Re:Sensationalist Journalism?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
I too am getting tired of this journalistic retardation. Most of the deaths from ANY flu have been from the SECONDARY respratory infections that take hold once a person is sick. The flu did not kill them, the bacterial pneumonia they caught did. In 1918, we didnt have antibiotics. Now days, we'd just give someone a Z-pack and call it done. Only the most immunosensitive people would actually die from the flu virus itself.
You obviously haven't read a single post in this thread to post such garbage. For this reason, I condemn you to go back to school for the rest of eternity. Once you're done, you can post again in here.
Re:Sensationalist Journalism?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
Aren't we forgetting to factor in a few important things here, for example:
- the 1918 flu was not discussed by specialists and by the population at large in advance, like it is the case now
- there was no emergency plan prepared whatsoever
- there was a world war going on
- science was not as advanced as it is now
- capacity to produce anti-virus drugs was very low
That said, do you think that if the worst-scenario happens (h5n1 mutates and keeps high-lethality rate) then the above arguments "in our favour" (IMHO) will not help us at all? Because if it's the case, then WHAT is the plan exactly other than let everybody die until only people with the right gene pool survive?
Is there a PLAN? How about go living in small groups in a caban north of Canada, disconnected from the rest of the population, far from autoroutes? Should I start looking for one as soon as I hear that we have reached the 1000 death count?
Read LA PESTE from Albert Camus
Re:Sensationalist Journalism?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
Ok, so this means that HIV infected people will have better chances to survive? Hmm, that makes me imagine many scenarios. Maybe we could make yet another very bad Hollywood movie with this scenario?
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously haven't read a single post in this thread to post such garbage. For this reason, I condemn you to go back to school for the rest of eternity. Once you're done, you can post again in here.
Aren't we forgetting to factor in a few important things here, for example: - the 1918 flu was not discussed by specialists and by the population at large in advance, like it is the case now - there was no emergency plan prepared whatsoever - there was a world war going on - science was not as advanced as it is now - capacity to produce anti-virus drugs was very low That said, do you think that if the worst-scenario happens (h5n1 mutates and keeps high-lethality rate) then the above arguments "in our favour" (IMHO) will not help us at all? Because if it's the case, then WHAT is the plan exactly other than let everybody die until only people with the right gene pool survive? Is there a PLAN? How about go living in small groups in a caban north of Canada, disconnected from the rest of the population, far from autoroutes? Should I start looking for one as soon as I hear that we have reached the 1000 death count? Read LA PESTE from Albert Camus
Ok, so this means that HIV infected people will have better chances to survive? Hmm, that makes me imagine many scenarios. Maybe we could make yet another very bad Hollywood movie with this scenario?