Replies

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.

Dr. Kilbourne has an interesting idea. What he says about passive immunity seems to go against the grain of what I've learned, but he's the expert here, not me.

However, what he says about the conditions in 1918 and the conditions today are a little off. In 1918, there were 25 million people living in those trenches, or in equally filthy conditions.

Nowadays, we have almost one billion people living in filthy conditions in the slums of China, India, and Africa, to name a few.

He mentions advances in medical care, and he's right about the fact that the improvements are there. However, in the event of a pandemic, where tens or even hundreds of millions of people would be sick, it would be extremely difficult or impossible to properly treat everybody. Heck, look at what happened with SARS. Even though there weren't many cases up in Canada, hospitals were nearly overwhelmed.

In summery, he raises good points, but I think he may be oversimplifying in a couple instances.

The bird flu, he said, is distantly related to earlier flus, and humans have already been exposed to them, providing some resistance.

No recognized authority on H5N1 considers that living people have any useful resistance to H5N1, except possibly for recent survivors.

There is a difference of opinion out there as to whether people born in 1918 or before and still alive might still have resistance to that flu.

The good immunology professor apparently feels that this new flu is stealing some of his thunder (and research dollars?), and so diminishes it.

Dr. Kilbourne and other experts also noted that when viruses become more transmissible, they almost always become less lethal.

Yes, little consolation to the 5 or 6% who still die.

the crowding together of millions of World War I troops in ships, barracks, trenches and hospitals - generally do not exist today for humans.

That's correct -- conditions today include much more densely crowded conditions in large western cities, especially office buildings and public transportation and sports stadiums and other venues. Maybe troops aren't more crowded, but so what? Then again, an aircraft carrier seems like a pretty optimal breeding laboratory (for the bug!) and is mobile as well.

many more died of what are now believed to be bacterial infections, which can be treated with antibiotics.

They can be treated successfully in 6 - 8 hours? Maybe if they are already hooked up to an IV. What if there are a thousand patients ahead of you? What if the first 15 patients who arrive at the hospital get the only available ventilators? (they would).

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

I don't consider loss of 5% of an entire population to be insignificant.

What infinitesimal percent of the U.S. population was lost on 9/11 and how much of a stir did that cause?