| PANDEMIC ALERT LEVEL |
| 123456 |
| Tracking the next pandemic: Avian Flu Talk |
66.6666% Mortality |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | ||
Guests 
Guest Group 
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: 66.6666% MortalityPosted: August 08 2006 at 7:07pm |
|
|
The Who page with the Cumulative H5N1 figures so far this year reports 90 people have caught the bug and 60 have died from it.
That is a mortality rate of 66.6666repeating % and absolutley horrendous because the 1918 rate was 3%
Big difference
Keep prepping everyone
|
||
 |
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 08 2006 at 7:09pm |
|
|
Could this be the dreaded 666 mark of the beast.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. sorry, I had to say it before someone else did it :-)
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 08 2006 at 7:13pm |
|
|
I dont put any stock in that stuff but hey - I could be very wrong
|
||
|
||
|
Samoa
Valued Member 
Joined: March 30 2006 Status: Offline Points: 507 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 08 2006 at 8:43pm |
|
|
If this mortality rate holds up, it's bound to gather wide-spread
attention. I've said from Day One that it isn't as viral as it
seems to be "by the numbers" because I'm sure that most people who have
contracted it are never reported. But, nonetheless, if it
gets to the point where, say, 1,000 victims are identified with a
mortality rate of even 200, we've got to see the Federal Government
initiate some sort of information campaign. And look for the Oil
Industry to jump on THAT bandwagon!
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 08 2006 at 10:00pm |
|
I don't either kilt, but some here do, so I wanted to say it first. hehe
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 09 2006 at 4:03am |
|
|
I also suspect that the mortality rate is lower. People might get sick with a flu and recover and never report it. Also, immune systems may be fragile in many parts of the world which may also create a higher mortality rate. I still believe when and if it goes h2h2h, it will be about 2-5%. Just my opinion.
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 09 2006 at 4:53am |
|
|
Hi Kilt, you OK?
I think -correct me if I'm wrong, that the mortality rate in 1918 was 2.5 - 3% of the total population, rather than of people who caught it. It was commonplace for whole households to die, or for just one or two of a large family to make it, both in the US and the UK. This could mean that the actual death rate amongst those infected was much higher. And there was a situation where whole trainloads of people, whole settlements, villages, barracks and the like would get it, while in other areas no one at all did. It is easy to imagine how huge tracts of rural areas might escape.
In the 21st century, it will spread practically everywhere.
If this particular version of the virus goes H2H, and if it so happens that it is about as infectious as normal flu (about 15% I believe), the S will really HTF. But there are so many ifs, and no one can know what a virus will do or not do. Just be ready for the worst guys, and keep hoping for the best.
Beth
PS Take care Kilt
|
||
|
||
|
liilac
V.I.P. Member 
Joined: March 13 2006 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 55 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 09 2006 at 7:45am |
|
|
Kilt,just wonderng how you are feeling these days?sounds like you are being strong as usual.
|
||
|
liilac
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 09 2006 at 8:03am |
|
|
i still wonder how many people get it and dont get real sick just normal
flue type symptoms?????
that could through the whole number off...
but on a slightly brighter side with a mortality rate like that it dosent have
a great chance to spread fast either"ebola"...
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 09 2006 at 10:30am |
|
|
Although it stands to reason that there would be people who are infected but fail to show up on the faulty radar screen of 3rd world medicine, my understanding is that when the WHO has focussed its more sophisticated instruments on this issue, they have found none. The WHO has gone door to door to test villagers in places where individuals got sick, they have not found asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic infection. Of course, there are a lot of factors that could impact that finding: testing at the wrong time in the course of the infection, people being afraid fo the WHO people in Reiker suits and refusing to see them, etc.
The mortality rate in reality is probably less than 66 %, but it's not that much less. it might be 30 %, but it's not 5%.
As to what the rate will be when the virus goes pandemic, nobody knows, because the virus has to mutate first. Looking at the past pandemics probably gives us our best guess: somewhere in the 1-5% range. A very high mortality is not impossible, though. The duration of viral shedding before symptoms appear and the speed with which the disease incapacitates the suferer impacts transmissibility (and the ability to go pandemic) much more than does the % fatality. Think of AIDS. originally 100% fatal, but slow, with a long asymptomatic period during which virus is shed. Ebola renders it's victims prostrate very quickly. That and the fact that it originates in the jungles of africa where travel is slow are the major factors preventing a filovirus pandemic.
gardener
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 09 2006 at 11:05am |
|
|
gardener - I've also heard of the testing for asymptomatic cases and none being found. I don't have any links, but one place I heard this was from Dr Jerimijenko last spring/early summer. He was the head of NAMRU -2 in Indonesia. He was stating his concerns about the human strains not matching up to the bird strains and the fact that they had been unable to find any mild or asymptomatic cases. He also stated that for most human cases the closest match that could be found for the strains was to strains in cats.
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 09 2006 at 11:09am |
|
|
I'm not trying to cause a panic or anything, and I do realise that it is anticipated/hoped that the potential mutation will downgrade both the susceptibility of people to catch it AND the mortality rate BUT it concerns me that these people who have the focus of the world on them, are in hospital, with doses of Tamiflu and respirators etc, round the clock medical attention, and presumably the best the world can throw at them, and are still dying at a 66% rate.
If the situation is one where triage are having to decide who gets the Tamiflu/respirators and professional attention, the death rate will actually be higher, more people who contract the disease will be suffering unaided, and presumably have a lower chance of survival without these aids. What I'm suggesting is - maybe people in Indonesia etc are contracting this and recovering undetected, or dying undetected, but if TSHTF and people have to be quarantined ill, or refused treatment then a potentially larger percentage would be dying through lack of treatment. Hope that you're all following my muddled thoughts. If I'm wrong about this - I'd really appreciate being put right. Krystal |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 09 2006 at 11:31am |
|
|
Krystal,.
Unfortunately, you are right.
Whatever the mortality rate in individuals with ideal care turns out to be, if medical systems are overwhelmed the actual mortality rate will be higher. The US system operates continually on the verge of snapping and will be undone by all but the mildest pandemic. If the panndemic is bad, supply shortages could lead to dehydration, poor nutrition (if not outright starvation,) and increased susceptibility to severe disease. We probably won't know what the mortality really was until after the pandemic is over.
I suspect that in the US, with all of our organ support technologies we could have saved some of the people who died in asia, but since these technologies are in short supply and incredibly resource-intensive, they are not likely to really impact the mortality rate in a pandemic.
gardener
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 09 2006 at 1:09pm |
|
|
ok, what I started to type just seemed too depressing to contemplate. This has the potential to be so overwhelming.
Thinking on the above, I fully intend to SIP as I have 2 young children totally reliant on just me (no other family) and no friends prepping currently. I think though that if I was in a situation where I wasn't needed so much by my own young children that I'd have to be 'out there' doing what I can for the community's survival and future. Perhaps we should all be thinking about any training we could take that would enable us to be more useful to our communities in a 'post pandemic' time. I mean, if this does go to 7-10 years as I've seen mentioned on this site a couple of times, none of us could drop out of society for that length of time. Maybe the world will need more psychiatrists and counsellors :-) Krystal |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 09 2006 at 6:54pm |
|
You little devils!
 |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 09 2006 at 8:08pm |
|
|
Hi Guys
I am still punching
Now as for the H1N1 1918 pandemic
records show:
20 million Americans caught the bug
750,000 died
death rate of 3% in round figures but some communities - native American ansd Inuit 100% were wiped out.
As for the H5N1 - this bug is H5 and they along with H7 are the worst so I doubt if anyone is getting a "mild" dose of the flu - I could be wrong but
1 its novel so the human population has no immunity
2 if a mild dose was going around or some people were getting over it and not reporting it the bug would be widespread and we would have a pandemic already
3 H5 viruses are particularly savage and not seen in human populations before
this bug with a 67% mortality is terrifying
|
||
|
||
|
Samoa
Valued Member
Joined: March 30 2006 Status: Offline Points: 507 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 10 2006 at 2:04am |
|
|
From what I've read the fatality rate of the 1918 pandemic would appear
to have been "glossed over". While the reported mortality
rate from the pandemic was in the area of 3%, worldwide deaths from
pnuemonia skyrocketed.
Kilt, glad to see you're hangin' strong. Good on yer. |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 10 2006 at 4:59am |
|
|
Gardener and Kilt.
What you say makes sense, and Samoa too. I agree that the transmissibility will depend partly on the length of time people excrete the virus before becoming ill. It would appear from the stories of very sudden deaths in1918 that the bug they had then could have been less infectious. As well as less virulent -3% of infecte instead of 67%. This bug we have now seems to take a lot longer. Most people are not going to hospital for 4/5 days or more and they are taking 10/12 or more days to die after they become ill. They are probably mostly not getting their Tamiflu early enough for it to work. It stops the bug reproducing so fast, so if its left too long the bug has already bred enough to cause severe damage, and continues to reproduce to some extent even with Tamiflu.
I think we shall probably get the degree of virulence we already have when it goes H2 H. It is less likely to make 2 changes than one. Ie I would expect the genes that cause infectivity to change (thats what H2H means), but there is no reason to expect its virulence to reduce at the same time. Its a virus, it can't think, logically or otherwise.
Beth
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 10 2006 at 5:27am |
|
|
Beth,
It is possible that the change in the virus that makes it more transmissible changes virulence at the same time. For instance, a change in the virus' affinity to bind to human receptors in the upper airway versus the lower airway could change whether the battle is fought (and collateral damage occurs) in the lungs or in the naso-pharynx. I don't personally believe this will make a big impact, since unlike other influenza viruses, H5N1 has at times been found to live in the blood. It is also possible that the differences we see in the expression of the disease in different individuals reflects different strains or mutations of the virus rather than differences in the patient's immune response. If that is the case, then which of these strains develops the ability to sustain H2H transmission determines the mortality of the pandemic. Additionally, mutations will continue to occur throughout the pandemic. Some of these mutations will impact virulence and mortality. I believe that we have no idea what the mortality will be. If it is anywhere near as high as it curretly is in Indonesia, the western world will be set back 200 years. it will take generations to recover. God forbid. Hey, at least the price of oil will go down! Say, is anyone stocking up on real long term survival-quasi apocalyptic preparations, like non-hybrid seeds, bicycle tires and beer brewing equipment? gardener |
||
|
||
|
Dlugose
Valued Member
Joined: July 28 2006 Location: Colorado Status: Offline Points: 277 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 10 2006 at 12:41pm |
|
|
I am hopeful that part of the reason the rate is up this year is that Indonesia, where most of the cases are, is more inept than most countries have been, at doing things to stop it. If you subtract the Indonesia cases, the rate this year is 54%.
Indonesia has withheld information, been slow to get experts and local officials to act (of course they have other epidemics that are killing a lot more people). They have also had tsunami damage still not recovered from, earthquakes, and political insurrection. Then they have a poultry industry that is bizarre. Most Indonesians don't eat chicken; most chickens are raised for profit. Few people there are well informed, not like a government controlled country like China or Vietnam that can get the word out; local officials are not very responsive to the central gov't. Thailand also is rather centrally controlled as almost all the citizens have high respect for the king.
|
||
|
Dlugose RN AAS BA BS Cert. Biotechnology. Respiratory nurse
June 2013: public health nurse volunteer, Asia |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 10 2006 at 6:36pm |
|
|
Dlugose, I think you're right about the patients in Indo, I've heard other disscussions about the Indo's patients that they don't usually seek medical care until late after disease onset. Last I heard it was average around day six that treatment was sought, usually considered too late for effective Tamiflu treatment. However, in the event of a Pandemic here in the US the vast majority of patients will get zero Tamiflu, not on day one or six or any date. So probably unless it loses virulence we will be looking at 66% CFR. |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Kilt wrote: