Among People

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tests Show That Deadly New Flu Could Spread Among People

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday May 26, 2013 @07:20AM from the patient-zero dept.

An anonymous reader writes in with another news story about how the bird flu may wipe us out. "A new bird flu that has killed 36 people in China can spread from ferret to ferret through the air. A laboratory test showing airborne transmission of the H7N9 avian influenza virus between the animals has raised fears that the virus is poised to become a human pandemic. The H7N9 avian influenza virus emerged suddenly at the end of February and has infected 131 people. A few patients may have caught the virus from other infected people, but no evidence has emerged that H7N9 can readily transmit from human to human."

123 of 185 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

More ridiculous sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-26 07:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

The editor shamelessly says that the bird flu "may wipe us out", yet it has killed 36 out of 131 known cases -- hardly enough to wipe anything out -- and the quote in the actual summary says "no evidence has emerged that H7N9 can readily transmit from human to human."
1. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by clm1970 · 2013-05-26 07:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Exactly FUD. Ferret != Human.and Conditions ferrets in != usual human conditions. There’s no guarantee the virus will spread similarly from person to person, says Ana Fernandez-Sesma, a viral immunologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. In the experiment, ferrets are together for hours with forced airflow under temperature and humidity conditions that favor viral transmission, she says. “I don’t think this is what happens in real life.”
2. Re: More ridiculous sensationalism by SteveFoerster · 2013-05-26 07:40 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No kidding! I mean, have you ever SEEN a virus? Of course not, they're way too small, say those "scientists". How convenient, right? ~
  
  --
  Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
3. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-26 07:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, this is pretty serious. Most of the people who were infected became critically ill and the method of death was due to sepsis, respiratory distress, or organ failure. Contrast this with SARS where only the very young or very old became critically ill. This new virus also has twice the fatality rate of SARS and can be spread by animals we use for food.
  Your snark is unwarranted. Just because the number is low right now doesn't mean that it is stable or controlled. And the research on ferrets was designed to determine if it was plausible to spread from human to human. If the virus can spread from ferrets in the air, it is entirely plausible that the same applies to humans.
4. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by alexander_686 · 2013-05-26 07:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Not exactly FUD. Think of it as a snowball that might turn into a avalanche.
  A 25% kill rate is nothing to sneeze at.
  Ferret are the best animal model we have – and there are open questions on how it was transmitted.
  And, most importantly, there is the question on how this virus would change it if went wide.
  A virus needs to balance out 2 factors from a evolutionary standpoint. First, the more copies of itself it turns out the better chance it while have to spread, while the more copies it turns out the more likely it will kill the host so no more copies will be turned out.
  If this virus went wide, the more virulent versions would dominate, which means the death toll would be higher.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virulence#Evolution
  Remember to wash your hands and sneeze into your sleeve everybody! (I am not stocking up on antivirals yet.)
5. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-26 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  > If this virus went wide, the more virulent versions would dominate, which means the death toll would be higher.
  Actually, generally virulence goes down as a virus adapts to a novel host. See e.g. the myxomatosis example in Australian rabbits.
6. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by AK+Marc · 2013-05-26 08:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In the experiment, ferrets are together for hours with forced airflow under temperature and humidity conditions that favor viral transmission, she says. “I don’t think this is what happens in real life.”
  She obviously doesn't take mass transit.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
7. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by AK+Marc · 2013-05-26 08:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It doesn't have 25% kill rate. Of those admitted to hospitals, it killed 25% The other million who got it just stayed home, knowing the flu isn't treatable. Much like the swine flu was overblown. I actually got the real swine flu (from a trip to So Cal). It wasn't that bad. I've had worse flus. I also got flu-based pneumonia from China once. Bacterial pneumonia can be treated. Viral flu can't. The issue is the people that get secondary infections and don't seek treatment. That was what lead to the swine flu initial fatality rates. All flus in the past 20 years have been initially 25% fatal or so, eventually returning to the historical flu levels of under 1%. 25% is 24.9% error.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
8. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by ColdWetDog · 2013-05-26 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Hyperbole is not a very good debate tool.
  And calling an entire field of research 'bullshit' tends to make whatever valid logic or reason in your arguments get totally ignored.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
9. Re: More ridiculous sensationalism by Teun · 2013-05-26 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, next the UKIP will demand a total ban of foreigners entering the islands.
  That would keep proper Brits healthy!
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
10. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by NFN_NLN · 2013-05-26 08:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Similar to the method used to ban natural root beer. They banned Sassafras because rats injected with safrole oil developed cancer.
  Turns out they injected them with pure safrole... I did the calculations before and it was the equivalent of drinking something like 72 root beers everyday for 3 years. I can't remember the exact number because it was beyond the realm of sanity.
  "Safrole is regarded by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be a weak carcinogen in rats,[4] and considered by the European Commission on Health and consumer protection to be genotoxic and carcinogenic.[5] It occurs naturally in a variety of spices, such as cinnamon, nutmeg, and black pepper and herbs such as basil. In that role, safrole, like many naturally occurring compounds, may have a small but measurable ability to induce cancer in rodents. Despite this, the effects in humans were estimated by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to be similar to risks posed by breathing indoor air or drinking municipally supplied water.[6] In the United States, it was once widely used as a food additive in root beer, sassafras tea, and other common goods, but was banned by the FDA after its carcinogenicity in rats was discovered. Today, safrole is also banned for use in soap and perfumes by the International Fragrance Association."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safrole
11. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by alexander_686 · 2013-05-26 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  I am not sure I am following – can you explain?
  As I understood it, when Myxomatosis was first introduced, it was the highly virulent kind that went wide first. It burnt itself out because it was killing the hosts faster then it could spread. After that, the less virulent continued to spread.
  If you want to argue that in the long term the less virulent kind is the one that survives – o.k. - but that is only after the more virulent kind has spread. Or am I missing something here?
12. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by ShanghaiBill · 2013-05-26 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't have 25% kill rate. Of those admitted to hospitals, it killed 25%
  Furthermore, as a virus spreads through a population, there is strong selective pressure to become less lethal, but more contagious. A dead victim is no longer spreading the virus. If the virus can infect someone without killing them, and even without making them very sick, then the victim will go about their business and spread the virus widely. So when a virus first makes the animal->human jump, it may have a high percentage death rate, but the percentage death rate will quickly drop as the virus evolves and adapts to its new host.
  There are exceptions. For instance the black death that wiped out 30% of Europe in the 1300s didn't become less virulent. But that is because its primary host was rodents, not humans, and there is evidence that it became less lethal to rodents as it spread.
13. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Nyder · 2013-05-26 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure lab ferrets don't get transported around in mass transit. They're transported between labs in comfortable vans. It's simpler, logistics-wise.
  whoosh!
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
14. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by mysidia · 2013-05-26 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, this is pretty serious. Most of the people who were infected became critically ill and the method of death was due to sepsis, respiratory distress, or organ failure
  It is only a cause of concern -- it means that the pathogen has high virulence; it likely kills quickly, which may be resulting in the virus not spreading efficiently. There are plenty of viruses that have high virulence and kill all their victims but aren't a threat -- just a very high impact threat to the small number of people affected.
  There are plenty of flu strains that emerged and had this kind of characteristic of high virulence and high proportion of deaths in the cases that do occur, but did not take a hold, or become epidemics.
  The virus may take on mutations that cause it to spread more efficiently. Virulence may decrease in the mutations, resulting in competition --- the virus will likely evolve to a form that will spread to more hosts; to do so efficiently, the host should be infectious for as long as possible (without dying).
  To be a serious threat, the pathogen has to be moderately virulent (virulent enough to eventually cause deaths) AND contagious. In other words, it has to spread efficiently, and spread before it kills, to become a pandemic.
  See:
  
