Replies

Why assume the virus will be deadly once it changes into another virus? It’s a different virus if it can affect us.

If a virus shuffles around some of its protein structure, it doesn't technically make it a different virus. It's a mutated virus. It would still be (A)H5N1, only with a couple different genes.

A different virus has a different rate of lethality.

Not necessarily, but I see your point. It depends on what part of the virus actually mutates.

Why assume a 5% death rate for something they can’t even model?

Er, that 5% number was not scientific in any way. I just pulled a number out of my head and stuck it in there to make a point. I don't know of any models that have a 5% CFR. Sorry for the confusion.

Why not a death rate similar to the common flue?Because the common flu's death rate is extremely small, and this virus's death rate is extremely high. It would be virtually impossible for H5N1, the deadliest influenza strain ever seen, to mutate into a highly benign strain.

If you’re going to go make that assumption, you might as assume mutations from every other viruses that’s deadly to other animal will kill us.

I'm sorry. I don't quite understand what you're saying. We've looked at the genome of the H1N1 virus, found 10 critical amino acid mutations, and now we're watching for those mutations to occur on H5N1. It's not the best way to go about things, because H5N1 and H1N1 are fundamentally different, but it's the best we can do at the moment.

I’ve seen FR go through 2-3 pandemic panics, and they’re always promoted by a small group who wants to raise awareness. They always mention 1918 as if advances in hygiene, medical understanding, medical care and communications have little effect on isolating a new bug. I’m sure after the bird flue plays out, there’ll be another “killer flue” for some to take it upon themselves to spread awareness of and to worry about.

If we're all a bunch of panic-mongering fools, and the warnings are utter nonsense, why do you trouble yourself coming in to shoot them all down? Since we're kooks, don't waste your time on us.

"Er, that 5% number was not scientific in any way."

No sh~t Sherlock. The attitude doesn’t make you look smarter. My question was reasonable.

"It would be virtually impossible for H5N1, the deadliest influenza strain ever seen, to mutate into a highly benign strain."

AFAIK, no one can predict the results of a mutation that makes human transmission easy. For all we know, we have little immunities to a virus like this because it isn’t easily transmitted. If we’ve never been exposed, we’ve never had to evolve past it. And whatever mutation would make it more contagious would make it look like something that our immune systems are prepared for. That’s of course just a wild guess, but AFAIK so’s the claim that the new mutated form of the virus would be deadly.

"If we're all a bunch of panic-mongering fools, and the warnings are utter nonsense, why do you trouble yourself coming in to shoot them all down? Since we're kooks, don't waste your time on us. "

You’re right, how dare I suggest that this thing might not mutate into something deadly and that there are social, political and psychological reasons pumping up our concern. What a troll I am be for intruding on your thread. Using your reasoning, maybe you shouldn’t waste your time on me. Maybe I’ll be intimidated by your condescending attitude and stop suggesting such things.