Bird Flu and Taiwan

I was just reading the Belgian newspapers and the news about the bird flu wasn’t that good.

The strain H5N1 found in Vietnam is probably resistant for ‘Tamiflu’, so if you get a shot or not … makes no difference to this strain … you’ll die probably … this strain can jump from person to person … :s

“Tamiflu” is not a vaccine. It is a drug that interferes with viral reproduction so that you can get rid of the flu faster.

The current problem with the H5N1 bird flu is that influenza vaccine is manufactured by injecting the virus into fertilized chicken eggs, letting the growing chick get the flu and develop antibodies, and then filtering out the antibodies for injection into humans.

Unfortunately, H5N1 bird flu kills the embryos, which results in nothing useful for vaccine production. So, no vaccine.

Disclaimer: the above is my understanding from general news articles and may be incorrect.

I just heard that in case of an Outbreak the WTO (or Roche) only supply flu medizine for 100k people. They said supply in Taiwan is already short in hospitals with one month waiting time.

Is anybody considering buying the medicine in advance for a potential outbreak?

Conveniently, I just did some reading on this avian or bird flu lately:

  • There are several bird flus circulating. The one causing all of the stir is H5N1 because it is widespread in Asia (and moving beyond) and has had an extraordinarily high fatality rate, around 60% once infected.

  • A vaccine does exist, but not in commercial quantities.

  • Whereas a vaccine would be taken in advance to prevent the illness, as MaPoSquid said, Tamiflu is not a vaccine but is an anti-viral drug

The Wall Street Journal has a long editorial regarding bird flu:
opinionjournal.com/editorial … =110007416

More at the link.

Too bad the link requires registration.

My only comment is that the author’s comment regarding lethality is misleading. He makes it seem as if this particular strain is far more lethal than those in the past (50% vs. 1%). I already explained that in my post above; info that came from experts in that field. In short, there is every reason to believe that this virus will follow the path of others in the past with regards to normal lethality.

In Britain, they’re expecting 70,000 deaths when the outbreak occurs. The normal rate of flu deaths there is just 12,000 per year.

Here is my rough estimate for 1918.

world population (W) = 1.6 billion people
total influenza deaths (TD) = 50 milliion people
fatality rate (FR) (@ 100% population infected) = TD/W x 100 = 3.125%
FR (@ 50% pop. infected) = 6.25%
FR (@ 25% pop. infected) = 12.5%

Some have claimed there were as many as 100 million deaths so all those statistics would be doubled. Given the state of the world (WWI, Russian Revolution) at that time I’m sure more people would have lived. But I’m still curious where the 1% figure came from. Or did I miss something?

Sandman: That normal rate of 12% info comes from where?

In your comment about Britain expecting 70K fatalities, which countries are you including?

NN: I don’t know the exact answer to your question. My info is coming from that quotation that I posted from the guy who studies this as a profession (and teaches it as a professor). My guess would be that the missing link that makes the math come out right is “time”. We are missing some time factor.

In other words, the normal 1% figure is 1% over some period of time, probably one year. The cumulative figure for a pandemic, which is likely to stretch over a longer period, would be higher. For example, the 1918 pandemic started in 1918, but it may not have ended in 1918. I may be completely incorrect, but that’s my best guess. If I find the answer, I’ll post it.

Not 12%, 12,000. The figure is for UK. I just read it today, but the link here gives 50,000, not 70,000.

If it’s “today’s featured article”, it requires that you put in some email address. “x@x.com” works. It won’t even require that after noon tomorrow.

That depends on luck. The current cases are roughly 50% mortality. “Plan for the worst, hope for the best.”

Remember SARS? 10% mortality, but that was with major treatment including putting patients on ventilators. If it had spread as easily as the common cold, it would have overwhelmed every nation’s medical resources; there just aren’t that many ventilators available, and they take time to build. (Of course, if it had hit the U.S., it would’ve been all Bush’s fault. :unamused: )

According to a Stanford University website on the 1918 Pandemic, the following is true:

  • It was the worst pandemic in recorded history, killing more people that the Black Death / Bubonic Plague.

  • The deaths occurred in a single year on a global scale

  • “The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5% compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1%.”

stanford.edu/group/virus/uda/

=================================

NeonNoodle: Using your world population figure of 1.6 billion for 1918, if we assume 40 million deaths, that would exactly equal the 2.5% mortality rate mentioned on that website.

Sorry, you’re right. Getting bleary-eyed. Time for bed.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bird_flu_us&printer=1

This ties in to some comments I made in the thread about Hurricane Katrina – keeping a few days of supplies around is important.

In the case of a lethal pandemic, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have a couple of months of supplies on hand. I followed the Mormon model back in Seattle; I wouldn’t have had much of a varied diet but I could have survived for a year, as long as I had electricity and tap water. Here, maybe two weeks at best. It’s a problem. . . .

Except that they aren’t comparing percentages, they’re comparing totals. “2.5% of 1.6 billion” is more than “33% of a hundred million” (or whatever the Black Plague was) – the Plague was a more localized disease than influenza. Plague hit areas with poor sanitation and lots of rats, in pockets, and limited by geographic boundaries. Influenza, by contrast, spread worldwide by trade and IIRC also by birds.

If you read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, early travelers brought new diseases into lands where entire native populations had no immunity; the diseases frequently wiped out said native populations with nearly 100% lethality. This was not always the old chestnut about “smallpox blankets”; in some cases, it was simple contact with no intent to harm. (My copy is currently on loan, else I’d cite a few pages.)

Can anyone explain why this is, or why this claim is made? I don’t find this to be a logical necessity. I do understand that an excessively rapidly lethal pathogen may limit its own spread, as by killing hosts too rapidly it prevents their transmitting it to many others. But given an adequate period of incubation and communicability, that’s not a given, either. Furthermore, the figure of ‘far less than 1%’ doesn’t match the mortality rates of some of the historical plagues which did make the animal-human leap. Or did I miss something??? :eh:

Here is a really scary “opinion piece” by some syndicated columnist I’ve never heard of (but that’s not surprising). Or at least, it tries to be really scary. I hope it’s hyperbole. This guy says the publishing of the 1918 flu genetic sequence will basically lead to some terrorist group producing the virus for nefarious reasons. Damn, 12 Monkeys was a scary movie.

Here’s the link.

Full quote:

Following on what dearpeter’s link had to say, this is what Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy have to say about the publishing of the 1918 flu genome.

Sorry, been tied up.

Let

I believe there is no vaccine available to date because there is no specific strain ie: we need a human strain of the virus so this needs to come first before they can create an anti-virus/vaccine. :astonished:

At this point in time there are no recorded cases of human to human transmission. If/when this happens we then have the chance of the pandemic with this specific strain. All current cases are transmission from infected animal to human. You see high levels of infections from workers in infected chicken farms or those in the 3rd world who live in close proximity to their animals.

Tamiflu was swept off the shelves of stores last year, so I think it is hard to get your hands on any. Most countries are ordering supplies for approx 10% of population, but as it takes 12mths to manufacture supply is v.slow… I think TW ordered enough for just 2 million treatments.

Just popped out of the Pets forum to give my point of view:

Doesn’t it tell you something that the deadliest viruses of late have originated from animals kept in inhumane conditions?

SARS came from civet cats kept many to a cage in inhumane conditions at market.

Bird flu comes from birds kept in cramped, squallid conditions while awaiting slaughter.

Mad cow diease from factory-farmed cows, fed cow brains amongst other meat parts despite being herbivores.

Am I forgetting any?

Anyway, is this a sign that humans are not meant to abuse nature?

Hmm …