Posted on 03/23/2006 8:10:18 AM PST by Gritty
The CP interview: Dr. Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy talks about the flu that could bring the world to its knees.
(snip)
Of the 100+ human cases of H5N1 flu recorded, the vast majority have involved bird-to-human transmission, mostly among open-air poultry handlers in Asia. In addition, there are confirmed clusters in which it has passed person to person, though none of those has yet resulted in a breakout of the virus. One thing is clear, however: In its present form, H5N1 has killed over half of the people it's infected. The great flu pandemic of 1918-19, by contrast, killed about 5 percent of its victims.
Will it cross over? If it does, can it possibly remain as deadly? Though Osterholm notes that viruses usually do lose strength as they spread—it's not really in their own evolutionary interest to kill the majority of their hosts—he believes the only responsible answer on both counts is we don't know. But it's not just the characteristics of the virus that worry him.
One of the things that sets the former Minnesota state epidemiologist apart from other public health officials is his attention to the fate of the medical and social infrastructure in any serious contagious outbreak. With respect to bird flu, his outlook recapitulates in many ways what he had to say in his 2001 book about bioterrorism preparedness, Living Terrors much of the human toll in death, hysteria, and anarchy would be exacted not by infection but by the wide-scale breakdown of global supply chains and just-in-time delivery systems for vital goods and services. "I think Secretary Leavitt has been brutally honest in telling American communities, you're going to be on your own," says Osterholm. "I think he's right."
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at citypages.com ...
I'm of the opinion, at least at the present time, that most of this avian flu thing is hype, but there are points raised that shouldn't be laughed off ... virtually everything comes from somewhere else now, hundreds or even thousands of miles away. We're just one major natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorist attack or major war away from potentially extreme scarcity of the most basic of things, including food and fuel. The one-two punch of Katrina and Rita demonstrated this to some degree. So, preparedness is something we all need to be not just thinking about, but actually acting upon.
The New Orleans termites is a scare put out on the internet that is almost entirely fiction, as discussed by snopes. The idea that we would be clueless as to the possibility of termites being in mulch, and therefore would let them get shipped all over the country and sold in bags to people with great negative consequences, is silly.
Anyway, I'm just poking fun at people who panic over specific but unrealised threats, when there are so many real threats around which aren't sexy enough to get noticed.
I always joke that one day we will spend trillions of dollars, and drive all civilization back to the stone age, because of the then-certain threat of global warming. Our efforts will be successful. At the cost of living like those in the 17th century, we will have cleaned up all our pollution, warming will stop, and all will be right with the world.
And then we will get hit by an asteroid and be wiped off the face of the universe.
It goes back to that fitness guru who spent years telling us we have to stop having fun and instead work at keeping ourselves healthy -- and then he had a heart attack at I think ag 50 while exercising.
Ever read Compromised?
This has gotten substantial press for about what...6-8 months or so now? Over that time, only a total of 100+ infections in some of the most populated regions of the world? And only folks with amazingly consistent contact with Fowl?
What am I missing here?
Thanks, jigsaw!
Okay have you read the article either? It makes the same point. And then answers it.
I agree with you people shouldn't panic. But taking prudent individual precautions does not seem to fall into the classification of "panic".
Of course we'll all die someday, some horribly, some peacefully in our beds. We all wish for the latter but shouldn't delude ourselves the former is a distinct option and sometimes we can avoid it. So, why tempt the latter outcome if we have a choice?
Speaking of New Orleans, it seems some of the locals failed to recently prepare for a possible crisis. No doubt they felt it couldn't happen to them. Instead, they either partyed on or figured the government would take care of them. Now the rest of us are paying their bills for their sloth and shortsightedness. To that attitude I would say - and will say (if it comes to that) - "Your failure to prepare for an emergency does not constitute an emergency on my part!".
you forgot the cans of tuna under the bed?
Actually, we were apparently paying for them for years, just now they are more visible.
If you lived in New Orleans, and owned a house that had been destroyed, would YOU be living off government largesse now? I doubt it. You'd get your money from the insurance that I'm sure you would have had on your house, you'd have found a new job somewhere or gotten back to work where you used to be, you'd have found yourself a place to live, or bought some land, and be building a new house.
People lose all their belongings EVERY DAY in house fires and other natural disasters. Usually not so many at once, but New Orleans is still just the story of individuals, none of which by themselves is experiencing anything particularly unique.
The CITY is of course is in a unique position, at least for modern times. It's hard to jump-start a city, cities grow over the years. Until they have people back they can't afford services, but until they can afford services it's hard to clean up and get people back.
Absolutely agreed.
Osterholm: "H5N1 is the most powerful influenza
virus we've seen in modern human history"
Photo Courtesy of CIDRAP
And Osterholm's conclusions about proper planning responses are unsettling to those who wish to not think about this thing mutating:
"In 1918, when we had NONE of the technilogical capabilities of today, had NO ability to communicate, had no real ability to transport goods and services, we lost 40 million people in the world to a flu.
This flu could be "as bad as" that flu. But we are much more capable of isolating and combating things today."
Seriously wrong on both issues. Look at it in a different manner. In 1918 the flu had a mortality rate of about 3-5%. It killed 5% of the total world population. That is 325 MILLION today. If the Flue is more virulent, the number gets bigger. If the USA had identical casualty rates as 1918, we lose over 2 million dead, all in about 6 months, or 4 times our losses in WWII.
AS to your second point, we face a greater problem today. First, the disease can get from China to NY in a day...it used to take weeks. Next, we are vastly less self sufficient either as a country or as individuals. In 1918 people could fort up for weeks in much of the country. How many can today? How much food do you have on hand? How long would it last with no electricity? How about no water? What if the government sets martial law in effected areas and quarantines everyone to their homes? What about prescription drugs? Are you set for a few months? Most folk are not. How about money? How long can you survive without any new money coming in?
No, worse case has most of the country sick at the same time, 10% or so dying of the disease, everyone ordered under threat of being shot, to stay home, and most basic services out of order for a couple of months or so.
Those who make it through that will be more prepared than they are for a weekend blizzard. The rest will be in denial.
panic is foolish....preparation to some level is smart.
Have you ever been in a super market in New England when a snow storm is approaching? It is not pretty. Now imagine ALL the supermarkets all at once over a few days....
I'm still waiting for the much-touted SARS epidemic to lay waste to everything.
The scariest part to me is the part about the mortality rate in the Bengal tigers who were fed infected chickens. That's where our real threat comes in to play here: domestic food supply.
Yep. And if the worst happens and this pandemic hits, I intent to use the "insurance" I have stashed in my basement, survive, and get back to work - unless I catch a fatal dose of this nasty virus.
But, our family has to get through the crisis first - and so does everybody else. That is what we who "insure" worry about. People who don't have "insurance" do desperate things or must throw themselves on the mercy of those who really can't afford the fruits of their shortsightedness.
A deadly hurricane pandemic (now on the horizon, maybe headed this way, maybe not) would be bad enough without social disruptions caused by slothful people who didn't care to take some individual responsibility on their part for their own survival.
lol!
lol!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.