Swine Flu

[Rosbjerg]

Well we aren't exactly back in the early 1900's where people were poor and didn't have modern medicine and nutrition. We have higher standards of living and immune systems that are probably a bit more capable. Obviously it's a very significant concern but the reason why it's been fatal in Mexico is pretty apparent...

 

I'd say we're relatively safe.

 

The biggest problem with that is that the virus is especially tough on young people, because of their good immune system. It causes cytokine storms, a negative feedback loop in the immune system, and in essence means that the better your immune system, the more likely you are to die (if you get the virus).

 

But yeah, if this thing gets loose then the poor countries will be hurt the most..

[LadyCrimson]

Even mortality rates of 50% wouldn't endanger the human race. There would be 3.5 billion people left.

But they would be (more) likely be scattered all over the globe, and even the modern cultures might fall apart ... meaning even more would die in the wake of not having mass-food, production, tech, medicine, for too long etc ... and those left would have to (kinda) start all over and new cultures would pop up. That's far different than 10% dying but maintaining the dominant culture/tech around it.

 

On the other hand, if there was a disease that wiped out 10% of the human race, that most certainly would be 'worrisome.'

Not to be mean or anything, but I'm not a fan of the high number of our current world population and believe that Nature keeps trying to find a way to balance things again. We keep trying to get around things, dunno if we can forever. So I don't find it 'worrisome' - I find it more a natural cycle or consequence .. or something.

 

... All right, maybe I am mean ...

 

Minor word edits: I'm never happy with my first draft, darnit...

Edited April 27, 2009 by LadyCrimson

[Maria Caliban]

[Her rational thought and reason were based off information from the news media you're accusing of 'drama and panic.'

 

On the other hand, the maps in the original post..

Actually, my rational thought and reason for not being worried are my own. The guy in the last news quote just gave a good example I liked.

 

You missed the 'based off information' part. You got your information from the media. This only happens if the media reports what's happening.

 

The other news info/links are mostly to make a point that reading a headline, then doing a Google for "swine flu", then assuming what you read about "swine flu" on wiki/google etc. + what the headlines say = oh noes! is not rational. Not to mention, can contribute to unnecessary panic/misinformation. Try Twittering swine flu and see all the ridiculous posts... hah.

 

So, your rationality and reason are your own, but other people's 'panic,' based on the same news you read, is not their own?

 

I'm sorry, but I disagree with the idea that if someone reads a news report and 'panics,' it's the news report's fault. Yeah, if someone were printing that we're all going to die, I'd say that's poor journalism, but I haven't read that.

 

In truth, I haven't seen any panic either. Okay, people on twitter are using exclimation points -- I see that when people discribe a nice lunch, a hot guy, or two for one pizza deals.

[Maria Caliban]

Not to be mean or anything, but I'm not a fan of the high number of our current world population and believe that Nature keeps trying to find a way to balance things again. We keep trying to get around things, dunno if we can forever. So I don't find it 'worrisome' - I find it more a natural cycle or consequence .. or something.

 

... All right, maybe I am mean ...

 

Minor word edits: I'm never happy with my first draft, darnit...

 

Something tells me you'd be less comfortable about the death of 700,000,000 people if some of them were your friends, family, or countrymen.

 

That said, I doubt we

[Aristes]

I'm with Gorth. I think the media tends to hype most things in order to sell. I don't begrudge them. There must be some urgency in the news for it to sell. However, let's say we had the news about SARS and how terrible it would be. How hyped the disease was and how it caused some true panic in some sectors. Now, advance that over several decades. This might be the one where the media and some individuals say, "I told you so!" However, if it doesn't pan out that the disease causes real mayhem outside of Mexico, will the media say, "aw, we were a little overboard in reporting this issue?" Of course not, but they will have undermined themselves in future reporting. This is clearly the case as regards natural disasters.