  the researchers conclude that airborne H7N9 transmission is inefficient.
  But the experiment was not designed to quantify the efficiency of airborne transmission and ferrets aren’t perfect representations of people, so it may be difficult to gauge a person’s risk of catching H7N9 through airborne droplets
15. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by alexander_686 · 2013-05-26 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  You have that backwards – virus can either burn fast or burn slow.
  A virus that burns slow is less contagious and less lethal to it's host. If it is less contagious then it needs to keep it host alive for a longer period of time so there can be more opportunities to spread (or vice versa.).
  As for less lethal over time – that is a maybe. Do you burn hot and fast or long and slow? One strategy does not strictly dominate the other.
  If a virus can transfer to a host faster then it can kill off it's old one, there is a selective pressure to go more virulent. Now speed does come with it's own costs, but it can work in a virus favor over the short term.
16. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-05-26 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  whoosh!
  Well, since I meant that as a joke, perhaps I should be replying in kind. :-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
17. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Wolfling1 · 2013-05-26 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  +1
18. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by icebike · 2013-05-26 10:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  What the GP said is generally true.
  Agents (virus or bacteria) that kill 100 percent of those it infects do not last long, and generally do not spread far.
  It is a counter productive evolutionary path for infective agents.
  Therefore, the tendency is to become less deadly in order to spread wider. Its not like there is any conscious thought involved
  here its just that those agents that are totally deadly tend to get buried or burned with their victims, whereas the less deadly
  versions spread far and wide due to the mobility of their hosts.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
19. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by AK+Marc · 2013-05-26 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  The first time we run into accelerating viruses, we are screwed. Picture something that becomes more "hot" as it encounters more copies of itself, starting slow, and heating up exponentially, with sufficient contagion in the "cold" period. The longer the contagious incubation, the greater the spread and panic would be.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
20. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Sardaukar86 · 2013-05-26 10:35 · Score: 2
  
  Hyperbole is not a very good debate tool. And calling an entire field of research 'bullshit' tends to make whatever valid logic or reason in your arguments get totally ignored.
  Oh hell, I thought those were the *rules* here!
  
  --
  ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
21. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by ebno-10db · 2013-05-26 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  What about those of us who make love on the lawn like crazed weasels? Are we at higher levels of risk of infection?
  You're at higher risk from varmint hunters.
22. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Kittenman · 2013-05-26 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Hyperbole is not a very good debate tool.
  Are you kidding? Hyperbole is SUPERB debate tool!
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
23. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by aXis100 · 2013-05-26 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yean, not at all like cramming 250 people into a flying aluminium tube for 12+ hours with poor air circulation.
24. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by hairyfeet · 2013-05-26 11:55 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What is hyperbole? The fact that you could replace their tests with any substance and get the same results because main lining massive doses of ANYTHING IS BAD even water, or the fact that overdosing an animal or cooking up a test that would never happen IRL is supposed to "prove" anything, other than you know how to rig a test that is?
  This is what i can't fucking stand about the USA and the whole "left versus right" horseshit because you HAVE to turn off your damned brain and wave your little flag, no such thing as hypocrisy or bullshit as long as the one shoveling the shit is on the "right" side. I mean did ANY OF YOU even read TFA? The ONLY way you can call that in ANY way valid is if and ONLY if you were testing the risk of working in a hot house, that's it, that's all, no fucking way in a million damned years would you have conditions even SLIGHTLY like this in real life but "Its science herpa de derp".
  Well fuck that, bullshit is bullshit and whether its slung by someone in a white coat or not its STILL BULLSHIT. Again use the EXACT SAME CONDITIONS they use to test any substance and replace that substance with water, what will happen? Dead animal because NOTHING IS GOOD IN MEGA-DOSES,okay? Nothing, even the things our bodies require to live can kill you dead if you do nothing but mainline that shit, yet we are supposed to accept results from a test where they practically tied the sick animal and the healthy one together in an environment designed to make germs flourish?
  Bad science is bad science and the fact so many of you run to blindly defend it without even reading TFA just shows how God damned knee jerk flag waving bullshit has embedded itself like cancer in this society, its sad and pathetic, that is what it is, someone in a whit coat could tell you the moon is made of green cheese and you'd probably buy it, fucking pathetic.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
25. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by hairyfeet · 2013-05-26 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  THANK YOU, nice to see SOME people in this country still have a God damned brain. You could take those EXACT SAME TESTS and replace the substance with water and what would you get? Dead animal, that's what!
  I did the math once when it came to the monkey tests and you would have had to smoke SIXTEEN PACKS A DAY to equal what they were exposing that monkey to...I'm sorry, but bullshit, that's not even physically possible! You would have to chain smoke 3 cigarettes at a fricking time for 18 hours a day to equal what they gave the monkey, now how is that test prove anything other than some scientists like to torture animals?
  These others can wave their little flags and scream "science!" all they want, but bullshit bad science is bullshit bad science and I WILL call 'em out when they are doing bad science and that is ALL these tests are! I mean for the love of God they took a sick animal and a healthy animal and stuck them in a pair of hot houses designed so the air from one was pumped into the chamber of the other and its supposed to prove...what? That hothouses are good for germs? Well give them a fucking cookie, who the hell didn't know that?
  They can waste mod points all the want but to me it only shows that we hand out grants to damned near anybody these days, no matter how junk the science is.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
26. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by jamesh · 2013-05-26 12:31 · Score: 2
  
  What the GP said is generally true.
  Agents (virus or bacteria) that kill 100 percent of those it infects do not last long, and generally do not spread far. It is a counter productive evolutionary path for infective agents.
  Therefore, the tendency is to become less deadly in order to spread wider. Its not like there is any conscious thought involved here its just that those agents that are totally deadly tend to get buried or burned with their victims, whereas the less deadly versions spread far and wide due to the mobility of their hosts.
  A virus that kills 100 percent of those it infects will do just fine as long as it makes you a bit sneezy and coughy and contagious but not too sick for a while first. Something like HIV, when untreated, results in the death of most of its victims, but there is plenty of opportunity for it to spread before this happens.
27. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by TwineLogic · 2013-05-26 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Tamiflu works but you have to be in hospital to get it these days. Back in the day "someone I know" ordered it off the Internet. I understand it can stop the flu in 2 hours and is nothing short of amazing. I am sure it is reserved for people who have viral pneumonia at least for Influenza.
28. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Kleen13 · 2013-05-26 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Stop trying to prove you mean anything by posting crud like that. If you have a point make it, stop trolling for some semblance of "cool" from your fellow Slashdotters and make it. It's not funny and you take away from meaningful discussion. H7N9 is something to take seriously from both a scientific and social point of view.
  
  --
  That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
29. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-26 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  " Ferret are the best animal model we have"
  For testing against humans? Wrong.
  And from that, I'm immediately dismissing this sensationalist bullshit.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
30. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-26 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  "A virus that burns slow is less contagious and less lethal to it's host."
  Explain HIV, then. Untreated, 100% fatal and your body can't (excepting a few select of the population, myself included) resist or develop natural immunity on its own (and in my case, born without the CCR5 receptor gene.)
  And it's very easily spread. Well, maybe not amongst the typical /. population, but the rest of the world, especially in places with high populations and lacking education. China, India, etc.
  I think you need to learn how to play the game of Pandemic.
  We did this back in middle school.
  That was the EARLY 90s, right after the 80s HIV epidemic.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
31. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-26 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  "She obviously doesn't take mass transit."
  Obviously, neither do you. Many modes of transport use HEPA air filtration, and some even now have graphene filters that nothing larger than a salt ion can get through.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
32. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by alexander_686 · 2013-05-26 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  ok then, what is the best animal model for influenza?
33. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-26 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  "I'm sorry, but bullshit, that's not even physically possible! "
  I think you underestimate how fast people can smoke a cigarette given the right conditions.
  20 cigs per pack times 16 packs a day equals 320 cigs.
  320 cigs divided by 18 hours = 17.777777 cigs per hour, or just short of a cig every 4 minutes.
  I've done more than a pack in an hour while tripping on acid. I can kill an entire cigarette in under a minute and a half. I do, regularly.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
34. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-26 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, pigs are, their lungs are more similar (and hence why they're now compatible for transplant while ferret lungs will NEVER be compatible.)
  They're closer in size, shape, capacity, and genetic material.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
35. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-26 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Spoken like someone that doesn't know anything about plane air filtration systems.
  I'll give you a hint: HEPA + UVC.
  Not one fucking thing survives, and that's one reason why the air has the smell it has - ozone mixed with human.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
36. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Nyder · 2013-05-26 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  whoosh!
  Well, since I meant that as a joke, perhaps I should be replying in kind. :-)
  Then I guess the "whoosh" is for me. =)
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
37. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Will.Woodhull · 2013-05-26 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  For instance the black death that wiped out 30% of Europe in the 1300s didn't become less virulent. But that is because its primary host was rodents, not humans, and there is evidence that it became less lethal to rodents as it spread.
  That little factoid makes me uneasy. The primary host of this newest bird flu is birds, apparently many different species of birds. And it is so well adapted to the birds that it doesn't even cause them to exhibit symptoms. Combined with what I remember reading about wild migratory birds passing viruses between Asia, Europe, and North America, I feel very uneasy.
  
