»Ducky Posted May 23, 2006 Report Posted May 23, 2006 I almost inserted a nice holocaust joke but caught myself.
Greased_Lightning Posted May 25, 2006 Report Posted May 25, 2006 Ail, I never said shooting them was wrong, just that it was funny that the people thought they were next. Killing infected birds just has to be done humanely and safely. More emphasis on the safely part cuz birds arent human duh.
Bajan Posted May 25, 2006 Report Posted May 25, 2006 For those of you curious about how H5N1 h!@#$%^&* killed the 130 odd deaths from the virus, it would start as a regular flu and become alot more severe, effecting your respiratory system (breathing) which then ends with pneumonia. The Spanish Flu of 1918 killed 50million people worldwide btw. With todays modern methods of travel, and generally higher volume of people in a smaller area compared with 1918, it could be a higher figure (IF it mutates to a human-to-human virus) Guess what..theres nothing wrong with eating chicken, duck etc, so long as its cooked correctly its fine to eat, becuase all the nasty little viruses and bacteria are killed off.
Greased_Lightning Posted May 25, 2006 Report Posted May 25, 2006 It's more the handling of birds before cooking that makes it more likely to contract the flu. If you eat undercooked chicken, you're more likely to die from Salmonella. The Spanish Flu in and of itself didn't kill 50 million, most of those were secondary infections/diseases due to weakened immune systems (like you said, pneumonia). I agree that the increased rate of travel will make an outbreak worse in countries without modern medical technology, however, in developed nations, where sterile environments and therapeutic treatments are readily available, and where basic knowledge of physiology and how diseases spread and what measures can be taken for prevention, I believe we would see a much smaller problem. As I've said, most models for casualty rates that have been projected are based on the 1918 pandemic (in terms of virulence and mortality), but there was little/no knowledge of how diseases worked and spread and how to treat them. The advancement in travel rates works both ways: virus can spread faster, but medicine and containment can be set up much faster as well. I think that almost 90 years of advancement leaves us in a much better place for fighting this.
Bajan Posted May 25, 2006 Report Posted May 25, 2006 I really belive we've left it all a bit too long, not saying we can't stop the flu from reaching devastating pandemic levels, but we certainly wont be bringing H5N1 to a managable low level of avian cases for quite a number of years. In my opinion, it is going to get worse before it gets better. Found something to back my estimated 50million deaths; Wikipedia quote; The social effects were intense due to the fast spread of the pandemic. Global mortality rate from the flu is estimated at 2.5% – 5% of the human population, with 20% of the world population suffering from the disease to some extent. It spread across the world killing 25 million in six months; some estimates put the total killed at over twice that number, possibly even 100 million. An estimated 17 million died in India, about 5% of India's population at the time. In the Indian Army, almost 22% of troops who caught the disease died of it. In US, about 28% of the population suffered, and 500,000 to 675,000 died. In Britain 200,000 died; in France more than 400,000. The death rate was especially high for indigenous peoples; entire villages perished in Alaska and southern Africa. In the Fiji Islands, 14% of population died during only two weeks, and in Western Samoa 22%. In Japan, 257,363 deaths were attributed to influenza by July 1919, giving an estimated 0.425% mortality rate, much lower than nearly all other Asian countries for which data are available.
SeVeR Posted May 26, 2006 Author Report Posted May 26, 2006 I don't think anyone's denying the level of the out-break 90 years ago... They're instead giving convincing reasons as to why it won't be the same today as it was back then. None of what you posted disagrees with what greased said: The Spanish Flu in and of itself didn't kill 50 million, most of those were secondary infections/diseases due to weakened immune systems (like you said, pneumonia).
Bajan Posted May 30, 2006 Report Posted May 30, 2006 Ah, I forgot that we all HAVE to disagree with what others say in this forum
Dav Posted May 30, 2006 Report Posted May 30, 2006 anyway it seems the bord flu issue has fallen below the radar at the moment so i think the hype i falling with it.
Recommended Posts