Chilly Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 O NOE IT ET U http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/...dflu/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 AHHHHH! WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!! AIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 There are still things that the government and scientists can't do anything about and a Flu epidemic is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 There are still things that the government and scientists can't do anything about and a Flu epidemic is one of them. 683927[/snapback] U R GOIN TO BE ETEN!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 U R GOIN TO BE ETEN!!! 683935[/snapback] I like the ebonics, Vince! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Think about the pandemic in 1918... And how that was... Practices in that day basically did everything WRONG at times to spread the beast... I wouldn't worry myself sick today... Might happen and people will die... We should have a firm handle on the situation. If people knew all the dangers that existed, they wouldn't get in a car every morning or walk across the street. It is nice to know these things... But, is the "screening" and knowledge that it exists worst than the disease? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I have to wonder a little bit if some of this hoopla is to help justify the massive amounts poured into bio-defense over the last couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 I have to wonder a little bit if some of this hoopla is to help justify the massive amounts poured into bio-defense over the last couple of years. 684319[/snapback] Tis a good point, I'd bet you are right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 What's really scary is the economic impact this could generate even if its not widespread or severe in the number of people who are killed. Remember the economic impact of SARS? It was substantial even though very few people actually got it and fewer still were killed. By the time you need to worry about actually contracting avian flu here you'll have already been pounded by its economic impact in terms of price inflation and corporate cutbacks (layoffs). That's going to be the really ugly part of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 What's really scary is the economic impact this could generate even if its not widespread or severe in the number of people who are killed. Remember the economic impact of SARS? It was substantial even though very few people actually got it and fewer still were killed. By the time you need to worry about actually contracting avian flu here you'll have already been pounded by its economic impact in terms of price inflation and corporate cutbacks (layoffs). That's going to be the really ugly part of this. 684339[/snapback] What most people don't understand too is that it doesn't take much to bring a modern city to its knees. In 1918, Philly suffered about a 60% illness rate and 1% mortality rate...and municipal services very nearly broke down. That was a century ago, when people were substantially more independent of public services than they are now. Nowadays, cities are more fragile. I doubt a modern American city could withstand the mortality rate of the 1918 flu without a New-Orleans-like collapse of services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I have to wonder a little bit if some of this hoopla is to help justify the massive amounts poured into bio-defense over the last couple of years. 684319[/snapback] Could very well also be meant to test the results of research and planning in bio-defense, as well. Or both, frankly. But you're probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 O NOE IT ET U http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/...dflu/index.html 682941[/snapback] This is going to be horrible! I'm still recovering from the terrible swine flu, SARS, anthrax and flesh eating bacteria eppidemics. Not to mention Y2K and global warming! The Kennedys cars are more likely to kill you then the bird flu! Why do people seem to latch on to every new "end of the world as we know it" story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 What most people don't understand too is that it doesn't take much to bring a modern city to its knees. In 1918, Philly suffered about a 60% illness rate and 1% mortality rate...and municipal services very nearly broke down. That was a century ago, when people were substantially more independent of public services than they are now. Nowadays, cities are more fragile. I doubt a modern American city could withstand the mortality rate of the 1918 flu without a New-Orleans-like collapse of services. 684359[/snapback] While that is true, technology has also improved an incredible amount in that time period, and if needed, I think health care COULD be efficient. Not saying it is, just saying it could be, with all the technological improvements we've had. Especially if they are discriminatory in their care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 While that is true, technology has also improved an incredible amount in that time period, and if needed, I think health care COULD be efficient. Not saying it is, just saying it could be, with all the technological improvements we've had. Especially if they are discriminatory in their care. 684368[/snapback] One of the biggest problem scenarios we worked on in regards to responding to a "biological incident" was the "Healthy Fearful". Much of the burden on the health system will come from people who are not symptomatic of anything, but scared that they might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 This is going to be horrible! I'm still recovering from the terrible swine flu, SARS, anthrax and flesh eating bacteria eppidemics. Not to mention Y2K and global warming! The Kennedys cars are more likely to kill you then the bird flu! Why do people seem to latch on to every new "end of the world as we know it" story? 684363[/snapback] Except that this time...well, it's the flu. A proven illness-causing virus with a history of severe pandemics. People assume it's something new and special because it's the "bird flu". All flus are bird flus. It's where they come from. The flu's natural resivoir is in birds. Occasionally, flu viruses mutate and recombine (or "are intelligently redesigned", if you're a religious simpleton), and become new flu viruses. Sometimes they jump to pigs and recombine again into even newer flu viruses that can infect humans. Then you get pandemics. Sometimes the pandemics are deadly. And the current "avian flu" virus has shown an alarming propensity for killing people...but none for transmission from person-to-person. Eventually, it'll recombine into a form that does transmit person-to-person. Then we'll have a pandemic. And given how deadly it is already, it's not unreasonable to believe the pandemic will kill lots of people worldwide, just like the last time it happened. That ain't hype, that's science. People who know the science are concerned - which is substantially different from "panicking". (The media's panicking...but panic sells. The media's full of sh--, again, but they're making money at it, so what do they care.) People who know the science won't panic until they actually see a case of airborne transmission and retransmission between humans. The rest of you, though...you can panic. It's what the media wants you idiots to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 While that is true, technology has also improved an incredible amount in that time period, and if needed, I think health care COULD be efficient. Not saying it is, just saying it could be, with all the technological improvements we've had. Especially if they are discriminatory in their care. 684368[/snapback] Except for two things: 1) Despite all the advances, treatment for a viral infection still comes down to little more than effective nursing care, and 2) The per-capita availability of nursing care has decreased in the past century. Plus, there's more to it than individual health care. In 1918, Philadelphia's system of mortuaries broke down. Not enough coffins. Not enough space to prepare corpses. Not enough healthy bodies to collect and bury the dead. At the height of the pandemic, they had problems finding the dead. Imagine that happening today. Then throw in overstretched emergency services and basic services that a city relies on - municipal and commercial. Supermarkets, for example. A modern city is a fragile organism. And then, if you want, imagine some permutations, just for kicks. A line of thunderstorms blows through Chicago at the peak of the pandemic. How much longer does it take utility crews to restore downed power lines when they're undermanned by about 40%? (And you can't call in extra crews from Milwalkee or St. Louis - the pandemic's nationwide, mind you, so they're undermanned too). What's a lack of electricity for three days going to do for a health care system highly dependent on refrigeration? It doesn't take much for things to go straight to hell relatively quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 One of the biggest problem scenarios we worked on in regards to responding to a "biological incident" was the "Healthy Fearful". Much of the burden on the health system will come from people who are not symptomatic of anything, but scared that they might be. 684372[/snapback] We all have a bit of Hypochondria I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Except that this time...well, it's the flu. A proven illness-causing virus with a history of severe pandemics. People assume it's something new and special because it's the "bird flu". All flus are bird flus. It's where they come from. The flu's natural resivoir is in birds. Occasionally, flu viruses mutate and recombine (or "are intelligently redesigned", if you're a religious simpleton), and become new flu viruses. Sometimes they jump to pigs and recombine again into even newer flu viruses that can infect humans. Then you get pandemics. Sometimes the pandemics are deadly. And the current "avian flu" virus has shown an alarming propensity for killing people...but none for transmission from person-to-person. Eventually, it'll recombine into a form that does transmit person-to-person. Then we'll have a pandemic. And given how deadly it is already, it's not unreasonable to believe the pandemic will kill lots of people worldwide, just like the last time it happened. That ain't hype, that's science. People who know the science are concerned - which is substantially different from "panicking". (The media's panicking...but panic sells. The media's full of sh--, again, but they're making money at it, so what do they care.) People who know the science won't panic until they actually see a case of airborne transmission and retransmission between humans. The rest of you, though...you can panic. It's what the media wants you idiots to do... 684379[/snapback] I understand that scientists and medics should be working to prevent the possible spread of the flu, but can we prevent the average hypochondriac on the street from hearing about this until it is really necessary? (obviously not realistic) There is much more danger in the panic provoked through irresponsible journalism than most of the pandemic/environmental tragedies that are "only a matter of time". A lot of people don't seem to realize that the chance of a pandemic is very small. Scientists and the Medical fields prepare for almost all possibilities, the general public can hold off on purchasing air tight bubbles to live in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 Except that this time...well, it's the flu. A proven illness-causing virus with a history of severe pandemics. People assume it's something new and special because it's the "bird flu". All flus are bird flus. It's where they come from. The flu's natural resivoir is in birds. Occasionally, flu viruses mutate and recombine (or "are intelligently redesigned", if you're a religious simpleton), and become new flu viruses. Sometimes they jump to pigs and recombine again into even newer flu viruses that can infect humans. Then you get pandemics. Sometimes the pandemics are deadly. And the current "avian flu" virus has shown an alarming propensity for killing people...but none for transmission from person-to-person. Eventually, it'll recombine into a form that does transmit person-to-person. Then we'll have a pandemic. And given how deadly it is already, it's not unreasonable to believe the pandemic will kill lots of people worldwide, just like the last time it happened. That ain't hype, that's science. People who know the science are concerned - which is substantially different from "panicking". (The media's panicking...but panic sells. The media's full of sh--, again, but they're making money at it, so what do they care.) People who know the science won't panic until they actually see a case of airborne transmission and retransmission between humans. The rest of you, though...you can panic. It's what the media wants you idiots to do... 684379[/snapback] Hell, my girl is a biologist. Its funny, the bird flu has been around for thousands of years in birds, and hasn't become an epidemic. Yeah, its something we should be ready for, but you are right, the panic is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 Except for two things: 1) Despite all the advances, treatment for a viral infection still comes down to little more than effective nursing care, and 2) The per-capita availability of nursing care has decreased in the past century. 684391[/snapback] Ah, but advancements in care, especially at home, should help out with the lesser availability of nursing care. Once a successful diagnosis is made, people should be sent home (except in extreme cases). With Ice readily available at most homes, tylenol, and other such advances, keeping a fever down and symtpoms manageable while you fight the flu should be better. No need to have a nurse monitor you all the time like there would have been in 1909 I'd think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts