Bird flu hn51v

[Tomcat]

The subject is reported in New Scientist just about every week and was on the news two nights ago about Indonesia refusing to give the virus samples to the WHO
There is a very real campaign to get prepared for an epidemic..

Its pretty much still a topic in the UK on the serious new programs. And remember that since the scare there have been massive clampdowns on farming etc etc to try to keep is at bay. Lets hope is doesnt happen and i hope you are right Grunyen...

I dont know the actual odds but Rxpharm will tell you its not an issue that is being ignored..

KL
Hey. KL, i hope you got your beach reading with you.LOL
See you in Guess Bar on the 4th..I bought you a Kit-Kat but it started to melt in the heat so i ate it... sorry...

Im not going to get into an extended argument at the moment anyway...to many Ladyboys to see....

[Guest]

Good to see you keep your priorities in order!

I'm glad epidemiologists are on the case. I don't think everyone needs to panic, which I what I said a year and a half ago.

[moe666]

I think I will worry about the regular flu several hundred die each year in the US during the flu season.

I can worry does it change anything no.

[Groundhog]

The mortality rate so far for Bird Flu is running at 70% ... not particularly good odds (SARS for example, was only 8%)

I think the good news is that human-to-human transfer is difficult, but one mutation could change that

[koykaeng]

(Groundhog @ Jul. 01 2007,08:55) The mortality rate so far for Bird Flu is running at 70% ... not particularly good odds (SARS for example, was only 8%)

Could you please explain that, not sure what you mean and I actually work in this area.  

Are you saying 70% of all humans that contract the H5N1 virus subsequently die ?

Cheers
Koykaeng

[divertwo]

(Tomcat @ Jan. 13 2006,02:44) Actually the papers i have were published in New Scientist last week as well

..I prefer to believe an "old scientist" Dr. Irwin Corey...."If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we are going"

[Groundhog]

(koykaeng @ Jul. 01 2007,10:13)

(Groundhog @ Jul. 01 2007,08:55) The mortality rate so far for Bird Flu is running at 70% ... not particularly good odds (SARS for example, was only 8%)

Could you please explain that, not sure what you mean and I actually work in this area.

Are you saying 70% of all humans that contract the H5N1 virus subsequently die ?

Cheers
Koykaeng

Right. I saw this statistic in the South China Morning Post ... they tallied up all the Asian (China, Vietnam, Indonesia ... ) cases that had been reported, and this was the percentage that had died.

Once you get it, you are probably going to die within 3 or 4 days. You'll die from asphyxiation ... the lungs hemorrhage and fill with blood. Apparently the issue with H5N1 is that it lodges in the lung tissues where it is hard for the body to defend (don't ask me more, I'm not a doctor, just repeating what I've heard).

Perhaps rxpharm can chime in on these stats.

[rxpharm]

Yes, Groundhog is correct, there is a 70% mortality rate with the current version of the Bird Flu. This is just one of the reasons scientists are concerned about it. The other reason is that it can kill all age groups equally well - from young children, healthy young adults and old age adults. This is markedly different from regular influenza than has a higher mortality rate among young children and old age adults.

As TC stated, WHO has worked with several countries to limit the spread of Bird Flu. So far it has worked and the mutation that will make human to human transmission has not yet happened.

If this mutation occurs with the 70% mortality rate, the pandemics of regular influenza will pale in comparison to what the Bird Flu may do.

So while it isn't been covered much in the mainstream media, it is still a topic of major concern.

[Guest]

I think it would be inaccurate to leave people with the impression that avian flu has a hard 70% mortality rate.

The mortality rate so far is only a calculation of how many people have been reported with the disease, and how many of those cases have died. Of that calculation, the actual mortality rate is 61%, not 70%.

But this isn't the whole picture, this requires some analysis. As with all statistics, we are heavily influenced by survivor bias. SB has nothing to do with how many people survive. SB means we focus on the information that survives the collection and filtering process, and forget about other uncollected information that may be relevant in analysis.

Some things to consider:
Of the cases known, there are only a few hundred, and they are widely dispersed, so that some countries have only had 2 or 3 or 4 cases. If 2 out of your countries entire 3 cases die, then you are reported as having a 66% mortality rate. However, a country with one case and one death from that case will show a 100% mortality rate. These are obviously very different numbers, and it can be very misleading to leave both of these to a lay reader to describe the nature of the same disease.

Mortality rates are a factor of the disease itself; but also it's vector, the native population, the awareness of the disease, the quality of medical care in that area, and other factors. In other words, mortality rates don't really apply to a disease period- they apply to a disease environment.

Any disease if left unchecked with score a certain numerical mortality rate. But what we actually record as mortality rate is the fight between medicine and the disease. These factors are always changing. For instance, in China and Russia, doctors are often not used to asking for help from outsiders. This affects the mortality rate. As another example, if a country gets one or two cases of avian flu, and does not know what it is dealing with, they will record a certain mortality rate. If however, they begin to see dozens of cases, their awareness will be high, and they will recognize and treat patients more aggressively- resulting in higher regression rates.

It is worth noting that the regression rate for avian flu has increased faster than the mortality rate, or the contamination rate, which is a good and normal sign. As awareness increases, doctors are more prepared and better suited for treating patients, resulting in more surviving patients.

In countries like Cambodia, Laos, and Nigeria, the mortality rate is 100% which is more a function of poor medical care and a small recorded number of cases. In more westernized countries like Egypt and Turkey, where there is access to more modernized medicine, with more of a global medical awareness, the mortality rate is as low as 33%.

Understand that if you catch the plain old vanilla flu and do notihng about it, the mortality rate will be high.

Another note on survivor bias. The numbers we have to go by are based on information reported. There is no omniscient knowledge of who catches the disease and who dies from it. All medical condidtions by their nature are somewhat overstated because we rarely talk about, or are even aware of those who survive unreported.

Along with our documentation of those who have contracted the disease and those who have died, there are two other categories. In the larger category of those who have contracted the disease unknown, we must break down into two subgroups: those who contracted and died unreported, and those who contracted and survived unreported.

In many of these countries it is not uncommon for people to get sicka nd die without ever coming in contact with a doctor. It is unfortunate but true that life is nasty brutish and short outside the umbrella of medical treatment, and to die of an unknown disease is neither surprising or unusual. In these types of environments, we can only speculate about the numbers- however, I would speculate that the survival rate is much higher for this reason:

When people get sick and rest and then get better, they simply go on with their lives. If people get sick and die, it is much more likely to be reported to some type of coroner or medical professional. Therefore those populations on the edge would report higher incidents of contagion, and incidents of survival would be unreported- therefore our unknown statistics lead us to believe survival must be much higher in likelihood than recorded numbers actually show.

I would be willing to guess that the mortaliy rate is actually about half what is reported (anywhere from 16% to 50%) and it will drop rapidly from there the more widespread the contagion becomes, as medical professionals and general populations are more prepared to recognize and treat patients.