Bird Flu

[7starmantis]

The reasonableness of a preparation would appear to be proportional to the likelyhood of the event for which one is preparing is likely to occur.

Appearances can be deceiving. The problem is that many people assume the likelyhood of an event happeneding based on thier own "gut feeling" or inacurate processes. Based soley on the fact that the event has not happened or hasn't happened in a long time is erroneous. Its like an airplane crash, it hasn't happened in a long time...does that make it less likely to happen or more likely? You can play with numbers all day long to find some faux static average of your percentage of being in an airplane crash, but the fact is you cannot be certain. The millions of dynamic details within the system (the airplane itself) simply prove an incident is going to happen. Its not if, but when....it could be the landing gear problem that kept you on the ground for two hours before take off, but something is going to happen. When you start adding in human qualities to a system the assumptions can be blinding....like for instance saying the likelyhood of a virus mutation being very slim even in the face of data showing the mutation of viruses actively happening quite frequently.

I am quite certain that I am going to need to consume food over the next several days, therefore, it is reasonable to make weekly trips to the grocery store.

I wouldn't really think of going to the grocery store as being preperation, I do that anyway and the food I get from one week to the next is not goign to make a bit of difference in a survival situation.

To set the records straight, I'm not saying be scared of everything, in fact according to your previous posts you are more "prepared" than I am, but writing off a potential danger as "scare tactics" is turning a blind eye.

I am less certain of the possibility of my municipalities public water supply becoming contaminated, or my electric stove not being able to function for several days. While these things have been constantly available to me in the past, and there is no reason to expect them to not be regularly available in the future, that possibility does exist (especially in winter in New England).

The possibility of genetic mutation of a virus, seems even more remote. Then, if a mutation does occur, it needs to be a mutation that enables human to human infection. I wonder if the possibility of a mutation of the virus that makes it inert is equally likely to a mutation that creates a pandemic.

Thats exactly my point. Our certainty is based on what? The data we can put in front of ourselves and our own feelings of saftey. Does your certainty about the possiblilty of your water supply being contaminated have any effect whatsoever on the actual possibility of that happening? The fact that things have been constantly available in the past is no basis of future availability. These seemingly small insignificant assumptions can inadvertantly put you in a situation that could kill you. This could be said of mountain climbers, hunters, fighters, or city civilians. The truth is in the facts but how do we get the true facts? Does the seemingly remote possibility hold enough weight to keep you immune from a disaster such as this?

You take all this with a grain of salt, and for the record I own no fliter masks, dried foods, or even propane supplies....I do however see the possibility of a survival situation around "bird flu" and find it disconcerting to see people ignore it. Its the same as martial arts....I see the possibility of needing to use my training heavily remote....I do however still train for self defense.

So, reasonableness, I think, is something that can be quantified.

By what means? Only in our own minds. What you find so remote to even accept I may accept as quite possible. To get heavy and go psychobably (is that a word?) our minds will accept the possibility of things differently according to our life experiences, training, and mental make-up. The fact may be that bird flu will mutate to human form is a 5% chance (just pulled that out of the air) but how you and I react to that data could be very different. Will one of us be right and one wrong?

I see the actuality of bird flu mutating and causing a "pandemic" that will actually affect me personally as very minute....however I'm open enough to accept even what I consider as minute still possible. Therefore preparing for said possibility is neither rash nor "crazy". What I would consider rash is ignoring the possibility and writing it off as political "scare tactics" to keep the general populous under control.

7sm

 

[Blindside]

I will have to think about it. And I guess that is what you are doing when you started the thread Michael is making us all think about it. Thinking, studying the situation is one point closer to doing something for preparedness. And it sounds like you are more prepared than my family is at the moment, masks or not.

My family has always kept emergency food on hand, and its not like we are LDS, it is just a prudent thing to do. Even if none of the End Of The World type events happen, preperation for emergencies is important. These food stores can be used if a main providor for the family gets disabled, fired, etc. Perhaps I am too self-sufficent for my own good, but I'm not particularly inclined to rely on government, religion, or the good will of my neighbors to bail me out of such a problem. I consider these types of preperation to be just one more method of self-protection.

Lamont

PS: Much cheaper 1-year food stores can be found at:
http://waltonfeed.com/intro/packages.html

These will require a grinder and some cooking knowledge.

 

[michaeledward]

This article, from the New York Times, is a good representation of a 'reasonable' precaution the WHO and governments can and should be taking.

It is interesting that, until January of this year, there was no money to train a brigade of cullers.

Also, it was interesting that in the 1990's there were 150,000 'backyard birds' in Los Angeles County, that needed to be exterminated because of Newcastle disease.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/international/29chickens.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

"We need an international culling task force, a reliably robust, incorruptible public service to go around killing chickens," said Dr. David Nabarro, special representative for avian flu for the United Nations secretary general.
Dr. Juan Lubroth, senior animal health officer for the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, said he would like to have at least 20 more veterinarians right now to send to Indonesia and Turkey simply to train "brigades of cullers," and would need more for each country the disease reaches.
The total cost, he said, would depend on whether he can borrow government veterinarians from wealthy countries or has to hire privately, and whether he sends a few to lead workshops in the capital or dozens into small villages to supervise culling. He is also negotiating with a Dutch company to bring its portable chicken-killing machines to southeast Asia, he said.
Until recently, Dr. Lubroth said, he had no money for any of this. But since Jan. 18, when 33 nations and international institutions at a meeting in Beijing pledged $1.9 billion to fight avian flu, "all of a sudden, I'm able to make some decisions."

 

[Xequat]

The reasonableness of a preparation would appear to be proportional to the likelyhood of the event for which one is preparing is likely to occur. So, reasonableness, I think, is something that can be quantified.

Good point, except that it's not so much a linear equation as you lay it out, but more of a function that also must include consequences. In other words, the possibility of a nuclear blast at a power plant is extremely remote, but we'd better have some preparation just in case.

 

[michaeledward]

Good point, except that it's not so much a linear equation as you lay it out, but more of a function that also must include consequences. In other words, the possibility of a nuclear blast at a power plant is extremely remote, but we'd better have some preparation just in case.

You've never visited the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant have you? (this is a bit sarcastic, because the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant has a really lousy "get away from the meltdown plan" ... a two lane road which is typically jammed in summer).

I don't mean to lay out a linear equation. I mean to imply that we must balance three factors; 1) the probability of risk, 2) the extent of risk, and 3) the extent of preparation.

While I agree that, in the case of bird flu, the 'extent of risk' is quite high, I am arguing that the 'probability of risk' is quite low.

It seems to me that others, notably the President of the United States, is attempting to elevate the 'probabilty of risk'. If one agrees with the increased 'probability of risk', then one would naturally increase the 'extent of preparation'.

I believe, and have stated from the beginning of this thread and another, that there are political reasons for elevating the probability of risk.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You've never visited the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant have you? (this is a bit sarcastic, because the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant has a really lousy "get away from the meltdown plan" ... a two lane road which is typically jammed in summer).

I don't mean to lay out a linear equation. I mean to imply that we must balance three factors; 1) the probability of risk, 2) the extent of risk, and 3) the extent of preparation.

While I agree that, in the case of bird flu, the 'extent of risk' is quite high, I am arguing that the 'probability of risk' is quite low.

It seems to me that others, notably the President of the United States, is attempting to elevate the 'probabilty of risk'. If one agrees with the increased 'probability of risk', then one would naturally increase the 'extent of preparation'.

I believe, and have stated from the beginning of this thread and another, that there are political reasons for elevating the probability of risk.

But, then, you believe everything is a political conspiracy on the part of the administration, so that's nothing new. I have to wonder how much of your judgement on the issue is driven by a dislike of the administration.

That's a legitimate concern, because it's a bit dangerous to make an assessment of a degree of risk, based solely on a contrarian reaction to a position held by someone you dislike. Ask yourself, did you base all this on a well-reasoned and thought out research of the actual degree of risk (as I suspect you'll maintain) or did you come up with the conclusion, then set about looking at only the evidence that supported your original position, and disregarding any information that contradicts that position. (as I suspect).