  --
  Will
38. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by alexander_686 · 2013-05-26 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  Odd, but I see AIDs as a great example. Virulence is a plus as long as you can spread before you kill your host.
  Take the pre-1900s STDs like syphilis. Like AIDs it was 100% deadly – pre-antibiotics. However, back then, people had fewer sexual partners. If you have to wait a long time to jump from one to another – and you are 100% deadly, you burn slowly, you converse your host.
  Now look at AIDs and the 1980s. The groups that it exploded in were very sexually promiscuous (and international travel was common for the first time, shared needles, and had a national blood bank going, etc.). AIDs could be much more deadly because the chance of it being passed on before it killed it host was higher. Why converse your host when you have dozens to hundreds of opportunities to infect each year?
  Disease that kill like AIDs don't survive long in the natural world. They go big, wipe out the local population, kill off all the hosts, and die back. A (very deadly) flash in the pan. AIDs got lucky that it hit the right place at the right time. However, syphilis has the better long term prospects and I would bet will be around for longer then AIDs.
39. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by swalve · 2013-05-26 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  AIDS = Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
40. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Kleen13 · 2013-05-26 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Come on. What are you really trying to prove here? My UID has nothing to do with this. Want my ICQ number? It's shorter than most but I'm not bragging... ;-) The Canadian government published the Influenza A(H7N9):Health Portfolio Situation Report - April 19 2013 advising front line corrections, customs, and police staff to the security and personnel implications of this virus. While they classified the risk as low at this time, one cannot ignore the implications. This strain is apparently worrysome enough to advise medium level Federal staff to the risks. What say you?
  
  --
  That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
41. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by MarkvW · 2013-05-26 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  "We're" not screwed. Looking at "us" from above, the herd could use some thinning . . ..
42. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-26 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  The pig, which is why we fucking have it as one source of human organs - compatibility.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
43. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-26 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  "Odd, but I see AIDs as a great example"
  Uh, AIDS isn't a disease, it's the aftermath of a disease.
  There is no AIDS virus, only HIV.
  "Take the pre-1900s STDs like syphilis. Like AIDs it was 100% deadly – pre-antibiotics."
  Before antibiotics, there was Salvarsan, and it worked. Try again.
  "Disease that kill like AIDs"
  AIDS is not a disease, it is the end result of the actual disease itself!
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
44. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-26 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Ferrets, much like mice, are used for experiments because they're easy to breed en-masse (one reason they're banned in California) and easy to do so at a cheap price.
  Until those ferrets are dishing out 6-sigma results, they're not worth paying attention to.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
45. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Kleen13 · 2013-05-26 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  Glad I could be part of your research. After reading most of your posts here, I get it. You have a need to be right. Go ahead, you win, UID-Cali. I am bettered by you. Especially your opinion of a report you didn't read and a subject you really don't know anything about.
  
  --
  That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
46. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Maxo-Texas · 2013-05-26 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. The reduced virulence has less to do with the virus and more to do with the surviving hosts.
  If a virus truly kills 100% of the host, then that doesn't happen.
  But if it kills 50% of the hosts, then within a short time, the virus isn't fatal to the descendents of those survivors. And the reason the survivors made it can be different random factors (sickle cells, thicker mucous, more hairy noses, better white killer T cells, less responsive immune system, etc.).
  There is some evidence that we didn't really "beat" diseases in the 1940's with wonder drugs so much as we developed some herd immunity and the wonder drugs and vaccines helped just helped.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
47. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Pallas+Athena · 2013-05-26 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  for hours with forced airflow under temperature and humidity conditions that favor viral transmission, she says. I don't think this is what happens in real life.
  Sure? Ever been in an office building with ill-maintained airco?
48. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by davester666 · 2013-05-26 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  So we should shoot on sight people from Arkansas? I mean, specifically for this reason, as opposed to just wanting to shoot them in general.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
49. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by AK+Marc · 2013-05-26 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  The airplanes have gotten much better, which is why I didn't point to them, but I have taken the subway in NYC, Paris, Washington DC, and others. If not in the train, then certainly on the platform. But the trains I was on were of a vintage HEPA didn't exist when they were made, and given the layers of graffiti, it doesn't look like they've ever been fixed, updated, or serviced. Buses I've been on vary wildly.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
50. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by sjames · 2013-05-26 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  I might be more alarmed if I was a ferret.
51. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by sjames · 2013-05-26 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's not likely a 25% kill rate. It could easily be that of the 1% of cases that are serious enough to warrant any action at all other than taking an OTC remedy, 25% are fatal, for a total death rate of 0.25%.
52. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by sdsucks · 2013-05-26 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  Generalization much?
  My first slashdot UID was under the 10,000 mark. I stopped reading when all the 500,000+ UID idiots like you started showing up. Forgot the username and password years ago, I could probably dig it up but don't really give two shits. Truly, I have no idea why I joined again so many years later, or why continue to come here on occasion. Slashdot long ago became a place for wannabe-intelligent basement boys to vent their teenage angst. Your post proves that again.
  Seriously, son, if you think your Slashdot UID means ANYTHING... I suggest leaving the basement and exploring the real world for awhile. You will learn many things, and better be able to out a Slashdot UID into context.
53. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by ivano · 2013-05-27 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Why has heart compatibility have anything to do with immune system compatibility? Ferrets have a similar immune system to us than pigs do. Pigs on the other hand have a heart as big as a human - ferret hearts are too small. If ferrets had bigger hearts we'll be using them.
54. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by magic+maverick+ · 2013-05-27 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  i did a boo boo :( lol
  u w8 hear & i show?
  
  --
  HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
55. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by tofarr · 2013-05-27 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  None that I have ever been on seem to have this - the bus service where I live always felt dirty, crowded, and smell like wet dog when it rains. I would imagine the experience in most large cities is similar - HEPA filters wont help you if there is an infected person wedged up against you breathing on you.
56. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Hognoxious · 2013-05-27 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  calling an entire field of research 'bullshit' tends to make whatever valid logic or reason in your arguments get totally ignored.
  You're speaking hypothetically, I presume?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
57. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Hognoxious · 2013-05-27 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't noticed any filters between me and the other passengers. It's nice that the nasties can't come round for second pass but that's sod all use if the twat in the seat behind me is spraying snot everywhere.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
58. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Xyrus · 2013-05-27 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  ...In the experiment, ferrets are together for hours with forced airflow under temperature and humidity conditions that favor viral transmission, she says. “I don’t think this is what happens in real life.”
  Those conditions happen all the time. Schools, planes, buses, trains, etc.
  It's true that we aren't ferrets. We'll maybe politicians are.
  