 

Yes, we need the media. ...And yes, we should take things seriously. For my part, I'm making sure I wash my hands regularly, which I already do at any rate. I'm covering my mouth and nose if I sneeze, which I already do. I'm making sure that I don't come into casual contact with people who might have the flu. So, I appreciate that we do get this sort of news. However, the sort of unashamed handwringing on the part of the media smacks me as theatrical in nature. I have no doubt that it is.

 

I think it's terrible that 20 some odd people have died in Mexico. If 10% of the world population died off tomorrow, it would cause complete and unrestrained panic across the globe. I don't blame Lady Crimson and other folks for not understanding how terrible it would be. They are simply ignorant in regards to the severity of such a death rate. If 10% of the people in most regions of the earth suddenly died, the neighboring regions would face a refuge problem. If the death rate world wide is 10%, we'll militarize our borders and shoot people who try to enter. I'm not being dramatic. Most folks here don't seem to realize what 10% death rate in an entire population would mean to them personally.

 

However, Swine flu has a less than 10% mortality rate and less than 100% of the population will have the disease. I don't think we're going to see anything even remotely approaching a 10% mortality rate world-wide, let alone on any continent. If we have a 100% infection with a 50% mortality rate, kiss the world as you know it goodbye, because what will be left will not even resemble what we have now.

[LadyCrimson]

You missed the 'based off information' part. You got your information from the media. This only happens if the media reports what's happening.

So I did.

I see what you're saying I think ... yes, while I can say that my attitude towards the possibility of a pandemic applies to all such situations in a general way, I wouldn't have acquired said attitude without reading a bunch of books on pandemic possibilities years ago etc.

 

So, your rationality and reason are your own, but other people's 'panic,' based on the same news you read, is not their own?

 

I'm sorry, but I disagree with the idea that if someone reads a news report and 'panics,' it's the news report's fault. Yeah, if someone were printing that we're all going to die, I'd say that's poor journalism, but I haven't read that.

 

In truth, I haven't seen any panic either. Okay, people on twitter are using exclimation points -- I see that when people discribe a nice lunch, a hot guy, or two for one pizza deals.

I don't believe I said there was a panic - I said (types of) behavior could contribute to a panic. And when I was Twittering earlier, there were some pretty silly things. They're not all going to be silly things 24 hrs a day - most of it is humorous.

 

Bottom line, usually I blame the media first, yes. They could report the facts of the precautions, the confirmed deaths/cases and the CDC's advice and keep it at that, until they are given more information. Some do. But they often embellish or stretch in either subtle or gross ways to make it more "compelling" and/or to keep you coming back for more day after day (ratings) for a while. Give people info, but don't keep fueling fires with speculation. I think the difference between columnist/blogger and reporter/news becomes less and less.

 

Something tells me you'd be less comfortable about the death of 700,000,000 people if some of them were your friends, family, or countrymen.

Sigh...I said I'd find such tragic, somewhere up there in my other posts. And if my hubby died, I'd be bawling, sure. If there's reason for personal grief, I grieve, just like anyone else. That does not, to me, equate into being uncomfortable about the possibility that it could happen ... or even uncomfy that it has happened - perhaps my father's long situation "made" me this way, I dunno?

 

I would be "uncomfortable" (angry) if it was 4 billion lost because of human-caused war bombings ... but disease/disasters... not so much. Sad that it happens, yes, but...argh, can't explain, my brain's fried, and getting too off-topic, never mind.

[LadyCrimson]

They are simply ignorant in regards to the severity of such a death rate. If 10% of the people in most regions of the earth suddenly died, the neighboring regions would face a refuge problem. If the death rate world wide is 10%, we'll militarize our borders and shoot people who try to enter. I'm not being dramatic. Most folks here don't seem to realize what 10% death rate in an entire population would mean to them personally.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not unaware. 10% would mean quite a few houses around us would suddenly be empty etc. and that has an impact on everything. It doesn't change my perspective/opinions, tho.

[Maria Caliban]

If 10% of the world population died off tomorrow, it would cause complete and unrestrained panic across the globe. I don't blame Lady Crimson and other folks for not understanding how terrible it would be. They are simply ignorant in regards to the severity of such a death rate. If 10% of the people in most regions of the earth suddenly died, the neighboring regions would face a refuge problem. If the death rate world wide is 10%, we'll militarize our borders and shoot people who try to enter. I'm not being dramatic. Most folks here don't seem to realize what 10% death rate in an entire population would mean to them personally.

 

I agree with this.

 

If we have a 100% infection with a 50% mortality rate, kiss the world as you know it goodbye, because what will be left will not even resemble what we have now.

 

But disagree with this *in part*. In 1950, the world population was 2.5 billion. 50% of the population dying off would create incredible changes in the culture and economy. It wouldn't send us back to the stone age or even pre-industrial period, technologically. Libraries would still exist, power plants would still run, internet servers would still provide porn, car factories would still make automobiles (they're mostly automated), oil would still be pumped, and farmers would still grow food. Society would still run, it just might not look anything like what we have now.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[Moose]

It probably won't take long to evolve into a less virulent strain. That's my layman take of the situation.

[Humodour]

It probably won't take long to evolve into a less virulent strain. That's my layman take of the situation.

 

Windmills do not work that way.

[Aristes]

If we have a 100% infection with a 50% mortality rate, kiss the world as you know it goodbye, because what will be left will not even resemble what we have now.

 

But disagree with this *in part*. In 1950, the world population was 2.5 billion. 50% of the population dying off would create incredible changes in the culture and economy. It wouldn't send us back to the stone age or even pre-industrial period, technologically. Libraries would still exist, power plants would still run, internet servers would still provide porn, car factories would still make automobiles (they're mostly automated), oil would still be pumped, and farmers would still grow food. Society would still run, it just might not look anything like what we have now.

 

I would agree with you if we had a situation where half the world's population suddenly disappeared or died straight off. however, if half the world's population died off from a specific disease, by the time you've come to the end of the epidemic, I doubt if any of the things you've mentioned will still be in play. The infection kills off half the earth and probably another quarter of the earth's population dies off from starvation, other diseases or health issues, and war/fighting/bloodshed. And this will take at least weeks or even months.

 

As the epidemic progresses, first countries will try their best to seal borders. Then regions within countries. Finally, cities, and areas within cities. People stop going to work. They drive away strangers from their midst. transportation breaks down and foodstuffs don't reach more urban areas.

 

I think society would come through in the end, as you've suggested, but exactly in what condition and with what core values, I couldn't even guess at this point. ...But, hey, YOU'RE the one who killed off the entire world's population by mutating some disease! I was too scared to play the game.

[Arkan]

Not worried...like, at all. Wake me when we get to Outbreak (1995) scenario.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Arkan

[SteveThaiBinh]

I was living in Vietnam near Hanoi when SARS first appeared there - there were cases in China before, but it was first identified and became a big story in Vietnam. I remember signing up to the World Health Organisation's (daily, I think, or every few days) global email updates. They were actually very reassuring - measured, authoritative, and a good antidote to the hysteria of the media and some friends and family. I hope they'll do the same for swine flu.

[Walsingham]

I don't see any point in worrying. you should all have laid on supplies in the event of a zombie outbreak. Flu schmu.

[Gorgon]

Maybe we will catch a break and it will spread among the zombies, making them even more sluggish and easy to evade.

[Walsingham]

Seriously, though. Pandemics are a very real possibility at any time. Being prepared for disruption isn't complex. Just lay in some simple stores of food, and basic medicine. It's not like it's a wasted expense, since you will always use them eventually. Just keep the supplies topped up.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Maybe we will catch a break and it will spread among the zombies, making them even more sluggish and easy to evade.

If there's one thing worse than an army of zombies roaming the streets, it's an army of zombies slouched on sofas demanding cups of tea and hogging the remote control.

[thepixiesrock]

Dangit Michigan, you had to have a possible case of Swine flu didn't you.