If it's the latter, then you're doing people a bit of a disservice on the degree of risk posed by Avian Flu in particular, and emerging viruses in general. It's certainly not an area to insert partisan politics, though, apparently there is no common ground on America anymore, even when the enemy is something that could kill millions of Americans.

It is clear that the degree of risk, on a year to year basis, is actually fairly high. Killer flu outbreaks, coming from similar sources, have ravaged the world several times in the last century, with one particular incident killing more Americans in a few months than died in WWI.

 

[Xequat]

Here are some references to what you're writing about, sgtmac_46:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/02/15/birdflu.cost/index.html



"So far, all but a handful of cases of human sickness have been caused by direct contact with sick birds, suggesting the virus is unable to move easily among humans.
But health officials have warned that with continued exposure to people, the virus could mutate further and develop that ability."

This article is on CNN.com and the study was done by some organization in Australia, neither of which is hardly in Bush's back pocket. Hope it's useful.

 

[michaeledward]

A very scary article. (that may be the point, and that is my point)

But it is still premised on a great big "IF" the virus mutates; and if that mutution is in the direction that makes it transmutable among second and third generation infections.

And while we are concentrating on building missle defense shields against North Korea, al Qaeda hi-jacks a couple of planes and flies them into buildings.

Right now, Bird Flu is sucking up all the oxygen in the World Health Care Organizations. We do realize, that West Nile Virus has killed more people than H5N1, right?

One last thought, many reference the Spanish Flu outbreak of 1918-1919; in fact, sgtmac_46 said it killed more Americans than died in WWI. An interesting theory that has been floated is that WWI was a contributing factor in the spread of that pandemic. You will recall that in 1917-1918, many young men from around the world were living together in trenches in the months preceeding the outbreak. The theory is that the soldiers were what caused the flu to spread around the globe. Just a though, eh?

 

[michaeledward]

Coincidence?


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article350787.ece

Donald Rumsfeld makes $5m killing on bird flu drug

By Geoffrey Lean and Jonathan Owen

Published: 12 March 2006


Donald Rumsfeld has made a killing out of bird flu. The US Defence Secretary has made more than $5m (£2.9m) in capital gains from selling shares in the biotechnology firm that discovered and developed Tamiflu, the drug being bought in massive amounts by Governments to treat a possible human pandemic of the disease.

. . .

The drug was developed by a Californian biotech company, Gilead Sciences. It is now made and sold by the giant chemical company Roche, which pays it a royalty on every tablet sold, currently about a fifth of its price.

Mr Rumsfeld was on the board of Gilead from 1988 to 2001, and was its chairman from 1997. He then left to join the Bush administration, but retained a huge shareholding .

The firm made a loss in 2003, the year before concern about bird flu started. Then revenues from Tamiflu almost quadrupled, to $44.6m, helping put the company well into the black. Sales almost quadrupled again, to $161.6m last year. During this time the share price trebled.

Mr Rumsfeld sold some of his Gilead shares in 2004 reaping - according to the financial disclosure report he is required to make each year - capital gains of more than $5m. The report showed that he still had up to $25m-worth of shares at the end of 2004, and at least one analyst believes his stake has grown well beyond that figure, as the share price has soared. Further details are not likely to become known, however, until Mr Rumsfeld makes his next disclosure in May.

 

[Don Roley]

Coincidence?

Yes.

He was on the board long ago. Much of the profits of Tamiflu are from people with concerns about bird flu in other countries. Someone with experience in the stock market tends to realize good stocks that later go up because of a need. No one could have predicted bird flu, but you could see that at some point a drug like tamiflu would be a good thing to own a part of.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

One last thought, many reference the Spanish Flu outbreak of 1918-1919; in fact, sgtmac_46 said it killed more Americans than died in WWI. An interesting theory that has been floated is that WWI was a contributing factor in the spread of that pandemic. You will recall that in 1917-1918, many young men from around the world were living together in trenches in the months preceeding the outbreak. The theory is that the soldiers were what caused the flu to spread around the globe. Just a though, eh?

The large scale mobilization of troops and their garrisoning in enclosed locations contributed so significantly to the spread of the virus that the Influenza victims of 1918-19 are considered by many historians to have been casualties of the First World War.

