Is the U.S. ready for a killer flu outbreak?

[hardheadjarhead]

This has been getting increasing attention over the last two years:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/08/politics/08flu.html?th&emc=th

I just found out this month that my great grandfather died in the 1918 flu pandemic. His obituary appeared right along side that of a five year old boy. It'll take anyone down. It doesn't discriminate.


Regards,


Steve

 

[TonyM.]

No kidding. The fujian flu had me dancing with D two years ago. Wouldn't wish that on anyone.

 

[shesulsa]

I remember when my mother and I had the Russian flu. That was ... not fun. We heard of many people who died from it and others who had permanent damage from it. Mine was scar tissue in my sinuses, throat and lungs. It was the most debilitating thing I've ever been through - and I've been through mono.

 

[mantis]

This has been getting increasing attention over the last two years:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/08/politics/08flu.html?th&emc=th

I just found out this month that my great grandfather died in the 1918 flu pandemic. His obituary appeared right along side that of a five year old boy. It'll take anyone down. It doesn't discriminate.


Regards,


Steve

i dont think the we're ready for any disaster anymore. recall 9/11, katrina, and the project huge california earthquake, the flu, anthrax, or any other natural or neuclear disaster that we dont know about!!! do you think we can survive any of that? i mean before tens of thousands die!

 

[BlackCatBonz]

tens of thousands die from influenza every year anyway......roughly 36000, and about 114000 hospitalised.
if there was a pandemic.....it would be in the hundred thousands.
the problem is, trying to guess which flu it is and having the vaccine prepared.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

They're guessing this one will kill 50 million people worldwide...its that lethal.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Phoenix44]

No, we are NOT prepared. And when millions die, I expect to hear, "Well, no one could have predicted...."

 

[sgtmac_46]

The Spanish Flu outbreak of 1918 was the deadliest pandemic in history. The Spanish Flu was a strain of Avian Flu. It killed more people in less than 1 year, than the Plague killed in 2 centuries. There was hardly a single population group on the planet, no matter how remote, that was not effected in months. Even remote Innuit were struck down in large numbers.

What made the Spanish Flu outbreak far worse, was it's bizarre pathology. Most flu, indeed most infectious diseases, strike down the very old, the very young and the already ill. Instead, the Spanish Flu seemed to by-pass those usual targets, and instead predominently struck down the young and healthy.

If another out-break occurs just like it, the result will be catastrophic.

What's more, in the 90 years since the last outbreak, we've forgotten for the most part that the Spanish Flu killed more US soldiers than WWI. There seems to be a human inclination toward amnesia when it comes to infectious disease.

As pointed out earlier, in an average year, over 36,000 people are killed every year by the flu. If this were a result of a human cause, people would be outraged. That idea hardly crosses the national conciousness.

Lest we try to politicize the whole issue, however, lets keep in mind that it was the Clinton Administrations vaccine scheme that resulted in the shortages we have had recently. Fixing pricing drove many US companies out of the vaccine business, resulting in only two British companies producing Flu vaccine. The well intentioned plan resulted in a HUGE vaccine shortage when something went wrong with vaccine production, with no real alternative.

Again, this failure is a BI-PARTISAN failure of the highest order. Clinton failed, and I haven't been happy with Bush's failure to fix the problem.

 

[Makalakumu]

A pandemic of the current avian flu is predicted to kill 1.9 million in the US alone. The biggest reason why our country is not ready is because the technology that creates vaccines is so old. When this thing breaks out, it will be six months before the first vaccine arrives. By that time, millions will have died. In one year, we will have only 100,000,000 doses of vaccine ready for distribution.

Private interests won't invest in something so risky and public interests have wanted to spend the money elsewhere...ie making fancy weapons. This country is in dire need of reprioritization of government spending. I think that KatRita made that abudantly clear.

If this happens, we'll see social unrest, chaos, and then martial law. It will be something that tests the metal of our country, that is for sure.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Sgtmac_46 wrote:

Lest we try to politicize the whole issue, however, lets keep in mind that it was the Clinton Administrations vaccine scheme that resulted in the shortages we have had recently. Fixing pricing drove many US companies out of the vaccine business, resulting in only two British companies producing Flu vaccine. The well intentioned plan resulted in a HUGE vaccine shortage when something went wrong with vaccine production, with no real alternative.

Now THERE is a first...blaming a long defunct Democratic administration before the disaster actually occurs.

Bush has had a Republican majority in the Senate and House for some time now. He's had plenty of time to fix this, and the United States has the largest and most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the world.

Never in my time in the military would a commander EVER blame his predecessor for the failings of his command. "A commander is responsible for everything his command does or fails to do" was the constant refrain, and a maxim we were held to.

Its Bush's watch...and his alone.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Phoenix44]

Yeah, this Clinton thing is getting old. About 5 years old.

A really creative approach would have gone like this:

"OK, the Medicare drug program will not be able to bargain for lower drug prices, nor will they be able to buy cheaper drugs from Canada. In return for this favor, you drug companies WILL produce vaccines."

Another possibility would be for the administration to pay drug companies an incentive now to produce vaccine. And why not? They're able to offer incentives to Big Oil to increase production.

The Bush Administration seems to be able to accomplish anything it wants. If it wants avian flu vaccine, there will be avian flu vaccine.

 

[Cryozombie]

Bush/Clinton aside, The question is,

Is it profitable?

If they (drug companies) spend the resources and money to produce the vaccine and it DOESNT happen, and the vaccine expires, and they lose all that money...

After all, the drug companies are in the buisness of making money, not saving lives... They dont care if a million americans die, as long as they arent shareholders, right?

 

[Tgace]

Not if they convince us all that we need an innoculation NOW to prevent a pandemic.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sgtmac_46 wrote:




Now THERE is a first...blaming a long defunct Democratic administration before the disaster actually occurs.

Bush has had a Republican majority in the Senate and House for some time now. He's had plenty of time to fix this, and the United States has the largest and most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the world.

Never in my time in the military would a commander EVER blame his predecessor for the failings of his command. "A commander is responsible for everything his command does or fails to do" was the constant refrain, and a maxim we were held to.

Its Bush's watch...and his alone.


Regards,


Steve

If you want to dodge the truth to make this a partisan issue, be my guest. However, it is a fact that the Clinton administrations vaccine policies are what placed our flu vaccine production in to only two producers, in Britain, in the first place. The amount of time since then only goes to show the failure of the Bush administration to fix the problem originally caused.

What you have is a knee jerk reaction to placing blame where it goes...ACROSS the political spectrum. The "Blame Bush first, last and only" refrain is what i'm hearing from you. Question...What single thing has any democrat in the last 30 years done to solve this problem? The answer is nearly the same as the Republicans. The fact that you want to make it a partisan issue only illustrates a central part of the problem.

By the way, the logical fallacy in your argument that the "Current" commander is always responsible for any problem, even one caused by a predecessor is blatant. It would be the equivalent of suggesting that, even if a predecessor embezelled a large amount of money, if it didn't get discovered until my watch, i'm responsible. That's asinine. Now, if I discover on my watch and do nothing about it, i'm culpable as well (As Bush is culpable on this issue) but that doesn't alleviate the original principle of creating the problem in the first place.

Ultimately, the problem is the mindset of politicians in general, not a given party or person. This is one of those times when I (partially) agree with UpNorth. We need a reprioritization. Immunization is a problem that effects everyone, no matter social class or status. It's a national problem, and we need to fix it...not politicize it.

Regards,

Bush/Clinton aside, The question is,

Is it profitable?

If they (drug companies) spend the resources and money to produce the vaccine and it DOESNT happen, and the vaccine expires, and they lose all that money...

After all, the drug companies are in the buisness of making money, not saving lives... They dont care if a million americans die, as long as they arent shareholders, right?

