Downloading A Programme Without The...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Bird Flu
30 Answers
Where's it gone?? If you believed all you read earlier in the year, we should all be dead by now!!!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BigDogsWang. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
broke out again in Thailand yesterday
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/07/2 5/afx2901426.html
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/07/2 5/afx2901426.html
The acid rain was a problem we were creating for other countries, particularly in Scandinavia, if I remember correctly; I think it persists and is a long-term thing. It was never that we were all going to be suddenly scalded and dissolved by it.
The bird flu "story" was wildly overstated by the media and was never the catastrophe-in-waiting we were led to believe. Like SARS.
The bird flu "story" was wildly overstated by the media and was never the catastrophe-in-waiting we were led to believe. Like SARS.
You go to Toronto and tell them that SARS was overhyped backdrifter.
Over 30 people died there, nearly 2,000 died world-wide.
The only reason it wasn't 2 million was becasue of some very prompt work by the World Health Organisation!
Unfortunately stopping pandemics doesn't command as many column inches as the outbreak so the net result is a lot of people walking around going "SARS what a hype!" when they may well owe their lives to the people that stopped it.
As for bird flu, all the birds are currently partying together in the arctic before migrating South again this winter. It doesn't currently affect humans but if I were Bernard Mathews I'd be spending the Summer building a lot of barns!
Over 30 people died there, nearly 2,000 died world-wide.
The only reason it wasn't 2 million was becasue of some very prompt work by the World Health Organisation!
Unfortunately stopping pandemics doesn't command as many column inches as the outbreak so the net result is a lot of people walking around going "SARS what a hype!" when they may well owe their lives to the people that stopped it.
As for bird flu, all the birds are currently partying together in the arctic before migrating South again this winter. It doesn't currently affect humans but if I were Bernard Mathews I'd be spending the Summer building a lot of barns!
true vic, but one purpose of the 'hype' (which is a loaded word for 'publicity') is to get authorities to make plans and take action. Perhaps this action actually averted a much worse disaster, as it was intended to? We have no way of knowing. But I don't think it's right to criticise health authorities for preparing for the worst; that's their job. What we can fairly say is that if a deadly epidemic broke out and the governent hadn't warned anyone, they'd be facing a lot of lawsuits.
TO be fair - I would blame the health authorities - but I don't think they actually have anything to do with it.
What I do blame is the media - they are the ones who scaremongered - and were actually the ones who probably did cause extra deaths - they specualted that unless you had the flu jab (which wouldn't actually help against bird flu) you would probably die. Loads of people / companies took the normal flu vaccine causing a shortage which meant that people who were at higher risk of normal flu had to go without.
So, yes, I do feel that the bird flu was blown out of proportion - and I blame the media
What I do blame is the media - they are the ones who scaremongered - and were actually the ones who probably did cause extra deaths - they specualted that unless you had the flu jab (which wouldn't actually help against bird flu) you would probably die. Loads of people / companies took the normal flu vaccine causing a shortage which meant that people who were at higher risk of normal flu had to go without.
So, yes, I do feel that the bird flu was blown out of proportion - and I blame the media
Oneeyedvic - you don't seem to know what you're talking about here.
SARS was/is a highly transmissable disease with a death rate of around 10%
It has a tranmissibility similar to flu.
Now imagine if 1 in 10 of the people you know who have ever had flu died of it - Are you begining to get the picture yet?
The reason there were so few deaths and infections was because of the isolation policies put in place so quickly and the co-ordination of health authorities.
Oh and you do realise that the flu pandemic of 1918 that killed 50 million people was a bird flu don't you (H1N1) that had a death rate of 5%
SARS was/is a highly transmissable disease with a death rate of around 10%
It has a tranmissibility similar to flu.
Now imagine if 1 in 10 of the people you know who have ever had flu died of it - Are you begining to get the picture yet?
The reason there were so few deaths and infections was because of the isolation policies put in place so quickly and the co-ordination of health authorities.
Oh and you do realise that the flu pandemic of 1918 that killed 50 million people was a bird flu don't you (H1N1) that had a death rate of 5%
absolutely agree - I don't know what I am talking about!
However, acording to the World Health Organisastion, from 1/11/02 to 31/12/03 (14 months) there were 8096 probable cases of SARS, Worldwide!
Out of a population of around 5 Billion, I somehow don't think that this is a "highly transmissable disease with a death rate of around 10% "
I also doubt that "It has a tranmissibility similar to flu. " To me, flu goes around a school, gym, office like wildfire. There is very little you can do about it.
somehow I doubt that if SARS was like flu in the way it was transmitted, there would be many people alive today - unless of course, India, China, Vietnam etc have amazing technologies which allow them to isolate people in villages before the virus could take hold.
I will reiterate, that I really do not know anything about this subject, and this is all opinion led - my opinion is that this has been built up and over hyped - and the lack of deaths seem to confirm my point.
However, acording to the World Health Organisastion, from 1/11/02 to 31/12/03 (14 months) there were 8096 probable cases of SARS, Worldwide!
Out of a population of around 5 Billion, I somehow don't think that this is a "highly transmissable disease with a death rate of around 10% "
I also doubt that "It has a tranmissibility similar to flu. " To me, flu goes around a school, gym, office like wildfire. There is very little you can do about it.
somehow I doubt that if SARS was like flu in the way it was transmitted, there would be many people alive today - unless of course, India, China, Vietnam etc have amazing technologies which allow them to isolate people in villages before the virus could take hold.
