Things could be very bad in the developed countries. But we would at least have some hope of quarantines, and the ability to at least help some of the afflicted. In the teeming slums of the third world, it could be a scene of devastation that hasn't been seen in centuries. It is more a matter of when, rather than if, another particularly nasty flu bug comes along. Let's hope that there are cheap and effective anti viral drugs available before the next one hits.
there wont be. The goverment has been stockpiling tamiflu but cant build up its stockpile much higher than it is currently. This drug is actually goverment controled (more so that anyother drug), at one word from the health departments it will be removed from sale to protect the emergency services. However there is only enough for a week and this is assuming the drug actually works, if it doesnt we have NO defence MILLIONS will die just in Australia inspite of any medical care we can provide
The Spanish Lady had some weird tendencies. It didn't necessarily kill the babies and old people as you would expect. The patients that died often had temperatures reaching as high as 106*. They turned a strange bluish-green color, and had projectile everything. Truly a violent way to die. The kill rate was around 25% in certain age groups. Hard to believe something that deadly to its host could survive for very long. To me, the scariest thing about the Spanish Lady: There could still be live cultures out there, outside of Ft. Meade and the like, that could be harvested and weaponized.
Hmm. Almost two percent of the population. That doesn't put it in the league with the plague with 25-30% of Europe's population, but it does compare to World War II with 2% of the world's population. Quite a few of us right here tonight will not survive. But civilization will. Both the Black Plague and WWII were followed by eras of rapid progress and rising prosperity for the survivors and their children.
FR i have to point out that the reason pandemic flu scares the hell out of me is because i would probably be one of the front line medical workers involved. That puts me at a VERY high risk of deathPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh can i point out that the world wars in general effected only one segment of the comunity (young men). If the pandemic flu hit you are going to lose BOTH sexes (so the women wont be able to pick up the slack) as well as alot of the knowlagable people who wouldnt have been fighting in the war. Also during the war there was still a large amount of industry, in a pandemic flu this would cease. There would be no one transporting food, no shops selling it, alot of farmers could be among the victoms. So we would probably have world famin on top of the people killed
Here it is, October 2005 NPR story, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4946718 I'm surprised it was from that long ago, I'd have thought I had heard that report more recently. Up until I heard that story, I'd assumed that it must have been a nastier flu than normal, and that most of the casualties were from secondary bacterial pneumonia, or other effects that wouldn't pose a problem for modern medical science. Listening to that really opened my eyes as to how different it really was compared to what we think of as a case of the flu. Recommended read/listen.
Hey, I'm 64 years old. I'm a goner. The flu will hit children and us older people hardest. That will lighten the load on the people doing all the work. As a management consultant, my working knowledge of how a capitalist economy operates gives me confidence that a loss of two percent of the population, especially concentrated among non-producers, will not cause a breakdown. Let's see... all levels of government in the U.S. employ roughly five percent of the population, and their "value-added" to the economy is at best zero and arguably negative. Just thinkin' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
FR what do you think a 2 percent loss of front line health workers and the police will mean for the country? Thats not including the fact that it will be higher than that because a) they are front line workers and therfore more likly to be infected and b) even if they arnt killed they will still be out of action for a long time This is besides the fact that the police, fire and ambulance will have to ALSO deal with the civil unrest caused by the food shortages and lack of treatment Have you seen the TV show 24 where they are trying to contain the leathal virus? Think about that across the whole WORLD but with longer kill times and lesser mortailty rate (so resorces will have to go into treating because you cant just assume the pt will die) Your ignoring the human factor and just looking at the death toll without all the other things that go with it
But there's also a two percent loss of the people they serve. The ratio of service providers to service users remains the same. From a purely mathematical standpoint, the effect should be minimal. Well, somebody gave the figure of two percent so that's what I'm using. If two percent die, then that probably means there's a rolling wave of fifteen or twenty percent who are sick at any one time. Yes it could be a strain but I think we can handle it. I've lived through enough riots in Los Angeles, I'm not worried about them. Yes, but that was a 100% lethal virus that killed within a few hours. I don't think anyone would even try to contain an influenza virus. It would be impossible so that wouldn't be a rational strategy or a cost-effective use of resources. You're a health care professional so you see this scenario from a particular perspective. I'm an organizational change management consultant so I'm looking for the best way to change the organization (in this case all of civilization) quickly and effectively enough to minimize the damage and keep civilization functioning. We'd unquestionably have to ration medical resources by the triage system and make sure every medication and other supply or technology is used where it has the greatest likelihood of causing the largest amount of healing. This is battlefield medicine that goes against the principles of civilian medical workers. They would probably need some very fast and very obnoxious training to be able to practice it. If resources are limited then in fact you have to do that very thing. Once again, this is battlefield medicine, not public health medicine. Fortunately I won't have to worry about it because I'll be one of the first to die. I have allergy-induced asthma and my respiratory system will simply shut down if I get that sick. I'll let them give the oxygen to somebody younger.
Please don't troll/hijack this thread. It's a serious issue for many people. It's pretty creepy how MRSA is wiping out people very quickly too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.komotv.com/news/local/15909612.html
Sandy MRSA is nothing for serveral reasons 1) its contact transmited not airbourne 2) its hardly ever leathal and when it is it doesnt even hit all of the 5 groups (they are Imunocompromised, pregnant, infant, young children and the elderly). It really only effects the imunocompromised and the elderly Pandemic flu would hit not just the usual 5 but the healthy young adults as well. This is what makes it so dangiours FR i know about batle field med. Rember im not a hospital worker im training to be a paramedic and triage for an MCI is what most of our training is about. If you only have 1 crew (2 people) and 10 casultes you are going to lose people and you better decide which your going to lose (we do it based on clinical need, the goverment does it based on who will benifit sociaty most) What your not taking into account is YES if i came along tomorow and shoot a random 2% of population it wouldnt strain the health system at all (well asuming i could do it in a 100% leathal way) but this is not what the flu does. It puts people into hospital for say a month before it kills them so that INCREASES strain. Also you may have lived through civil unrest but i HIGHLY doubt you have ever seen any on the skale that you will see when pandemic flu hits. Think of katrina and magnifiy it to the whole country, the whole WORLD and you would still have nothing like what you will get with the flu. Its impossable to imagin the skale of this disaster, nothing like it has happened in memory. Actually because of your vulnerability you are probably more likly to survive, the first to get sick will be the ONLY ones who will recive the tamiflu and what do you think will happen when hospitals and GP's close there doors and tamiflu is pulled from the market by the goverment? I fear this WAY more than i fear teriousium
Sandy im sorry you missed my point Im not saying that MRSA is good, im just saying its in no way in the same legue as the flu. The only thing i can think of that in anyway could be likened to a flu pandemic would be the black death before the advent of penicillin Maybe SARS but that died out quite quickly. AIDS i guess could be likened to it but aids only tends to kill (in large numbers) where there isnt adiquate medical treatment Actually the african AIDs epidemic is probably a good comparision, kids orfined because bother there parents and all there relitives are dead, hospital services compleatly overwhelimed in meare weeks I dont like MRSA (actally i was worried about touching it when i started) but i FEAR the flu. It terrifies me
The article states that MRSA pneumonia is rare, so that's good news. With all of the press MRSA has gotten recently, I've never heard anything about it causing pneumonia prior to this story. The most frightening thing about Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus is that it is increasingly resistant to other antibiotics as well. I've little doubt that this is due to both overuse of antibiotics in humans, and its use in animal feed by agribusiness. Both dangers have been known for decades. All attempts to stop the use of antibiotics in animal feed have been thwarted by the powerful agribusiness lobbyists in Washington. A future where we return to a time when a small cut on your arm results in a lethal case of phlebitis due to bacterial resistance to all presently available antibiotics is a grim prospect.
I agree the flu (especially the new strains) are going to be a huge problem for many. I was shocked at the 6-day death of that guy with MRSA. AIDS is horrible but with a much slower death.
Actually Repo, you know something that contributes but gets little press. Antibotic/Antibacterial cleaners and Disinfectants Besides weaking OUR imune systems because there arnt as many common bugs around, destroying the good bacteria on our skin ect they also make 'bad" bacteria more resistant. You should only use bleach to clean up infectious waste like vomit not to clean EVERYTHING people who do this really piss me off So do these achole hand santitisers, I have one but its in my MED kit incase i need to clean my hands if i say come across a car acident. Apart from that i always use ordenry soap. Even the ambos just use soap unless they need to clean there hands on the road, the only people who use the strong disinfectants on a regualar basis are surgens ect
I'd heard there might be a problem with the triclosan based hand sanitizers possibly selecting for resistant bacteria, but the press I've heard said that alcohol based sanitizers were ok. This site seems to confirm that, http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/hand-hygiene-truths-myths-and-misinformation-10882.html
im not saying they dont work, but they reduce our imune systems Alcohol is great, it kills EVERYTHING and nothing can adapt. However is this what we really WANT? if we arnt exposed we dont get any antibodies to the virus so we cant fight it off once it gets INTO us