  --
  ~X~
59. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-27 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  "I suggest leaving the basement and exploring the real world for awhile."
  See? You've proven yourself stupid, already.
  A. I live on my own.
  B. I've been to the UK, China, Morocco, and Australia.
  C. I am a research director for a multi-national horticultural corporation, I've likely spent MUCH more time learning than you, despite the fact you're likely older than myself.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
60. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-27 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  We've got lung compatibility as well, you know. Since... 2011 IIRC.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
61. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-27 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  There are intakes all around you and a large filtration system on-board. The primary cause of 'illness' from an airplane are caused by chemical reactions of the ozone. That large amount of ozone in the air effectively sterilizes it at the cost of you getting a headache or feeling nauseous, or creating a couple of byproducts out of the oils on your skin.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
62. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-27 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  "smell like wet dog when it rains"
  That's the ozone sterilization system you're smelling inside the bus, FYI.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
63. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by minstrelmike · 2013-05-27 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly FUD. Ferret != Human.and Conditions ferrets in != usual human conditions. There’s no guarantee the virus will spread similarly from person to person, says Ana Fernandez-Sesma, a viral immunologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. In the experiment, ferrets are together for hours with forced airflow under temperature and humidity conditions that favor viral transmission, she says. “I don’t think this is what happens in real life.”
  Exactly SCIENCE. We now have evidence of a deadly bird flu that can spread thru the air between mammals.
  I guess if you believe evolution has stopped in the past few months, then there is nothing at all to worry about.
64. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by minstrelmike · 2013-05-27 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, generally virulence goes down as a virus adapts to a novel host. See e.g. the myxomatosis example in Australian rabbits.
  It's part of the problem with words and definitions. An EPIDEMIC is when a disease spreads faster than EXPECTED.
  As we find out more, our expectations change. Some of the drop in rate of infection is due to the population itself now self-inoculating so-to-speak. The Black Plague killed millions in Europe but it didn't kill everyone. The folks it didn't kill were either naturally immune, developed an immunity or were never exposed.
  
  The kill rate of small pox in Europeans during the 1500s wasn't bad at all. The kill rate for North American Natives was someplace between 90 and 95% (what they call the difference between high-counters and low-counters in historical circles).
65. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by minstrelmike · 2013-05-27 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently some folks don't know the difference between average and unique. Granted, the average intelligence of the second million folks to sign up _may_ be less than the intelligence of the first million but
  1. It is unlikely that the averages would be the same (check your assumptions and expectations first)
  2. Averages say nothing about the individuals or the end points. If the second million has a larger standard deviation than the first million, then chances are the single smartest user (and/or dumbest user) would be in the second group, not the first one ;-)
66. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by WindBourne · 2013-05-27 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the flu has NEVER been 100%. It has always been 25-40% on the worse ones. And with incubation time of 5-14 days, well......
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
67. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by readingaccount · 2013-05-27 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Give up smoking dude. It's bad for you!
  Unless you've been smoking for so long that giving it up might cause worse health problems than continuing to smoke (which I can easily believe - seen it happen)
68. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Mondor · 2013-05-28 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Salvarsan was introduced in 20th century, 30 years before penicillin. He was speaking about pre-1900s, which means - before 20th century.
  Also, by definition, AIDS is a disease, caused by infection.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aids
69. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-28 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  The definition of disease as used by most Wikipedia writers is incorrect and does not fall in line with medical terminology.
  AIDS is a SYNDROME, HIV is the disease. Please learn your medical terminology before trying to use it.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
70. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Genda · 2013-05-28 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ah... a killer flu that's nothing to sneeze at... I see what you did there.
71. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Genda · 2013-05-28 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  During the last bird flu I stocked up on Tamiflu, you can get a script for it from your doctor provided you're on good terms. Of course Roche has done an excellent job of hiding a great deal of information about the efficacy of Tamiflu, and there is more than fair cause to doubt its effectiveness in a serious outbreak of influenza. That and its best taken within the first 48 hours of infection.
72. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Genda · 2013-05-28 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  You misunderstand, ferrets are the very best animal models they have, their ability to look cute on cue, and playfully weasel about make them almost perfect models, pure fashion gold. Top modeling houses world wide are simply screaming for more ferrets.
73. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Genda · 2013-05-28 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  Many politicians also have snout and tail compatibility, in fact its darn hard to distinguish them from pigs.
74. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Genda · 2013-05-28 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  You problem with subways isn't air anyway... its the urine you're standing in
75. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by Khyber · 2013-05-29 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Wikipedia versus a cadre of doctors (all of whom I've talked to during my HIV scare)
  I'll take the doctors word over the word of an anyone-can-edit encyclopedia.
  Just FYI - Wikipedia is wrong on many things, and out of date on many others.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
76. Re:More ridiculous sensationalism by sdsucks · 2013-05-30 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  A. I live on my own.
  B. I've been to the UK, China, Morocco, and Australia.
  C. I am a research director for a multi-national horticultural corporation, I've likely spent MUCH more time learning than you, despite the fact you're likely older than myself.
  Oh wow.. LOL. Seriously son?
  A) Good for you, living on your own is an important start to growing up. Soon, maybe, you can cook for yourself, make your own bed, all kinds of things. WTF?
  B) UK, China, Morocco AND Australia? Incredible! Lemuel Gulliver watch out!
  (Are you for fucking real? I think I've hit all of those countries within a 2 month period before... This isn't 1850.)
  C) LOL, seriously. Thanks for proving my point with this statement.
  No offense son, you may have potential. But don't be a fucking idiot.
Hey editors by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-05-26 07:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just a friendly bit of constructive criticism... if you'd just read the entire summary, you'd have found out that the quote taken from the actual story pretty much directly contradicts both the sensationalistic title and the sensationalistic lead-in.
You don't have to read the articles; but please, at least glance at the summary that was submitted.