I will reiterate, that I really do not know anything about this subject, and this is all opinion led - my opinion is that this has been built up and over hyped - and the lack of deaths seem to confirm my point.
Then you should listen to people who do:
SARS fatality rates varied between 9 an 19%
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/20 03/06/12_response.shtml
It's Ro (infectiousness) was 2-4 which is about the same as smallpox.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/review_fall _03/sars.html
It indicated that SARS was not the most infectious disease ever seen, since measles has an R0 of about 15 and tuberculosis an R0 of about 10. But it was in the same league as smallpox, and the Ro told them that in the absence of appropriate interventions, SARS would infect millions of people within six months. On the other hand, because the R0 was sufficiently close to 1, by taking the proper steps, it should be possible to reduce the reproductive number below that limit, and the epidemic would be controlled
And his is what happened - just because it was caught quickly and didn't affect the UK doesn't mean it wasn't a huge threat.
The Harvard figures suggest without intervention we'd have seen over 100,000 deaths in 6 months.
If you'd have been running the WHO how many deaths would it have taken to convince you that it wasn't just "Hype"?
SARS fatality rates varied between 9 an 19%
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/20 03/06/12_response.shtml
It's Ro (infectiousness) was 2-4 which is about the same as smallpox.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/review_fall _03/sars.html
It indicated that SARS was not the most infectious disease ever seen, since measles has an R0 of about 15 and tuberculosis an R0 of about 10. But it was in the same league as smallpox, and the Ro told them that in the absence of appropriate interventions, SARS would infect millions of people within six months. On the other hand, because the R0 was sufficiently close to 1, by taking the proper steps, it should be possible to reduce the reproductive number below that limit, and the epidemic would be controlled
And his is what happened - just because it was caught quickly and didn't affect the UK doesn't mean it wasn't a huge threat.
The Harvard figures suggest without intervention we'd have seen over 100,000 deaths in 6 months.
If you'd have been running the WHO how many deaths would it have taken to convince you that it wasn't just "Hype"?
Okay okay hang on. First of all jake, while you have made some very valid points you were a bit too po-faced in your initial reply to me and I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was responding to the feeling expressed in the thread question, and one of the early replies, that the media had overstated the probable spread of bird flu and SARS. And I don't believe this was in order to help the authorities to be prepared - it was the usual reason, i.e. they wanted a big scary headline. ANY disease that can kill people isn't to be dismissed as "hype" (a word I didn't use) and that's not what I was doing - I was commenting on the hysteria of the headlines at the time. There was no need for you to wag your finger at me and admonish me on how badly my remark would go down in Canada.
Neither was there any reason to solemnly inform us that the "Spanish" flu outbreak of 1918 was a bird flu. This makes no difference to my belief that the media coverage of the bird flu outbreak this year was appalling and irresponsible, with its wildly overstated death toll predictions and literally bird-by-single bird tracking of every avian death across the continents. It was uninformative, distorted, misleading journalism. As was the SARS coverage. Yes, it's the job of the authorities, be it the WHO or whoever, to act quickly and contain a disease, and this was achieved. It is NOT the job of the media to overstress "how many" could end up dying IF it spread. These are two separate issues and you seem to think I've overlapped them and am somehow denigrating the containment work. I agree with your implied comment that the successful containment never gets the same coverage, but should.
Where you're right to mention flu is that, new outbreaks nothwithstanding, people regularly die from it but this goes unreported.
Neither was there any reason to solemnly inform us that the "Spanish" flu outbreak of 1918 was a bird flu. This makes no difference to my belief that the media coverage of the bird flu outbreak this year was appalling and irresponsible, with its wildly overstated death toll predictions and literally bird-by-single bird tracking of every avian death across the continents. It was uninformative, distorted, misleading journalism. As was the SARS coverage. Yes, it's the job of the authorities, be it the WHO or whoever, to act quickly and contain a disease, and this was achieved. It is NOT the job of the media to overstress "how many" could end up dying IF it spread. These are two separate issues and you seem to think I've overlapped them and am somehow denigrating the containment work. I agree with your implied comment that the successful containment never gets the same coverage, but should.
Where you're right to mention flu is that, new outbreaks nothwithstanding, people regularly die from it but this goes unreported.
750 deaths out of 8095 cases would suggest your maths is as bad as your logic.
Seriously though We have a disease at least as bad as smallpox.
Harvard University say it was a major threat
The World Health Organisation say it was a major threat
Your evidence is low number of deaths
That's like arguing that Siberian tigers are not dangerous because more people die in the bath.
Can you find me a single reputable health organisation that agrees with you?
Seriously though We have a disease at least as bad as smallpox.
Harvard University say it was a major threat
The World Health Organisation say it was a major threat
Your evidence is low number of deaths
That's like arguing that Siberian tigers are not dangerous because more people die in the bath.
Can you find me a single reputable health organisation that agrees with you?
Think I agree with BackDrifter on this one... I was particularly appalled at the irresponsible scaremongering of the media with respect to Bird Flu. The BBC irritated me especially, with their decamping of the whole news team and what appeared to be a fleet of helicopters to that village in Scotland where the dead swan washed up.
Bird Flu, SARS, Bovine CJD.... these are all diseases that have serious consequences... but the media have overhyped their coverage with half baked reporting on all of them.
Bird Flu, SARS, Bovine CJD.... these are all diseases that have serious consequences... but the media have overhyped their coverage with half baked reporting on all of them.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
News2 mins ago
Body & Soul2 mins ago
Kemi Badenoch's First Approval...
News3 mins ago
Starmer And The Southpost Triple...
News23 mins ago
