Replies

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

Excuse me if I don't quite understand why you're biting my head off. I was saying not to take my number seriously, because it's not from the WHO or something. I was only explaining that I used it as an example, and not to take it as a factual figure.

AFAIK, no one can predict the results of a mutation that makes human transmission easy.

Well, we can't pin down an exact "critical" mutation, but we do have an idea of what's bad and what's not.

For all we know, we have little immunities to a virus like this because it isn’t easily transmitted.

Correct. We've never been exposed to the H5N1 strain before, so it's new to our immune systems.

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.

Well, it doesn't quite work that way. Just because the H1N1 virus (one we have been exposed to) had a mutation at position 267 does not mean that if H5N1 picks up that same mutation at 627 we're going to have any kind of immunity to it. It's still a new virus as far as our immune systems are concerned.

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.

I don't see any possible reason why a virus would cease to kill anybody if it mutated for easy transmission between humans. Of course, I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know for sure, but there is no way I can see that such a thing could happen. You would need hundreds of mutations on all 8 proteins of H5N1. You'd need so many significant changes that the virus probably considered H5N1 any longer because the mutations needed would probably include extensive changes on the HA and NA proteins, which the H5N1 virus is named for.

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.

I never said that I was 100% sure this would mutate into a pandemic strain. The author of the article I posted seems to think that, but he's not me. And yes, there are those who would benefit from saying, "A pandemic is coming." I don't think money is the motivator in this situation. My opinion, and the apparent opinion of pretty much every health organization in the world, is that we are at risk from H5N1. Maybe money does fit into that, maybe not.

If you can please drop the dripping sarcasm routine, we could have a constructive discussion instead of a shouting match.

Uh oh. Error alert.

"Well, it doesn't quite work that way. Just because the H1N1 virus (one we have been exposed to) had a mutation at position 267 does not mean that if H5N1 picks up that same mutation at 627 we're going to have any kind of immunity to it. It's still a new virus as far as our immune systems are concerned."

Change 267 to 627. Somebody needs to learn to proofread...

TC according to Dr. Edwin Kilbourne it is likely we already have some resistance:

The fear "is very much overdone, in my opinion," said Dr. Edwin Kilbourne, an emeritus professor of immunology at New York Medical College, who has treated flu patients since the 1957 pandemic and has studied the 1918 flu. The bird flu, he said, is distantly related to earlier flus, and humans have already been exposed to them, providing some resistance.

Dr. Kilbourne and other experts also noted that when viruses become more transmissible, they almost always become less lethal. Viruses that let their hosts stay alive and pass the disease on to others, he explained, have a better chance of spreading than do strains that kill off their hosts quickly.

Moreover, he said, while much has been made of comparisons between the current avian flu and the 1918 strain, the factors that helped increase the flu's virulence in 1918 - the crowding together of millions of World War I troops in ships, barracks, trenches and hospitals - generally do not exist today for humans.

Dr. Kilbourne emphasized that medical care had improved greatly since 1918. Although some flu victims then turned blue overnight and drowned from blood, with fluid leaking into their lungs, many more died of what are now believed to be bacterial infections, which can be treated with antibiotics.

Although the death toll from that flu was high, the actual death rate was less than 5 percent.

In addition, more people now live in cities, where they have probably caught more flus, giving them immunity to later ones. "In 1918, you had a lot of farm boys getting their first contact with city folks who'd had these things," Dr. Kilbourne said.

"…If you can please drop the dripping sarcasm routine, we could have a constructive discussion instead of a shouting match…"

Good reply. Fair enough.