Again, it shouldn't be the burden of a given business to fix a national problem. They are a private company, why are they responsible for losing money to fix a problem that everyone has a stake in?

The fact is, you and I are responsible for fixing this problem, and if that means a slight increase in taxes or cuts in other programs for the federal government to take the cost of this, so be it. Again, if we have a killer epidemic like this, it won't discriminate between black and white, republican and democrat, rich or poor. It's all our problems.

 

[Phoenix44]

Again, it shouldn't be the burden of a given business to fix a national problem. They are a private company, why are they responsible for losing money to fix a problem that everyone has a stake in?

You are right. I wouldn't expect a given business to "fix a national problem." However, it IS the business of the US Dept of Health & Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the Center for Disease Control to prevent a massive health disaster if it is preventable. That means resources should be allocated to pay for avian flu vaccine development and production. And in fact, the NIH HAS awarded contracts to Aventis and Chiron to do exactly that, and clinical trials are in progress.

Having said that, I do think that when a given business is awarded a huge gift from the taxpayers, such as a promise that Medicare will pay full price for drugs for its beneficiaries, the taxpayer has a right to expect something in return--such as a commitment from the pharmaceutical industry to produce inexpensive vaccine.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You are right. I wouldn't expect a given business to "fix a national problem." However, it IS the business of the US Dept of Health & Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the Center for Disease Control to prevent a massive health disaster if it is preventable. That means resources should be allocated to pay for avian flu vaccine development and production. And in fact, the NIH HAS awarded contracts to Aventis and Chiron to do exactly that, and clinical trials are in progress.

Having said that, I do think that when a given business is awarded a huge gift from the taxpayers, such as a promise that Medicare will pay full price for drugs for its beneficiaries, the taxpayer has a right to expect something in return--such as a commitment from the pharmaceutical industry to produce inexpensive vaccine.

Agreed...so long as that was part of the agreement. You can't really expect to go back later and say "Remember the agreement to pay ful price for drugs?...Well, we want you to do this now." It doesn't work that way.

Not like paying retail is doing them a huge favor. Full price just means you aren't expecting a discount.

But, I think the Federal Government should pay WHATEVER price is necessary to fix this problem, and I don't care how much it cost me and every other taxpayer in this country to do it.

What's more, this issue is important enough that i'm willing to tell every member of congress and the president, if your party doesn't do what needs to be done, you're out of office next election.

For me, that means if the Republicans don't do anything to fix this problem or, worse, balk and interfer with fixing the problem, I won't be voting for them next time.

 

[Phoenix44]

Not like paying retail is doing them a huge favor. Full price just means you aren't expecting a discount.

As of 9/05, more than 3 million Medicare recipients signed up for the drug plan. That should entitle the taxpayer to a heck of a bulk discount.

 

[Makalakumu]

But, I think the Federal Government should pay WHATEVER price is necessary to fix this problem, and I don't care how much it cost me and every other taxpayer in this country to do it.

What's more, this issue is important enough that i'm willing to tell every member of congress and the president, if your party doesn't do what needs to be done, you're out of office next election.

I would feel the exact same way no matter who is in office. :asian:

Realistically, this thing is a bigger threat then any terrorist bomb. Epi/Pan-demics have been around since the dawn of civilization. It's the close association with livestock and with each other that brings out these nasties.

The bottom line is that I believe these simple germs could do more to undermine our country then any human threat at this moment.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I would feel the exact same way no matter who is in office. :asian:

Realistically, this thing is a bigger threat then any terrorist bomb. Epi/Pan-demics have been around since the dawn of civilization. It's the close association with livestock and with each other that brings out these nasties.

The bottom line is that I believe these simple germs could do more to undermine our country then any human threat at this moment.

A 1918 style pandemic would kill millions of Americans. The only way a terrorist could become a bigger threat is if they detonated a megaton yield bomb in New York City.

What's more, it could easily kill 100 Million people world wide. The estimate from 1918 was over 50 Million. Given the difference in population today, that number could be 2 or 3 times as much.

In short, yes, the threat from a global pandemic is one of the most urgent problems facing mankind as a whole.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041213-021202-3255r.htm

Outside View: False fears and bird flu

By Dr. Gilbert Ross
Outside View Commentator


New York, NY, Dec. 13 (UPI) -- As if vaccine shortages, wars, terrorism and Vioxx weren't scary enough, some folks who should know better are making predictions of worldwide contagion without cure.


Officials from the World Health Organization have sounded the alarm about a "bird flu" pandemic. Spokesmen warned of billions falling sick and millions of deaths. Millions in Southeast Asia have indeed died -- but so far almost all the victims -- except for 32 humans -- have been feathered.

Outgoing U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, in the course of his resignation remarks, morphed from his previously calm demeanor into hysteria. His bizarre farewell speech contained words of advice for terrorists about our country's weakest links -- and more bird flu warnings.

Referring to bird flu, Thompson had a dire warning: "This is a really huge bomb that could adversely impact on the healthcare of the world." Uh-oh.

Maybe Thompson can be excused his end-of-the-world predictions -- he has no science background -- but we expect the WHO to have more insight into separating real health threats from theoretical ones. Are they acting in a needlessly alarmist way? That seems to be the case.

Statements made by WHO experts noted that a bird flu pandemic "could kill up to 100 million people" -- if the virus mutated into an uncontrollable form of human influenza. One such expert advised public health officials to start planning for overwhelmed hospitals, construction of isolation wards, and widespread absenteeism -- if the pandemic occurs.

Another opined that there is "no doubt" there will be another pandemic -- global outbreaks have occurred every few decades, the last two being in 1957 and 1968.,

He went on: "We are closer to the next pandemic than we have ever been before."

Oh really? We will eventually have another pandemic -- sometime in the future. We are, therefore, getting closer all the time, I guess. Worse, we won't have any vaccine to prevent this wholesale carnage for about two years -- and one of the companies trying to make such a vaccine is Chiron, whose recent efforts to produce uncontaminated flu vaccine for the United States came to naught only two months ago.

The new strain of bird flu, technically termed Influenza A(H5N1), has indeed ravaged Asian avians, as noted above. But the virus is genetically distinct from the flu bugs that infect humans every winter, and bird -- as well as other animal -- flu strains generally do not have the ability to make people sick. While it is cause for concern that 44 humans also have contracted the virus from birds or fowl, of whom 32 have died -- a worrisome mortality rate of over 70 percent compared to a mortality rate of well under 1 percent for the common flu and 5 percent for the devastating 1918-1919 pandemic -- there are no -- as in zero -- documented cases of human to human transmission, and only two cases even suspected, one each in Thailand and Vietnam.

One major requirement for a viral epidemic would be person-to-person spread communicability.

So, should we head for the hills? No. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission, despite many millions of sick and dead birds. And it is obviously extremely difficult to transmit infection to humans from birds; again, the numbers tell the tale.

It's a good idea to be prepared, as the recent scarcity of flu vaccine has demonstrated. But the dire warnings about billions sick and millions dead from an onrushing bird flu pandemic seem overblown, to say the least. We should keep doing the right things to avoid infection: hand washing and covering your nose and mouth when coughing or sneezing. Public health officials should make sure to stockpile anti-flu medications, which probably would work against the avian strain, if what is now theoretical becomes real.

We also should use the methods of prevention we have -- including the vaccine against pneumonia, which is greatly underutilized, even though it protects against the proximate cause of death in the elderly suffering from severe influenza.

Also, stay home from work and seek medical attention if you're sick, and get plenty of rest. Don't stay awake worrying about bird flu -- it's bad for your health.

--

-- Dr. Gilbert Ross is the executive and medical director of the American Council on Science and Health (acsh.org).