Bird Flu Pandemic

[trevster2k]

Is anyone else tracking this in the news? This has been popping up in the news over the past few years. There have been huge culls of millions of birds in Asia recently. Health officials at all levels including the WHO and the UN are predicting an eventual pandemic similar which could lead to 5-7 million deaths but affect over a billion people as they estimate that 25-30% of the population will be effected.

If this comes to pass, all the threads we discuss could be totally unimportant. The fear level could bring the economy to a standstill in many parts of the world as people stay away from work and other people because of fear of contamination or illness.

The experts suggest that countries with poor health care systems would be most affected while other countries would still have casualties but to a lesser extent. I just a caught a blip on CBC news about how some physicians are already prescribing and storing flu vaccine in their homes for their families. Their reasoning is that when this hits, there will be nothing else available for them.

Scientists are working on a vaccine but some reports suggest they won't be ready until 2007. Hopefully, we won't see such a pandemic but not much we can do about it. It's natures way. But we can mitigate the effects of it.

 

[Mongpoovian]

And antiviral resistant strains have popped up. You can thank the Chinese for using human antiviral drugs on their poultry for that one.

 

[U2ITNOL]

The possibility of a worldwide flu pandemic is starting to get more attention in the media, so I thought it would be a good idea to revive this thread. This topic certainly deserves more attention than it got back in June. I myself didn't know much at all about the bird flu and the worldwide threat is poses until this morning when I clicked a link to a video news story about it on the MSN homepage. link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8989233/

That MSNBC story got my attention, so I then Googled the topic and found a lot more reading material on the web. It's pretty sobering to think what will happen if and when the H5N1 virus mutates into a strain that is easily passed from one human to another. The scientific community is very concerned about this and we should be, too. If and when this virus does mutate into a contagious strain and the pandemic starts, there won't be much that can be done to stop it. Many scientists are saying it's only a matter of time. Most people in Asia who have contracted the bird flu got it through contact with infected poultry. But a couple health workers this year did get the flu through human contact with people who were sick. As more people in Asia (and it's spread into Russia) come down with the bird flu, it gives the H5N1 virus more opportunity to mutate into a contagious strain that can be passed from one person to another through normal contact or airborne by simply sneezing. Once that happens, it'll spread like crazy and eventually reach all parts of the globe. Many countries will simply not have the capability to produce vaccines for their populations. Even the US won't be able to deal with it. It'll take 6 months for scientists to produce a vaccine once the H5N1 virus has mutated into a contagious form. Then 2 years to produce enough vaccines to protect 10 to 15% of the US population. We're still using 1950's technology to produce flu vaccines. 2 years will not be anywhere near enough time. The damage will have already been done within the first few months to year of the pandemic start. Most of the vaccines produced in the first year or two will go to workers deemed "necessary", like policeman, firemen and medical workers who'll be treating the sick. Most of us who don't work in those industries will be SOL and have a good chance of getting sick or even dying. Yeah, that would suck! I can only imagine the chaos that will ensue once the general public realizes their governments won't be able to provide them with a vaccine. All of this is a lot to think about. As they say, no sense in worrying about things you have no control over. Perhaps this is why the media hasn't been giving this as much attention as they do to daily events in Iraq, terrorism, the missing teen in Aruba and Brad Pitt/Angelina Joline. Unlike the Y2K hoopla 6 years ago, no one really knows when a pandemic will start, if at all. It could happen at any time. A few weeks, months or even years. With Y2K, we knew when it was going to happen and companies spent millions of dollars to patch their computer systems and software to prevent anything major from happening. In the end, nothing happened. Unlike Y2K, we can't prevent this virus from mutating. They say major pandemics occur on average every 70 years. The last big one was in 1918, so we're overdue for one. I can only hope that national, state and local goverments are doing what they can to prepare for it, but I'm not really confident they are doing much. Governments should at least start educating people so it doesn't come as a big shock if and when it happens. I'm more concerned about this than terrorism. But I'm not going to worry about this since it wouldn't do any good, but there are steps that I can take now to improve my chances of survival if the unthinkable does happen. Like keeping a supply of bottled water and unperishable food stored away. Once a pandemic starts, it'll be mayhem at all supermarkets as everyone tries to stockpile essentials. During a pandemic, the best way to avoid getting the virus will be to avoid contact with those infected. So that may mean staying indoors and not leaving the house if at all possible for months until the worst is over. I'd rather deal with the loss of income than getting sick and dying. Maybe my boss will let me telecommute 5 days a week instead of the one day they're letting me telecommute now.


If anyone would like to do their own reading, here are some links:

"Canadian bank warns avian flu pandemic could cause global economic mayhem" - http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050817/wl_canada_afp/canadahealthflu_050817214234

"British doctors gear up for bird flu pandemic" - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4067116/

"Bird flu: we're all going to die" - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/02/bird_flu/

Avian flu resource page at Nature.com - http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/avianflu/index.html#news

 

[VertigoGal]

Maybe there aren't many threads on this, cos no one wants to think about it. I sure as hell don't.

(thanks for the reading though, of course )

 

[Kieran McConville]

If FYM folk really want to raise the fear level like 110%, we should do a whole heap of threads about

the coming bird flu pandemic
the coming Peak Oil crisis
the coming terrorist nuclear bomb

All are worrying for sure, but nothing is inevitable until it happens. I don't want to live in terror all the time, even if I should.

Furthermore if it is inevitable, what can I do? Nothing, is what.

 

[financeguy]

^ I agree.

 

[corianderstem]

I work in the Benefits department of my company, and my boss was just talking about this the other day.

It's a big concern, not only for the threat this could bring to the workforce (it's a retail company with HUGE streams of customers around the world), but to the effect it would have on our health insurance.

 

[Sonoftelepunk]

SARS anyone? remember that? It's alright if you don't because it wasn't worth remembering. And of course it had such grueling symptoms as general discomfort and fever. Anything but that!

I've been hearing about this Avian flu for some time now. I do believe that it will not reach epidemic proportions. It's just being overhyped by people looking for the next big story. Which this one is not cut out to be.

 

[corianderstem]

It does kind of feel like this comes up every year.

Watch out for the (insert animal name here) flu!

 

[randhail]

We are very overdue for a pandemic outbreak of the flu with 1918 being the last one.

 

[STING2]

We are very overdue for a pandemic outbreak of the flu with 1918 being the last one.

One of the interesting things about the 1918 flu in the United States is that later studies found that nearly 100% of the population was actually exposed to the flu because they all had antibodies in their blood against it. But only 28% of the USA population became ill with the flu. This is one of the big mysteries of the the 1918 flu.

Another interesting fact of the 1918 flu is that most infections and deaths happened among people in their 20s and 30s. Typically, the flu is usually more common among the very young and the very old. Perhaps because the age group from 20 to 40 has the largest level of activity away from the home, whether it be for work or social activities, was a key factor, but I'm not totally sure.

675,000 Americans died from the flu out of a total population of about 105,000,000. Thats a little more than a half percent of the population.

If a similar flu were to hit the United States today with the same level of infection and death, simply multiply the statistics by 3 as the population is now almost exactly 3 times the size it was back in 1918. About 90 million people would get sick and 2 million would die.

But, this is not 1918, and the ability of the medical community to detect a problem, isolate it, and treat those that do become infected, is much greater than it was in 1918. Although I'm sure there are studies that would dispute this, the number of people who would actually get sick or die I think would be a smaller percentage of the population than the 1918 outbreak.

 

[U2ITNOL]

Although I'm sure there are studies that would dispute this, the number of people who would actually get sick or die I think would be a smaller percentage of the population than the 1918 outbreak.

I hope you're right and the percentage is smaller, if a breakout does occur. But from what I read, it may end up being a higher percentage. As you said, in that 1918 pandemic, 28% of the population already had antibodies to fight off the virus. That wouldn't be the case with the H5N1 virus. It would be considered a "novel" virus, meaning most people would not have pre-existing antibody protection against it.

It's a shame that in this day and age, we aren't better prepared for something like this. We're still using 1950's technology to produce flu vaccines. The drug companies that produce flu vaccines aren't willing to spend more money on research to come up with improved methods for producing flu vaccinations because there's no profit in it. Flu vaccines are given out for free. So why doesn't the government step in and give them the money they need? When the US military needs better fighter jets, bombs and protective gear for the troops, the US government gives defense contractors like Boeing the taxpayer money they need to get the job done. They can't do the same with the drug companies?

 

[randhail]

The drug companies that produce flu vaccines aren't willing to spend more money on research to come up with improved methods for producing flu vaccinations because there's no profit in it. Flu vaccines are given out for free. So why doesn't the government step in and give them the money they need?

That's not entirely true. I work for a biotech company where our main products are all flu related. The company has put in much of it's resources to developing new vaccines and has begun working with pandemic strains.

The money comes in the form of government contracts. Up until the Chiron debacle, the US government had no reason to enlist more suppliers of the vaccine, but this has changed now and more contracts are up for grabs. They see the need to have multiple suppliers.

 

[STING2]

I hope you're right and the percentage is smaller, if a breakout does occur. But from what I read, it may end up being a higher percentage. As you said, in that 1918 pandemic, 28% of the population already had antibodies to fight off the virus. That wouldn't be the case with the H5N1 virus. It would be considered a "novel" virus, meaning most people would not have pre-existing antibody protection against it.

It's a shame that in this day and age, we aren't better prepared for something like this. We're still using 1950's technology to produce flu vaccines. The drug companies that produce flu vaccines aren't willing to spend more money on research to come up with improved methods for producing flu vaccinations because there's no profit in it. Flu vaccines are given out for free. So why doesn't the government step in and give them the money they need? When the US military needs better fighter jets, bombs and protective gear for the troops, the US government gives defense contractors like Boeing the taxpayer money they need to get the job done. They can't do the same with the drug companies?

No what I said was that after the flu pandemic was over, 100% of the population had antibodies meaning that the entire population at some point had been exposed. Despite the fact that everyone in the country was exposed to the flu, it only made 28% of the population sick.

 

[starvinmarvin]

What nobody seems to remember is that the last flu pandemic was in 1919. There were certain circumstances that allowed this pandemic to spread around the world with ease, most of which are not relevant as we speak. First of all, the First World War had just ended. And this was not just any war. It was "the war to end all wars," where tens of millions of people were killed and dislocated. Many areas were devastated, and experienced famine. One of the first by-products of famine/war is disease - such as the flu. It spread easily among undernourished people living in unsanitary living conditions, sometimes crowded refugee camps. Also, the flu spread among soldiers fighting in filthy, overcrwoded trenches - the men were exhausted, living in crowded brracks, and the disease spread like wildfire. When the war ended, they brought it home with them. Even people on the home front were compromised by years of war. They too were exhausted, and on rations, and it was the perfect breeding ground for a pandemic. Add to that the fact that conditions were generally less sanitary than today, and the fact that medecine has come a long way since 1919, and you may have an explaination for why so many people died of the flu in 1919. It was a bad flu, sure, but we've had the occassional "bad" flu pandemic since then, and lots of people died, but not anything like 1919.

therefore, I feel that is is less likely to happen now than in 1919. But if the newspapers and TV were to admit that, they wouldn't have anything to talk about, and wouldn't sell their products.

I'm not saying we can't have a another world war, but if we do, then I'll start to worry a little bit more about pandemics.

 

[randhail]

We are actually potentially more susceptible now than back then. Air travel is the main reason for this. One infected person gets on board a trans Altlantic flight, you could have a plane full of infected people by the time the plane gets on the ground. Once people get off the plane, they scatter and take the disease with them wherever they travel. It would be a very hard task to track everyone down on the flight and all the people they have had contact with to quarantine.

 

[starvinmarvin]

We are actually potentially more susceptible now than back then. Air travel is the main reason for this. One infected person gets on board a trans Altlantic flight, you could have a plane full of infected people by the time the plane gets on the ground. Once people get off the plane, they scatter and take the disease with them wherever they travel. It would be a very hard task to track everyone down on the flight and all the people they have had contact with to quarantine.

Air travel is a problem, but not as big a problem as the horrible war-famine-disease triple whammy that existed in 1919. People who are undernourished and physically/mentally exhausted are at a much higher risk of getting sick than relatively healthy people.

 

[Liesje]

We are actually potentially more susceptible now than back then. Air travel is the main reason for this. One infected person gets on board a trans Altlantic flight, you could have a plane full of infected people by the time the plane gets on the ground. Once people get off the plane, they scatter and take the disease with them wherever they travel. It would be a very hard task to track everyone down on the flight and all the people they have had contact with to quarantine.

Ugh, I can (unfortunately) vouch for this! My first experience ever flying....on the way back from Tanzania I picked up a cold on the plane (so said the Doc) and I was already sick from a stomach bug I had in Africa, so it took me five months to completely recover from that series of flu, respiratory infections, sinus infections, and eye infections.

 

[STING2]

We are actually potentially more susceptible now than back then. Air travel is the main reason for this. One infected person gets on board a trans Altlantic flight, you could have a plane full of infected people by the time the plane gets on the ground. Once people get off the plane, they scatter and take the disease with them wherever they travel. It would be a very hard task to track everyone down on the flight and all the people they have had contact with to quarantine.

This is definitely a problem, but realize that back in 1918-1919, there was virtually no capability to track the disease, quarantine it, or treat it. While the there is greater ability to spread the disease today, there is also a much greater ability to combat it.

 

[starvinmarvin]

This is definitely a problem, but realize that back in 1918-1919, there was virtually no capability to track the disease, quarantine it, or treat it. While the there is greater ability to spread the disease today, there is also a much greater ability to combat it.

Very true. Don't forget that in 1918-19 we had millions of soldiers travelling across Europe and beyond, and returning home. There were also hundreds of thousands of refugees on the move. It may not have been air travel, but people were moving, moving, moving - the world has rarely seen such mass movements of people.

 

[U2ITNOL]

I'm starting to get a really uneasy feeling about this... There are articles about the possible (inevitable?) bird flu pandemic in the news now almost everyday. Article below is on the CNN website today. When you have officials from the WHO, CDC and other government organizations using terms like 'imminent' and 'likelihood very high', I would tend to believe them. They're the experts and know a lot more about this virus than I do. I saw another article yesterday which said the scientists studying the H5N1 virus are already seeing early signs that it's starting to mutate into one that is more easily transmittable from human to human. Not good....

I can understand no one wanting to discuss this issue because it's just one of those things we don't have any control over. So why worry about it. And it's not a pleasant topic, like the setlist from the last U2 show. But there are things you can do now to prepare in advance for it if this flu pandemic does become reality. Some advance planning could improve your chances of surviving an outbreak. As nutty as it sounds, one of things you can do now is start stocking up on things like bottled water, canned and dry foods. During a flu pandemic, your best chance to avoid catching it is to avoid contact with other people who might be infected. That'll mean staying home for a couple months at least until the worst is over, if you're financially able to do it. If you already have enough food and water on hand, you're already one step ahead of the ones who'll be waiting in long lines at the supermarket fighting over bottled water and other essentials.

Let's just hope and pray that they're able to contain on outbreak in Asia if it starts and keep it from spreading.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/10/10/birdflu.warning.ap/index.html

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- The likelihood of a human flu pandemic is very high, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said as he began a tour of Southeast Asia to coordinate plans to combat bird flu.

The H5N1 strain of bird flu has swept through poultry populations in many parts of Asia since 2003 and jumped to humans, killing 60 people, mostly through direct contact with sick fowl.

While there have been no known cases of person-to-person transmission, World Health Organization officials and other experts have been warning that the virus could mutate into a form that spreads easily among people. In a worst-case scenario, they say millions of people could die.

Three influenza pandemics have occurred over the last century and "the likelihood of another is very high, some say even certain," Leavitt said Monday after meeting with Thai health officials to review the country's preparations against the disease.

"Whether or not H5N1 is the virus that will ultimately trigger such a pandemic is unknown to us," he told a news conference.

"The probability is uncertain. But the warning signs are troubling. Hence we are responding in a robust way."

Leavitt, accompanied by the director of WHO and other top health professionals, also plans to visit Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to prepare for the anticipated public health emergency.

His tour comes after U.S. President George W. Bush last month established the "International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza" to coordinate a global strategy against bird flu and other types of influenza. (Full story)

Leavitt said "containment" was the first line of defense against the illness, encouraging countries to step up development and production of vaccines and strengthen efforts to detect any cases of human-to-human transmission early.

"Anywhere, the sooner we know, the faster we can respond and the more lives that will be saved," he said.

Thai Public Health Minister Suchai Charoenratanakul said Thailand would contribute at least 5 percent of its antiviral drug supplies to a proposed Southeast Asian regional stockpile.

So far, 41 people have died of bird flu in Vietnam, 12 in Thailand, four in Cambodia and three in Indonesia. Leavitt said he would also visit Indonesia at a date to be announced.

World Heath Organization Director General Dr. Lee Jong-wook said preparation was the key to preventing a flu epidemic such as the one that struck in 1918, killing an estimated 40 million to 50 million people. (Full story)

"Now we know in advance what is happening and we have to prepare ourselves. That is our duty," he said.

 

[Carek1230]

Bird flu sounds so gross. I don't understand why airplanes can't have some kind of a germ filtration system to filter their recirculated air on all flights.

 

[Kieran McConville]

As anyone who's ever read The Stand can tell you, we're all gonna die.

 

[STING2]

Many people have discussed that the planet is do for a "major pandemic" because there has not been one since 1918. But is that really a long time? In 1918, how long had it been since the last "major pandemic" on the same scale?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I would imagine that population increases, the number of people living in close proximity to large numbers of animals coupled with the more rapid avenues for transmission that would mean that the gap would be less.

I wonder if throughout the history of humanity the risk of a major pandemic has increased exponentially, does this correlate with population and connectedness. Hmmmm

 

[randhail]

Many people have discussed that the planet is do for a "major pandemic" because there has not been one since 1918. But is that really a long time? In 1918, how long had it been since the last "major pandemic" on the same scale?

For the flu it is a long period of time. A major outbreak is typically scene once a generation and 1918 was the last major one.

 

[STING2]

Well here is some history on Pandemics prior to 1918.

"Influenza has afflicted humanity since ancient times. The individual symptoms and epidemiological traits of the disease are sufficiently characteristic to enable one to identify a number of major epidemics in the distant past. Hippocrates recorded the first known influenza epidemic in 412 B.C., and numerous outbreaks were reported during the Middle Ages. (2) The term "influenza" was introduced in Italy in the 15th century when the disease was attributed to the influence (= "influenza") of the stars. Later Italian writers refer to "influenza di freddo," the influence of the cold, thinking that exposure to the cold caused influenza. The British adopted the name during the epidemic of 1742-43, and it was during this same time the French began calling the disease "la grippe." (3)"

"The first well-recorded episode of influenza was the pandemic of 1580, which started in Asia and spread to Africa, Europe, and the Americas. The pandemic swept through Europe in six weeks and "afflicted almost all of the nations of whom hardly the twentieth person was free of the disease, and anyone who was so became an object of wonder to others in the place." (4) In Britain there were two waves, one in the summer and one in autumn, with high mortality. Rome recorded 5000 dead, and "some Spanish cities were… nearly entirely depopulated by the disease." (5) Such a high mortality rate can be explained, in part, by the crowded, unsanitary conditions of the large cities of the time, and by the practice of treating a fever with bloodletting. (6)"






There were eight major outbreaks of influenza in the ninteenth century.

1800-02
Origin in China or Russia
All of Europe, Russia, China, Brazil effected.
Generally mild, little mortality


1830-33
Origin in China
Whole World over a three year period effected
Britain hit hard, especially hard in 1833.


1836-37
Origin Unknown
Europe, Africa, Australia effected
Again, Britain reports higher mortality than other parts of Europe. This is probably a recurrence of the strain from 1830-33.


1847-48
Origin in Russia
Europe, North America, the West Indies, Brazil effected
Paris claimed a 25% infection rate, and there were approximately 250,000 cases in London.


1850-51
Origin Unknown
North and South America, the West Indies, Australia, Germany effected. England was not affected.


1857-58
Origin Panama
North and South America, Continental Europe effected.
Although Influenza was wide-spread in the Americas and Europe, Britain was not significantly affected.


1873-75
Origin Unknown
North America, Continental Europe effected.
Again, England was not affected.


1889-90
Origin Bukhara, Russia
Whole World effected.
Russia (May), Western Europe (November), N. America (December), S. America (February), Eastern Mediterranean (January), India (February), Australia (March)
Called the "Asiatic Influenza." There was a high attack rate and considerable mortality. This was the worst of the pandemics of the 19th century. There were several epidemics in subsequent years, presumably from the same strain.

 

[Sonoftelepunk]

Thanks STING2. I didn't know there had been so many flu outbreaks in the 19th century alone.

 

[STING2]

Part of the reason that older Americans were less likely to die from the flue in 1918 was because most had received some level of immunity from pandemics that were mild in the United States in 1889-1890 and before.

The worst pandemic of the 19th century killed 1.5 million people worldwide, this was the 1889 pandemic

The 1830 pandemic killed about 900,000 people worldwide.

The 1781 Pandemic killed about 800,000 people worldwide.

The 1729-1733 Pandemic killed about 400,000 people worldwide.

These are the worst Pandemics from 1700-1900.

What is interesting is that none of these Pandemics comes close to approaching the level of the 1918-1919 pandemic even when counting for smaller populations at those times.

This makes what happened in 1918-1919 seem like a much more rare occurance than what is being reported in the media currently.

 

[U2ITNOL]

It's impossible to predict how many people may die in the next pandemic until it actually begins and scientists know what they're dealing with. It'll all depend on how easily transmittable the virus is and what the mortality rate is of those who become infected. I doubt the mortality rate will approach anywhere near that of 1918, but we'd still be looking at a substantial loss of life and hospitals stretched well past their limits. Then there'll be the economic impact.

To give in idea what a "medium" level pandemic might do in the US, this blurb is from an article on the CDC website..

The severity of the next pandemic cannot be predicted, but modeling studies suggest that its effect in the United States could be severe. In the absence of any control measures (vaccination or drugs), it has been estimated that in the United States a “medium–level” pandemic could cause 89,000 to 207,000 deaths, between 314,000 and 734,000 hospitalizations, 18 to 42 million outpatient visits, and another 20 to 47 million people being sick. Between 15% and 35% of the U.S. population could be affected by an influenza pandemic, and the economic impact could range between $71.3 and $166.5 billion.