[Aristes]

Maybe we will catch a break and it will spread among the zombies, making them even more sluggish and easy to evade.

If there's one thing worse than an army of zombies roaming the streets, it's an army of zombies slouched on sofas demanding cups of tea and hogging the remote control.

 

This made me laugh out lout.

 

Hell, this is my life without swine flu. Usually slouched at my computer, though.

[Monte Carlo]

The BBC is reporting that two people have got it here, but (and I quote) "they don't feel terribly ill."

 

Am not putting a surgical mask on yet.

[Trenitay]

When this gets worse I'm going to be running through the streets shooting people on site.

[LadyCrimson]

CNN tech page:

Twitter is making some question how people get information

 

Not saying the folks quoted a lot in the article are right or wrong in their specific ranting ... I just thought it was funny since I'd brought it up myself last night. I saw posts like "Don't eat pork and you'll be safe!", and links to dubious disease info/bogs etc. Everyone's a reporter these days.

[Niten_Ryu]

While I'd like to RP internet tough guy, I have to admit that I'm worried. Just before the last new year, I got thru seasonal influenza type A H3N2 variant. I got really high fever for about the week and lungs so full of fluids that I couldn't stop coughing for 2 weeks. Original version back in late 60's killed about 34000 people in US alone. Worst part of this is that it was the mildest pandemic in recent history and it was still that deadly.

 

This new swine flu seem to be as bad as (or even worse) then 1918's Type A H1N1 influenza. Both are most deadly in my age group. People throw fatality % around like it's nothing but when you, your siblings and your friends are just in the middle of the danger zone, thing start to get serious fast. Even if you get thru from first wave, pandemic will do at least few additional waves around the world.

 

1918 swine flu killed more then First World War. By some sources it killed more then Second World War. It might have killed more then the Black Death. World population is now over 6.7 billion so this new swine flu has potetial to be most lethal pandemic ever in the human history.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Niten_Ryu

[Purkake]

CNN tech page:

Twitter is making some question how people get information

 

Not saying the folks quoted a lot in the article are right or wrong in their specific ranting ... I just thought it was funny since I'd brought it up myself last night. I saw posts like "Don't eat pork and you'll be safe!", and links to dubious disease info/bogs etc. Everyone's a reporter these days.

 

You're just fishing for the latest XKCD, aren't you?

 

People are stupid, it's a fact, twitter is just helping to bring it out.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Purkake

[Aristes]

It seems perfectly reasonable to talk about mortality rates, N_R. I don't think folks are trying to be tough guys, they're just discussing it in practical terms. However, adding a human face to it doesn't hurt.

 

I will tell you, because of a variety of factors, the flu is a lot more dangerous for me than most others. No, I don't have AIDS, but I do have some health problems that put me in a danger category. Of course, I'm always careful anyway, so I don't know what I'll do differently for the time being.

 

Honest to goodness, I'm not trying to be an internet iron man, but I really do think that the media over-hypes these events, which has inured the public. When things go sour fer realz, we won't be able to tell from the initial press reports.

 

As far as estimates on the 1918 flu, they range from 20-100 million. With a spread like that, you can make a lot of claims. Certainly, it was a serious epidemic. However, and here's where mortality rate comes into the discussion, if things got to be as bad as the 1918 epidemic, we would have a serious problem with panic, and the mortality rate was not 10% while the percentage infected was vastly less than 100%. You mention the Black Death, but the plague undoubtedly infected and killed more people in a much smaller population. ...And it completely unhinged whole regions of the globe. It literally transformed Europe. Yeah, it's worrisome when you and your loved ones are in the middle of the danger zone, but it's even worse when you're talking about whole families dying off.

 

The upshot is, we should have some level of concern, but it's hard when the press treats something like SARS in much the same way as the current strain of Swine Flu. I don't think this strain of Swine Flu is the next Black Death, but you're right, you never know. With that in mind, what would you have us do? Be scrupulous in our personal hygiene? Make sure we avoid infected peoples? ...Or just skip a few steps and baricade our doors?