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re: Hey editors by ecotax · 2013-05-26 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  As for the title, they simply copypasted it, so whatever there's wrong with it, should primarily be blamed on the writer of the article.
  
  --
  "Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
2. Re: Hey editors by blackraven14250 · 2013-05-26 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  They're editors. Their job is to check it before it's posted. Regardless as to whether the submitter was at fault, they're also at fault.
Still not worried. by dicobalt · 2013-05-26 07:46 · Score: 2

I am not a ferret.
We need... by Decker-Mage · 2013-05-26 07:46 · Score: 1

Hey if you want more funds for your kind of research and/or development, this is what gets some bucks shaken out of the money tree. Since most everybody out there is either unequipped to properly evaluate risks, Stossel did a nice piece on this, it usually works. Bugs (insect, bacteria, viral, or even surveillance), terrorism, ecological disasters, cyber this or that, whatever. Film at 11! Or worse, yet another FUD piece on /.

--
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Wait Until The Wolf Flu by Scarletdown · 2013-05-26 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

The flu to watch out for will be one discovered to be carried by wolves. You will know it by the symptoms of the wolves' eyes getting all weepy and the infected wolves whimpering and crying constantly. It will be quite ironic that the flu that will finally get us will be the Crying Wolf Flu that everyone will ignore due to so many alarmist warnings of other strains of flu over the years that ended up not being such a big worldwide threat after all.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
1. Re:Wait Until The Wolf Flu by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-26 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  The woodsman's vaccine and the red cloak school vaccination program will keep the Crying Wolf Flu from ever being a threat. The only people who need to be concerned are the elderly. Particularly women with small eyes and teeth. These at risk individuals should stay indoors and avoid contact with strangers.
Re:Didn't this already more or less happen? by SteveFoerster · 2013-05-26 08:00 · Score: 1

Oh, okay, so it's about a particular strain rather than just, "some strain may come along that could do this"? Thanks for reading it for me, BTW. Check's in the mail and all that.

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Just stop, please by WillyWanker · 2013-05-26 08:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Please stop teasing me with talk of a massive population-thinning plague this planet desperately needs. It gets my hopes up, only to later be dashed by hearing only a few dozen people ultimately die. Disappointing to say the least.
1. Re:Just stop, please by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-05-26 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Have you checked yourself into the nearest psychiatric facility to help deal with these genocidal tendencies and impulses?
  Because you need to.
  Now.
2. Re:Just stop, please by jamesh · 2013-05-26 12:25 · Score: 2
  
  Have you checked yourself into the nearest psychiatric facility to help deal with these genocidal tendencies and impulses?
  Because you need to.
  Now.
  The _only_ way humanity is going to survive is if very soon there are a lot less people on the planet, or if we turn the comfort level _way_ down. And when a president says "the american way of life is not negotiable" or something like that, you know the latter ain't gonna happen. The way we are living is unsustainable. Hoping for a plague to wipe everyone out certainly sounds like insanity, but no more so than the alternative.
  And anyway, psych facilities are mostly filled with people who are a danger to themselves. People who are a danger to others are put in prison. Or government.
3. Re:Just stop, please by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-05-26 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  You could supply the total electricity that humanity uses by covering a single digit percentage of the Sahara desert with solar panels. For the hard of thinking, I'm not saying that this is the plan, just that we have a huge abundance of energy. We also have a huge abundance of food. We have in fact a huge abundance of everything except fossil fuels which were never a good idea and which are all easily replaceable, so no, the sky is not falling and anyone sincerely wishing death upon large numbers of people for ANY reason needs to be removed from circulation for their own good.
4. Re:Just stop, please by sdsucks · 2013-05-26 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  You are one sick fucking sub-human being.
The end of the world by blogagog · 2013-05-26 08:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

The older I get, the more I realize that there are very many people in the world who just don't feel comfortable unless there is some horrible world-ending danger looming over mankind. And it's usually wildly overblown. Here's a short list of all of the things that are supposed to kill me - nuclear war, nuclear power, the end of the ozone, the end of the rain forests, global warming, and pandemics, just to name a few. I'm sure I left out a ton of false armageddons from that list. Overfishing, fertilizers, the end of oil and gas, and clear cutting forests are also supposed not to kill, but to cause us irreparable harm some time between 50 years ago and 'just around the corner'. You can only cry wolf so many times before no one believes you. I'm getting so cynical, I may take up smoking.
1. Re:The end of the world by EmagGeek · 2013-05-26 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck, don't forget smart meters, cell phones, triclosan, non-recycled toilet paper, fast food, Monsanto, and sodas larger than 16 ounces.
2. Re:The end of the world by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-26 14:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Just because there's a bunch of shit doesn't mean that shit don't stink. There may be some stunted souls as you describe, but their comfort has little to do with reality - only their feelings about it. For you to dismiss the message because you don't like some of the people who carry it is frankly stupid.
  It's not necessary for any of the things you list to be world-ending. It's only necessary that separately and in combination that the effects of them impinge on things as they are; any one of them might be deleterious. In combination...?
  It's you, I think, paying attention to the chicken littles rather than the science that may be the disconnect.
3. Re:The end of the world by LongearedBat · 2013-05-26 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps. Though I'd much rather have alarmists that raise our awareness, than live in ignorance. At least with awareness we can do something about those wannabe Armageddons. Hopefully, people with the ability to think critically will be able to accurately work out which threats are more serious so we can solve those problems first.
National Pornographic - death will await us all. by burni2 · 2013-05-26 08:25 · Score: 1

Yes, when we are old, when we are young, when we are ill, when we are runover by a drunk idiot, when we are wiped out by a predadtor (drone)!
Wipe out human population, but please start with "National Pornographic" catastrophy shows like "What will then happen is ... that .." are "Death Pornos"
As I said, start paniking, we will all die, someday!
Stupid Title and then stupid article by Nyder · 2013-05-26 08:29 · Score: 2, Funny

I saw the title and said to myself, "No shit flu can spread from person to person."
Then they talk about "bird" flu and say it spreads from ferret to ferret. I've had a public school education, so maybe I missed the day where they told us ferrets were birds and not mammals.

