Agreed, and thanks for bringing up the point that they’ve been dealing with this in that area for weeks now.
I didn’t mean to imply that it will preferentially kill Mexicans (or that it will be more virulent in some ‘races’ vs. others), just that I can see how this would spread easier in some of the more rural, poorer parts of Mexico where people may be already suffering from nutritional deficiencies and don’t have access to quality health care. Not to mention that it is a common problem in poorer areas with less educated people that disease is spread more easily. (I admit I don’t know how much of a problem this is in Mexico overall nowadays (for instance Mexico City is a “modernized” city), compared to perhaps decades ago, or like what happens sometimes in the poorer regions of Africa — the spread of AIDS in those countries for instance).
Thanks again, you post makes a lot of sense regarding the “mortality” rate differences, and I will take that into account in my study of this subject from here on out. :)
I wouldn't want to be in Mexico for any number of reasons (and I actually did live there for a few years in the 1950s when it was actually pretty nice).
I suspect the more rural areas of Mexico are the safest in terms of this illness. Probably the most dangerous place to be is Mexico City. Flu thrives on close contact, and it's the second biggest city on the planet.
Based on the limited and almost surely wrong information from Mexico, this flu has a 7.5% mortality rate. If we drop it down to the 2.5% mortality rate of the Spanish Flu from 100 years ago, it will still mean 450,000 residents of Mexico City would die.
Our atomic bombs on Japan didn't do that kind of damage.
Going into panic is not justified, but dismissing this as some sort of media or industry hoax is not sensible, either.
I frankly wish I weren't living in a large city. My odds of contracting this are probably much higher than if I lived in a rural community without international air travel.