Increases and Decreases

I would have to go against the grain on the forum, and agree with you, Zenn.

 I've been reading alot on this subject.  IF this flu goes pandemic,  it cannot maintain this level of mortality, nor would it want to...that is akin to viral suicide.  Some experts maintain that h2h would weaken the virus, whereas bird2human is more lethal. Also, the incoming reports of people not showing SIGNIFICANT or none at all symptoms, yet having antibodies in their blood to H5N1 is a hopeful sign. Not everyone who is exposed ends up dead, some end up only mildly ill or not at all.

Also, it is my opinion that the number of cases are GROSSLY underreported for a variety of reasons. The main reasons being that not everyone ends up sick enough to go to a hospital, or not sick at all. And that the mere logistical challenge of finding and documenting EVERY OR EVEN MOST of the cases over such a wide geographic area, and many of the infrastructures of those poor nations shoddy, at best........IS TRULY IMPOSSIBLE..... this mortality number then, is bogus. With every case not reported  due to mild illness , the mortality rate would have to be lowered accordingly. So the TRUE mortality rate is not known, and likely MUCH lower than currently accepted.l

Now, alot of people don't want to hear this, as they think you are trying to say they have prepped for no reason. NOT THE CASE>  Prepping is good, no matter what. All it takes is one terrorist with aerolized smallpox to unleash, and you'll be glad you did.  And if this flu does go pandemic, even if the mortality rate declines sharply.......WHO WANTS TO CATCH IT?????  People will still die, not the apocalyptic proportions forcast, still........alot of dead people.  I don't wanna mess with it. 

Just a sidenote:  Did some googling of the 2003 flu season, and found out some enlightening things.  Apparently that flu season was vicious, killing mostly children, and they died within 3 days of a vicious pneumonia. Only one third were asthmatics, so this flu didn't target the usual group.  Also...the total tally of dead kids for the USA that flu season was 153.......and after that number there are these sidenotes:

* only 40 states were required to report to the CDC

* and this requirement went into effect in the last few months of a flu season that started unusually early....in September.

My point being that flu is and of itself a killer, even on a good year we lose 36,000 people to it. 2003 was unusally bad for kids.  People panicked and lined up for flu shots that weren't available..then the season passed and it was forgotten. Same with SARS......our local hospital STILL has a SARS  flyer up and masks nearby.  But it ran it's course, and passed from our daily memories.  Flu has been around for centuries, some meaner than others.  They run their course, and pass into shadow.

Oftentimes, the scenario that occurs is not nearly as bad as what our minds conjured.  Still, I prep......because even if were only as bad as 2003's flu season, I do not want to be caught with my "pants down".  My case of 9211 masks arrived today........I can imagine wearing them for the bird flu, but I can just as easily imagine using them for an anthrax attack.

Prepping is good......so is logic.

It is one of the biggest loop-holes in the data that WHO has, that to date only one study has been done to check on the infection rate of a population. Marzinn has it absolutely right. I have to go thru my bookmarks and see if I can find the relevant article. That one study indicated a mortality rate of 2%. While that is a heck of a lot better than 50%, it is still a 100% increase over a normal flu season.

The other issue is there are now four different strains circling the globe with very little data available.

I only know one thing for sure: If my husband catches it, it will kill him. His heart is simply too weak - even a minor infection can be life-threatening for him.

Oh, yes, he gets his pneumonia shot annually. He has a very good cardiologist and GP. I thank you for your concern.

I have been looking at the alternative med's, and some may be OK for me, but he takes such a bucket full of meds, it would be impossible to tell what the interactions might be.

One thing really gets me: When he had his last appt. with his cardiologist, I asked for an extra scrip for his heart meds, so if/when it hits I can make sure that he won't die from lack of meds. He turned me down flat! His reasoning ( and I'm not making this up), if it hits we're all dead anyway!!! Now, before everybody freaks out, he tends to be a joker and a little bit of a smartass, but there was a definite undercurrent. He also figured I wouldn't be able to get them filled anyway. Why is that? I'm talking heart-meds, not Tamiflu. I didn't even bother asking him for that, the VA wouldn't allow him to write that as it is.

I will try again, though. I'm going to write him a letter and get a little more pushy!

RotroShaggy wrote: Marzinn:  Thanks for trying to see the bright side of things.  I agree with you.  I am hopeful that this 50% mortality rate is way exaggerated.  But I am not sure if I follow you on the current mortality rate being viral suicide.  Does the virus care if it kills its host as long as it spreads to a new host before the old host dies?  With a 24-72 hour incubation period, the infected person will shed virus before he or she feels sick.

I got the "viral suicide" quote from an article given by a virologist...I believe he was Chinese.  He is saying that 50% is a high mortality and not in the virus' best interest.  They, the viruses, don't WANT to kill their host, they basically just want to multiply and find......homes, that being us.  He is saying that a mortality that high is not sustainable for the virus. In short time it will have infected all it can - having killed off half, the other half being immune either naturally or by exposure. It would rather mutate for survival, and those mutations almost always are less lethal. He is saying that the ones you read about are only those who are very very sick, the sickest having gotten it directly from birds. It's like from the virus standpoint....hey, this "host" is different than the one I was in last week........and they scramble to adjust.

 And that the viruses IS trying  to adapt to humans, and in doing so will weaken itself in order to survive. Once, he says, it gets a handle on human physiology, it will mutate.........thus making it easier to spread from h2h.......but also making it less lethal. Less lethal....cannot be quantified.  No matter if it's SIGNIFICANTLY less lethal, people will still die......as approx. 36,000 do each flu season. So, we will end up with another member to the "flu family" that has plagued the human family for centuries.   If you asked the parents of all those children that died in 2003, they'd say THAT was a bad flu. It is all subjective, you see. My son had that 2003 flu.........and breezed through it. The one he got in 2002, however, nearly landed him in hospital.

When the BF mutates, some will get very sick but recover, some will die, some will "breeze through it", and some won't get sick at all...........like any flu season. How bird flu will turn out - better than the average flu season or worse than the average flu season - is an answer only God knows. We have good flu seasons, and we have bad ones........it's been like that for eons.  BF is just another addition to a large and often deadly family...... killing approx. 36,000 each year.   And THAT number is an average. Some years are worse....some better.