--
Be seeing you...
1. Re:Stupid Title and then stupid article by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-26 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Before you posted your typical Slashdot reader know-it-all shtick, you should've read TFA:
  
  To find out how the virus might spread among people, an international group of researchers infected ferrets, which often stand as proxies for people in influenza studies. Infected ferrets passed the virus to all of the uninfected animals housed in the same cage, indicating that H7N9 spreads through direct contact, the team reports May 23 in Science.
2. Re:Stupid Title and then stupid article by NoKaOi · 2013-05-26 08:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I saw the title and said to myself, "No shit flu can spread from person to person."
  Then they talk about "bird" flu and say it spreads from ferret to ferret. I've had a public school education, so maybe I missed the day where they told us ferrets were birds and not mammals.
  The connection with ferrets is that ferrets and humans share the same "human influenza" virus and can pass it on to each other. So, that means that if ferrets can get this type of influenza and pass it on, there is a reasonable probability that humans can too. That doesn't mean this is an "OMG were all gonna die!!!" sort of thing, it just means that this particular test shows a reasonable probably that humans could spread the virus from each other, and points out that the test were done under ideal (ideal to the virus) conditions.
  Frankly I don't think the title is overly sensationalistic, nor is the quoted part of the summary, but the part "how the bird flu may wipe us out" is sensationalistic, inaccurate, and the editor who put it in there should be fired or sent over to Fox News.
3. Re:Stupid Title and then stupid article by Nyder · 2013-05-26 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Before you posted your typical Slashdot reader know-it-all shtick, you should've read TFA:
  
  To find out how the virus might spread among people, an international group of researchers infected ferrets, which often stand as proxies for people in influenza studies. Infected ferrets passed the virus to all of the uninfected animals housed in the same cage, indicating that H7N9 spreads through direct contact, the team reports May 23 in Science.
  Well, seeing as the typical article is usually click bate for some blog, or some product, I only click the link on articles that don't have shit ass summaries and crappy titles.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
4. Re:Stupid Title and then stupid article by Artifakt · 2013-05-26 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  OK, but why do Ferrets get used preferentially for influenza studies?
  I hope this doesn't come off as know-it-all, but there's a classic example of how picking test animals in medical studies really gave some erronious results and delayed recognizing a major health problem - Thalidomide.
  Most of the lab animals used to test Thalidomide have zero incidence of birth defects under the doses normally used (even if these are proportionately dozens of times human doses). After reports of stunted limb growth and related syndromes started showing up, mostly in Europe, American researchers retested the drug on a much wider variety of animals, and after seeing several new test animal types with no negative effects, found the problem also occured in horses (and if memory serves, even tested it on a couple of elephants and found it occured there too). Horses were not generally considered major animal test subjects because of expense, and were sometimes not considered good for pregnancy related testing because of their long gestation times.
  So the broader question should be, what are the arguments for using ferrets for influenza studies? Is it a matter of cost? Has somebody sequenced the parts of ferret DNA that explain how the flu might affect them and found it has particular similarities to human DNA? Did ferret results translate to a good prediction about human epedemics in the past? This article doesn't really say why, so I see why even people who read more than the summary aren't comfortable with some of the conclusions.
  I followed through on my own questions here, so as not to just be nitpicking:
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19412910
  This is just a short abstract, but it indicates that ferrets get the same broad set of symptoms as humans when they contract a flu. It also mentions that some of the more common lab animals, such as rats and guinea pigs are still quite useful for flu research.
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180220/
  A much longer article. It discusses why mice don't work as well as larger rodents, and why even cotton rats (which ARE used) are not ideal. (You learn something every day - today I learned Cotton Rats don't have a sneeze reflex).
  
  --
  Who is John Cabal?
Re:Makes me wonder... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-05-26 08:32 · Score: 1

Perhaps they did, if "FUD" meant "Flu, Unusually Deadly" at the time.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Safrole is prohibited as a drug precursor by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-26 08:34 · Score: 1

with a quantity of safrole and a specific frequency of visible light, easily achieved with commercial sources, one can make mdma (obviously there are a few more steps, but the entire process much simpler than other methods)
that's why it's prohibited
1. Re:Safrole is prohibited as a drug precursor by NFN_NLN · 2013-05-26 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  with a quantity of safrole and a specific frequency of visible light, easily achieved with commercial sources, one can make mdma (obviously there are a few more steps, but the entire process much simpler than other methods)
  that's why it's prohibited
  Yes, I read that as well. If that is the driving factor they should just say so and regulate purified Safrole oil. I've ordered Sassafras bark and it's an unnecessary hassle due to this even though the concentration is quite low... and no I wasn't making MDMA :)
this is the matter . . . by dschinn1001 · 2013-05-26 08:41 · Score: 1

bird flue comes from cages ... those birds who are caught, they died. it is same with human victims ... those who were caught in hospital or in homes for retired, are more in danger, than them who can move at fresh air. the panic about bird flue is much too much exaggerated.
Re:Call me cynical by Nyder · 2013-05-26 09:01 · Score: 1

Call me cynical, but am I the only person who *wants* a wide scale pandemic that kills off a large percentage of the human race?
We have shown that we cannot, by ourselves, take care of the human population explosion.
Nature could possibly take care of this highly political problem all by itself.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with it either. But then I don't really catch the flu so I'm not worried about it.

