[ThePythonicCow]

I forget where I saw it now, but a couple of days ago, I read that we have one thing in our favor so far on this thread. The worst pandemics, in terms of total number of humans killed, kill only perhaps 20% of its victims. Viruses that kill 50% to 80% (as H5N1 is doing, in its isolated cases so far) are less dangerous to humankind, because they kill too many, limiting its spread.

So the good news is, if this does mutate into virus causing a world wide pandemic, it will be less lethal, with perhaps at least 80% of those of us afflicted surviving.

[blam]

"Viruses that kill 50% to 80% (as H5N1 is doing, in its isolated cases so far) are less dangerous to humankind, because they kill too many, limiting its spread."

I saw a program the other night on the National Geographic Channel (I think) titled, The Plague. One of the researchers on there said that the 'Black Death' deaths had been underestimated and it was probably over 50%. That program was followed by another titled: The Next Plague, see them if you get the chance. It covers the next pandemic which is assumed to be the mutated (human - human) H5N1. (It was scary)

[Myrddin]

Viruses that kill 50% to 80% (as H5N1 is doing, in its isolated cases so far) are less dangerous to humankind, because they kill too many, limiting its spread.

The quick kill, limited spread mechanism is common in Ebola outbreaks, but those populations are already living in sparsely populated jungles. The density of modern cities and mobility of populations between them will put a whole new dynamic into the next pandemic.

[raygun]

Normal influenza rates are approx 4.8%. Those in close contact with those index cases have approx 12% risk associated of becoming infected. Supposing that the avian flu becomes as easily transmitable as your normal garden variety of influenza:

4.8% of 296 million people, plus 12% of (2.5 x 4.8% of 296 million), of which sum total 1/2 could plausibly die. According to my calculations this works out to 9.2352

In the 1918 flu pandemic, the majority of deaths was in the 13 to 40 age group. Of the avian flu the overwhelming majority of deaths has been in the <35 age group.

Kind of brings a different perspective on the age old mantra of:

Ring around the posey, pocket full of rosie, ashes, ashes, we all fall down!

[jennyp]

I forget where I saw it now, but a couple of days ago, I read that we have one thing in our favor so far on this thread. The worst pandemics, in terms of total number of humans killed, kill only perhaps 20% of its victims. Viruses that kill 50% to 80% (as H5N1 is doing, in its isolated cases so far) are less dangerous to humankind, because they kill too many, limiting its spread.

I read somewhere that H5N1 has killed 50% (approx) of those who had to be hospitalized. Does anyone know if they've gotten a better handle on the death rates for everyone who contracts H5N1? (IOW, how many people have contracted H5N1 without having bad enough symptoms to send them to the hospital?)

Every mild case that doesn't make it into the statistics lowers the mortality rate from the 50% figure, but how many such cases are there?