Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 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.

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?

66 posted on 11/12/2005 3:22:54 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: jennyp
I had not noticed the those who had to be hospitalized qualifier before, and was of the impression that it was killing 50% to 80% of those afflicted.

I don't know what's correct here.

82 posted on 11/12/2005 6:28:03 PM PST by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson