ChatterBank8 mins 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.
SOrry, the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2856735.stm came out with the 4% figure - okay if it helps - less say 10%
"Your evidence is low number of deaths
That's like arguing that Siberian tigers are not dangerous because more people die in the bath. "
Yes, I quite agree that Siberian tigers are dangerous. However, I do feel that it is irresponsible and overhyped to say that we are all in danger of being killed by these tigers.
So, even when presented with the above facts of TB and the comparissons to SARS, (all taken from the WHO website) surely you must agree that it has been overhyped? - I don't recall any recent headlines - saying "TB - its coming and you will die!"
"Your evidence is low number of deaths
That's like arguing that Siberian tigers are not dangerous because more people die in the bath. "
Yes, I quite agree that Siberian tigers are dangerous. However, I do feel that it is irresponsible and overhyped to say that we are all in danger of being killed by these tigers.
So, even when presented with the above facts of TB and the comparissons to SARS, (all taken from the WHO website) surely you must agree that it has been overhyped? - I don't recall any recent headlines - saying "TB - its coming and you will die!"
That's the first time anybody mistook me for an American.
I Would agree about the level of alarmism about human CJD and to a certain extent Bird Flu (providing you're talking about Human risk rather than an agricultural one)
SARS is different it is as tranmissible as smallpox and kills say 10% (who had hospital treatment). Without the fast action in containing it it would have infected a million people in 6 months (Harvard figures) overwhelming hospitals.
My challenge is find me a single reputable health organisation that will agree with you that it was not a major health risk capable of killing hundreds of thousands or millions of people.
Just one.
I Would agree about the level of alarmism about human CJD and to a certain extent Bird Flu (providing you're talking about Human risk rather than an agricultural one)
SARS is different it is as tranmissible as smallpox and kills say 10% (who had hospital treatment). Without the fast action in containing it it would have infected a million people in 6 months (Harvard figures) overwhelming hospitals.
My challenge is find me a single reputable health organisation that will agree with you that it was not a major health risk capable of killing hundreds of thousands or millions of people.
Just one.
But Prof Anderson told the BBC that media speculation about Sars had exaggerated the problem facing the world."...
..."If this was a highly transmissible agent that was spreading like wildfire then of course there would be huge cause for concern, but it is not.
On Saturday, Dick Thompson, a spokesman for the WHO's communicable disease section, said: "We have not seen the report so we could not comment except to say that this is a top class professional and any figure he commits himself to is likely to be as close as possible to accurate."
Happy?
..."If this was a highly transmissible agent that was spreading like wildfire then of course there would be huge cause for concern, but it is not.
On Saturday, Dick Thompson, a spokesman for the WHO's communicable disease section, said: "We have not seen the report so we could not comment except to say that this is a top class professional and any figure he commits himself to is likely to be as close as possible to accurate."
Happy?
And if you like Amercian Universities: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id= 2503
The media is only one of many elements of the international response that must be examined. Many even question how much the international response headed by the WHO and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was responsible for containing the virus. These critics argue that it is equally possible that the number of cases diminished because the virus was following a seasonal pattern, not unlike that of influenza
The media is only one of many elements of the international response that must be examined. Many even question how much the international response headed by the WHO and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was responsible for containing the virus. These critics argue that it is equally possible that the number of cases diminished because the virus was following a seasonal pattern, not unlike that of influenza
Jake you've made some interesting points and the debate with vic makes good reading but he's swinging it for me. And, speaking for myself, while I'm not in any suggesting SARS was not a serious health threat what I have bene saying is that media should not have reported it the way they did, the way they always do; it is NOT their job to tell us how many people "could" die of it IF it spread.
And yes my concern regarding bird flu was the manner in which it was reported suggesting a far greater risk to human health than is the case.
And yes my concern regarding bird flu was the manner in which it was reported suggesting a far greater risk to human health than is the case.
Vic, Yale global is a online magazine regarding globalisation issues - hardly an authority on health issues.
Despite that the very article you quote also says:
By mid-March, the WHO had issued the first-ever global alert and a strong emergency travel advisory to help curb the global spread. These efforts were largely successful and most countries were able to forestall further transmissions and limit the number of new cases. Nevertheless, by August 7, twenty-nine countries had reported 8,422 probable cases to WHO.
They can't even name who these mysterious critcs are.
I've just finished reading the article in the lancet that Anderson refers to in the BBC article and he's much more circumspect in that, he's basically saying that people needed to take serious precautions but that there had been panic which the press had contributed to.
I think perhaps there's a certain degree of middle ground here. There was a significant risk to human health, but the fact that people knew about it quickly and reacted to it saved a lot of lives. There also was perhaps some panicky reporting.
But I still wouldn't lump SARS in the same boat as the current bout of bird flu, which to answer the original question will probably be back with us this autumn when wild birds start migrating again
Despite that the very article you quote also says:
By mid-March, the WHO had issued the first-ever global alert and a strong emergency travel advisory to help curb the global spread. These efforts were largely successful and most countries were able to forestall further transmissions and limit the number of new cases. Nevertheless, by August 7, twenty-nine countries had reported 8,422 probable cases to WHO.
They can't even name who these mysterious critcs are.
I've just finished reading the article in the lancet that Anderson refers to in the BBC article and he's much more circumspect in that, he's basically saying that people needed to take serious precautions but that there had been panic which the press had contributed to.
I think perhaps there's a certain degree of middle ground here. There was a significant risk to human health, but the fact that people knew about it quickly and reacted to it saved a lot of lives. There also was perhaps some panicky reporting.
But I still wouldn't lump SARS in the same boat as the current bout of bird flu, which to answer the original question will probably be back with us this autumn when wild birds start migrating again
I think perhaps there's a certain degree of middle ground here. There was a significant risk to human health, but the fact that people knew about it quickly and reacted to it saved a lot of lives. There also was perhaps some panicky reporting.
I think that we can both agree on that - if you took out the word perhaps in the last sentance!
;-)
I think that we can both agree on that - if you took out the word perhaps in the last sentance!
;-)
I was in Vietnam and Taiwan during SARS. Governments which were more authoritarian than the UK's were able to bring it under control. Believe me, in Taiwan they passed emergency rules: No travel on public transport without a mask, no entry to bars/restaurants without having your temperature taken first and your contact details recorded. And they had no problem quarantining whole blocks of flats which were under suspicion. People followed the rules.
The problem in the UK is that we'd get all the legal challenges and "its my right to blah blah blah". I think SARS would not have been brought under control so quickly in the UK.
Bird flu - the mutation hasn't happened yet and might not. But I was in Vietnam 2 weeks ago and its pretty much a fact of life now. Hardly makes the headlines when they have to cull some chickens.
I'm in Taiwan now - they've just revised their plans for a bird flu outbreak. It includes a near total ban on travel for 3 days following an outbreak amongst humans.
I think many of these diseases can be brought under control - but it takes a special kind of government to do it. My worry is if something nasty does get out, British people will die arguing about it.
The problem in the UK is that we'd get all the legal challenges and "its my right to blah blah blah". I think SARS would not have been brought under control so quickly in the UK.
Bird flu - the mutation hasn't happened yet and might not. But I was in Vietnam 2 weeks ago and its pretty much a fact of life now. Hardly makes the headlines when they have to cull some chickens.
I'm in Taiwan now - they've just revised their plans for a bird flu outbreak. It includes a near total ban on travel for 3 days following an outbreak amongst humans.
I think many of these diseases can be brought under control - but it takes a special kind of government to do it. My worry is if something nasty does get out, British people will die arguing about it.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
News44 mins ago
Film, Media & TV49 mins ago