--
Be seeing you...
This just in... by UltraZelda64 · 2013-05-26 09:58 · Score: 2

...there exists a virus that can reproduce and spread from one host to another. What an amazing scientific discovery!

Tests Show That Deadly New Flu Could Spread Among People
Something tells me that they're using the term "deadly" just for sensationalism as usual, in the same way that they're making it seem like such a big deal as if it's breaking news that a virus is capable of spreading from human to human...
Re:Didn't this already more or less happen? by gl4ss · 2013-05-26 10:07 · Score: 1

well, some may come along and it's possible(probable) that the current strain has done it a few times(person getting sick from spending time in the same hospital room with the sick person). but their lab tests say that it's not a huge risk. or some shit like that.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I can only hope by DaveV1.0 · 2013-05-26 10:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

I just hope it only wipes out the people who write these kinds of sensationalistic articles.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Re:Call me cynical by ebno-10db · 2013-05-26 10:50 · Score: 1

We have shown that we cannot, by ourselves, take care of the human population explosion. Nature could possibly take care of this highly political problem all by itself.
What you're saying is that we can avoid killing off ourselves if nature does it first. It doesn't sound like much of an improvement to me.
Queue in end of the world music... by jacobsm · 2013-05-26 11:02 · Score: 1

It's all a government plot, aka Captain Trips to end life on Earth as we know it.
Re:Call me cynical by Time_Ngler · 2013-05-26 13:22 · Score: 1

.. am I the only person who *wants* a wide scale pandemic that kills off a large percentage of the human race?
Hitler had a lot of the same ideals as you, so there's one.
Stupid Mod by SteveFoerster · 2013-05-26 13:59 · Score: 1

Troll? Really? It was an actual question!

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
H7 doesn't have a history of causing pandemics by jmichaelg · 2013-05-26 15:15 · Score: 4, Informative

In 2003 when a bird flu was sweeping through Asia, Maurice Hilleman, a 20th century virologist who created more vaccines than all other virologists combined, said it would not turn into a pandemic. He turned out to be right: the pandemic didn't happen. During his career, Hilleman noticed that the flu pandemics have all been been associated with H1, H2 and H3 hemoglutens. The other 14 hemogluten groups, H4 through H17, haven't been associated with pandemics. Hemogluten is a protein that enables the virus to attach to the throat, and the flu virus has 17 different variants, numbered H1, H2, ...H17.
The other thing Hilleman noticed was that each of the flu pandemics has been separated from its former instance by 68 years. H2 caused pandemics in 1889 and 1957. H3 caused pandemics in 1900 and 1968 and H1 caused pandemics in 1918 and 1986. Based on that pattern, Hilleman thought the next flu pandemic would occur in 2025 when most people who were alive during the H2 1957 pandemic have died.
A key difference between the 1957 instance and the 2025 instance is the fact that the US no longer has any company willing to manufacture vaccines here - they're all overseas. Hilleman spotted the 1957 outbreak before anyone else did and bulldozed the design and manufacture of an effective vaccine in a matter of months. He knew the manufacturers personally and was able to coordinate them into gearing up the necessary production. A lot of what he did then would be impossible today given the FDA's increased power.
I have a name for this one! by argStyopa · 2013-05-26 15:52 · Score: 1

Let's call it "The Boy Who Cried Wolf Flu", or "FUD" for short.
Yes, the abbreviation makes perfect sense.

--
-Styopa
There are 1.3b people in PRC by jampola · 2013-05-26 17:30 · Score: 1

I am literally shaking in boots.
Re:the vaccine will be a scam by gl4ss · 2013-05-26 18:57 · Score: 1

that's bullshit and you know it..
or when was the last time you saw a polio ward?

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
They must be low on research grants. by Jiggy · 2013-05-26 20:35 · Score: 1

I see I'm not the only one fed up with these "Tests show that X could cause Y disaster so please give us Z" stories. Where Z is typically more research money. Well, tests show that my boot could cause your ass to be kicked so please give me your money.
Where are all the dead birds? by Jiggy · 2013-05-26 21:02 · Score: 1

So if these avian flu strains are so virulent and deadly, why aren't we seeing dead birds everywhere? Maybe because the mutations that make the virus airborne also reduce its affinity for avian receptors. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/349926/description/Mutation_makes_H5N1_flu_lose_its_grip . So now interest in H5N1 is waning we need find a new strain of avian flu to scare up some juicy research grants. Queue H7N9.
1. Re:Where are all the dead birds? by iggymanz · 2013-05-27 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Flu doesn't kill most people nor most birds that get it.
Re:Call me cynical by FilmedInNoir · 2013-05-27 02:52 · Score: 1

Hitler pretty much targeted Jews also physically/mentally challenged, little people, etc, the drains on society that suck up welfare but don't produce anything.
That was his opinion not mine.
Also the Jews weren't a drain, they had money and land he needed to reboot the broken German economy into a military industrial complex.
A flu could target the latter, maybe because of a compromised immune system, but not the former.

--
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
Pandemic! Madigascar will save us! by Kentokae · 2013-05-27 05:55 · Score: 1

test showing airborne transmission of the H7N9 avian influenza virus between the animals has raised fears that the virus is poised to become a human pandemic

Shut.
Down.
Everything.

--
Mutated by Scientists.
Re:Call me cynical by Richy_T · 2013-05-27 06:24 · Score: 1

Why wait for a pandemic? Feel free to take the initiative and off yourself at the earliest convenience.
Geeze by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-05-29 04:01 · Score: 1

Is everything made in China these days?

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.