HOWEVER, IMO, the massive increase in population density in modern times and the increased mobility due to large scale air travel and other forms of modern transportation more than duplicates the effects of the First World War mobilizations and encampments upon the spread of the virus.

Please remember also that the first alarms raised by political activists were on the LIBERAL side of the fence - it was only after the Administration began taking the threat seriously (as they should) that the Left began to attack concerns over Bird Flu as hype and conspiracy. BTW, as you know, I am more to the LEFT than the RIGHT and I cannot stand the current Administration in so many ways, but if I knew that I had a two percent chance of being shot tomorrow I would go into debt to purchase body armor - wouldn't you?

 

[michaeledward]

The large scale mobilization of troops and their garrisoning in enclosed locations contributed so significantly to the spread of the virus that the Influenza victims of 1918-19 are considered by many historians to have been casualties of the First World War.

HOWEVER, IMO, the massive increase in population density in modern times and the increased mobility due to large scale air travel and other forms of modern transportation more than duplicates the effects of the First World War mobilizations and encampments upon the spread of the virus.

Please remember also that the first alarms raised by political activists were on the LIBERAL side of the fence - it was only after the Administration began taking the threat seriously (as they should) that the Left began to attack concerns over Bird Flu as hype and conspiracy. BTW, as you know, I am more to the LEFT than the RIGHT and I cannot stand the current Administration in so many ways, but if I knew that I had a two percent chance of being shot tomorrow I would go into debt to purchase body armor - wouldn't you?

The question your comment begs is : How are you determining a 'two percent chance'? What other items do you have a 'two percent chance' of encountering; How about Eastern Equine Encephalitis or West Nile? How about getting hit by a bus? Heart Disease? (but I still eat at McDonalds).

I have said it before, and I will say it again;

I started this thread because of a Presidential Press Conference, during which a specific question was asked and answered. The President answered the question thoughtfully, thoroughly, carefully and intelligently. Plain and simple, those adjectives are beyond the ability of George W. Bush. He performed above his ability with the question. The conclusion I draw is that it was a planted question, with a canned and prepared answer. And because I draw those conclusions, I find that the question 'WHY' is keeps coming up.

Others are free to draw different conclusions ...

The governments response, in my opinion, is not proportional with the threat. Compare the response to the anthrax attacks of 2001/2002. Compare the response to West Nile Virus. Compare the response to Eastern Equine Encephalitis.

 

[TigerWoman]

The governments response, in my opinion, is not proportional with the threat. Compare the response to the anthrax attacks of 2001/2002. Compare the response to West Nile Virus. Compare the response to Eastern Equine Encephalitis.

The governments response is not proportional to the threat as they portray it or as you see the threat? Is it a very large threat or a very small one? They, Bush may just have wanted to be very careful what was said, and it could of very well be canned, so what. Sounds like what they do alot anyway, preplan questions and answers or maybe I've been watching too much West Wing.

They have a bird flu shot, for the birds for at least one or some of the variations. How could we prepare for variation/mutation that jumps to humans quickly? Well, they started by not using eggs to produce it as that takes too long. Maybe with time they could turn around a flu shot in 30 days, a big whoop, when it will be given to health care and infrastructure workers first. At least, I could fight the West Nile with spraying my yard and putting out mosquito traps. What could we really do for this except stay in our homes and hope we have enough food, and disinfect the mail.

Its like having a five year old running around with matches, you know something bad is going to happen soon but there is that chance that it won't happen. Humans have dealt with flu over centuries, it is not new, nor are pandemics. It may not make the leap to human to human, but then it may. If it does, we will not have much time to prepare. And that is the point. West Nile-mosquito spraying, anthrax-few incidents-more easily isolated. Bird flu- we have birds coming down from Canada all the time, moving up from migration. Really hard to not get sick birds eventually just like it is spreading in Europe, right now. Actually its starting to leap to isolated mammals. So, how long do you wait to prepare? Until we have sick birds everywhere and somewhere, in the world there is a leap, a new strain happens that connects humans. How long does it take for that strain to go around the world? Not long, I would venture. I know West Nile is dangerous and is around in the summer time, I do not ignore the 2% chance that I could be infected. But at least I know, and I can do something to fight it as well as I could do something to prepare and not wait until its too late, and then say I could have. I will probably start stocking up soon probably more toward the summer. TW

 

[Don Roley]

The President answered the question thoughtfully, thoroughly, carefully and intelligently. Plain and simple, those adjectives are beyond the ability of George W. Bush.

And there seems to be the root of your problem. If you give up the preconceptions you have about the president, you are probably going to start seeing a lot more about the matter. Just accept that Bush can be intelligent and that he was briefed on the matter at some point before the conference and your ideas that the whole thing is a plot can fade away.

 

[Xequat]

The President answered the question thoughtfully, thoroughly, carefully and intelligently. Plain and simple, those adjectives are beyond the ability of George W. Bush.

Then so is a conspiracy of this magnitude.

 

[michaeledward]

Then so is a conspiracy of this magnitude.

Yes. Absolutely.

If that is true, and I believe it is, who has the ability to organize these actions? And who derives benefit from the government making the H5N1 virus an incident of national awareness?

And lastly, assuming that it is not another person or group driving these actions ... is there a plausible reason for President Bush to become aware of H5N1? Is there a specific personality trait that might cause the President to behave as I have described - out of proportion with the threat?

TigerWoman - please do not think I am suggesting that no preparation take place. And I am not suggesting we wait. I am suggesting that proprotionality is askew. Beyond the Billions of Dollars we are spending, the President has talked of the military imposing quarantines. Fortunately, most Governors expressed disapproval of such talk, and we have not heard much from that since October.

What I am saying, is that by virtue of us being able to have a conversation about this virus - something that has not yet reached the Western Hemisphere - (and given that we are not world healthcare workers) - tells us something. Can you think of any other healthcare issues that would benefit from such attention, but aren't recieving any attention?

What other viruses or dangerous materials aren't we aware of, because H5N1 is sucking all the oxygen out of the room?

 

[michaeledward]

It's nice to see this article. Besides, we can all be scared of Iran now. I hear they have enriched enough uranium to make a Mickey Mouse watch glow in the dark.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12358223/

Skeptics warn bird flu fears are overblown

Chicken Little alert? Hysteria could sap money from worse health threats


Doomsday predictions about bird flu seem to be spreading faster than the virus itself. But a small group of skeptics say the bird flu hype is overblown and ultimately harmful to the public’s health.

. . . .

But public health funding is a zero-sum game, both Orent and Siegel note. Money that’s being poured into short-term bird flu preparations isn’t available for long-term fixes that would, for example, increase hospitals’ ability to handle a surge of patients in a national emergency.

“People have been riding this for all they can get,” said Orent. “We don’t need to make this into something it’s not in order to get what we need, which is a better public health system.”

 

[Don Roley]

There has always been a danger that some sickness or threat will take away money and attention from more serious threats. You can take a look at the amount of money that is spent trying to find a cure for AIDS as compared to the amount spent on heart disease and look at how many people die from each to see a good example of possible misplaced priorities. It is hardly an attempt to divert attention. Look at Laos and how much they have spent on trying to combat bird flu. They have never even had anyone die from it.

And of course, it is always a case where we look backwards on something and say that there was too much attention and money spent on it. The other times seems to be that we look backwards and say we did not spend enough time and energy on something. There is usually no way we can really tell beforehand short of a crystal ball.

Which is why these particular proposals of the president are so appealing to me. They are not only applicable to bird flu, but to the next disease that may threaten us. Considering just how many millions died during the Spanish Lady flu, it is nice knowing that there will be more safeguards in place even if it is not needed this year or even this decade.

Seriously, I think we can toss the idea that this is an attempt by the Bush administration to divert attention down the toilet. There has been no media push by the administration and there are just too many other goverments like Laos doing more than us to battle this threat. They all can't be part of the conspiracy.

 

[Monadnock]

I know someone who works in health care and they recieved training on the "upcoming" epidemic. How to handle swarmed hospitals, etc... They were told not to tell anyone about the details. Guess we'll see in due time.

 

[still learning]

Hello, It was mention that if you cook the chicken or birds? ..the heat of the cooking process will kill the bird flu, if they have them in them.

Not too sure if I will eat those? ...Aloha