| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Bird Flu Eek |
| 2006-03-14 |
| Robert G. Webster is one of the few bird flu experts confident enough to answer the key question: Will the avian flu switch from posing a terrible hazard to birds to becoming a real threat to humans? There are "about even odds at this time for the virus to learn how to transmit human to human," he told ABC's "World News Tonight." Webster, the Rosemary Thomas Chair at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., is credited with being the first scientist to find the link between human flu and bird flu. Webster and his team of scientists are working to find a way to beat the virus if it morphs. He has even been dubbed the Flu Hunter. Right now, H5N1, a type of avian influenza virus, has confined itself to birds. It can be transmitted from bird to human but only by direct contact with the droppings and excretions of infected birds. But viruses mutate, and the big fear among the world's scientists is that the bird flu virus will join the human flu virus, change its genetic code and emerge as a new and deadly flu that can spread through the air from human to human. "I personally believe it will happen and make personal preparations," said Webster, who has stored a three-month supply of food and water at his home in case of an outbreak. "Society just can't accept the idea that 50 percent of the population could die. And I think we have to face that possibility," Webster said. "I'm sorry if I'm making people a little frightened, but I feel it's my role." Most scientists won't put it that bluntly, but many acknowledge that Webster could be right about the flu becoming transmissible among humans, even though they believe the 50 percent figure could be too high. Researcher Dr. Anne Moscona at New York Weill Cornell Medical Center said that a human form may not mutate this year or next -- or ever -- but it would be foolish to ignore the dire consequences if it did. "If bird flu becomes not bird flu but mutates into a form that can be transmitted between humans, we could then have a spread like wildfire across the globe," Moscona said. No one knows how long or how many mutation changes it would take for bird flu to become a direct threat to humans. "It may not do it. There may just be too many changes. The virus may not be able to be a human virus," Moscona said. But that hasn't stopped Moscona from searching for new types of anti-viral treatments that both prevent and slow the spread of bird flu. "I don't think that once we have human-to-human transmission, it's going to be possible to contain it," she said. That is why nearly every viral scientist in America, perhaps the world, is waiting and watching the avian flu virus to see if it remains just a threat to birds or changes its genetic code and becomes just as deadly to humans. 50% is unrealistically high. First of all, at worst, the disease has a 50% mortality rate among those infected. Typically, only from 5% to 20% of the population catch the flu in the first place. This would make our worst possible theoretical mortality rate 36M people, or 1/10th of our population. This assumes no vaccine or other preventative measures at all. Practically speaking, 1/100th or 3.6M people would be the high end, compared to 30-50,000 who normally die of flu each year. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #5 WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! What do we do in the meantime? |
| Posted by: Snuns Thromp1484 2006-03-14 23:59 |
| #4 Exploding Commie BioWar factories and research complexes notwithstanding, it also helps iff farm animals are not allowed to eat andor wallow in pervasive urban, suburban, and agricultural-provincial industrial waste heaps. FTLG, film footage of China's recent chemical spills show local children waving and playing amidst huge piles of wastes and trash. Its no longer how many heaps are in the rivers BUT HOW MANY, AND HOW MANY MORE HEAPS CAN THE RIVERS HOLD!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-03-14 21:51 |
| #3 Back in 1976, the international infrastructure for tracking and reporting flu was very underdeveloped. Statistically, we were due not only for a serious flu, like the Hong Kong flu of 1968-69 (that I personally remember because it laid my parents out for six weeks); but we were overdue for what even then was called "the killer flu". The US had been horribly traumatized by the Spanish flu in 1918, and these were people inured to many epidemics across the country, as commonplace events. Most people had a mental block to the year or two of the Spanish death. Only after WWII were even our health authorities able to come to grips with what it meant. The first wake up call we got about the Swine flu were overseas reports that it was serious, but only when a soldier at Ft. Dix died, did the alarm bells go off. The US was not saved by anything we did, only by the fact that the Swine flu had mutated again to a less virulent strain before it arrived. President Ford and congress had wasted no time in reacting, but they realized after the fact that their reaction time was far too slow to have mattered. From that point on, it became a national prerogative to do whatever was necessary to track the next "killer flu" before it hit the US. The US has done one heck of a lot in that direction, but only with the minor SARS outbreak, did the rest of the world really catch on to what we were up to. Their doctors know what an immense disaster avian flu could be in especially Asia, and they have done anything they could to stimulate their local political leaders--most of whom are getting the message. Right now, we know that "the flu" will continue to hit us during the flu season. We also know for sure that the avian flu has the potential to devastate domestic birds, perhaps pets and livestock--costing tens of billions of dollars if nothing else. The odds do favor the avian flu turning H2H, while keeping much of its virulence. Recently, it's been noted that its spread in wild birds is far faster than expected. We shall see. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-14 21:44 |
| #2 "Society just can't accept the idea that 50 percent of the population could die. And I think we have to face that possibility," Webster said. "I'm sorry if I'm making people a little frightened, but I feel it's my role." Bullshit. Society does quite well knowing that 100% of the population will die. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-14 19:43 |
| #1 I'm not at all conversent with the nuances of flu mutation etc. etc. But I do understand the doom & gloom business. Given that, can anyone explain why I should be frightened of Avian Flu given the Swine flu scare of 19xx? I seem to recall all the same "Oh my god we're all gonna die!! Just like in 1919 (or whenever it was)!!!!" Nothing came of that. How do I know this isn't just more wolf crying? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-03-14 19:40 |