>>>>>>>>You're right. But, the world is over populated with humans and mother nature doesn't like over population, so there is a culling somewhere in our future. This may not be it, but it'll be along eventually.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hmmm, I thought SARS was going to kill us all. And if we lived through that, the Bird Flu would finish off the survivors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Seal your doors and windows then read all about it here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090424/swine_flu_090424/20090424?hub=Health>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We're resilient little thing Grady. Keep it in perspective, 100 dead is not a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are correct. It is too early to know which way the flu will go. Just keep washing your hands and don't touch your face even if you get one of those teeny itchy spots on your upper lip, cheek or nose. I also think that over population, creating increasing demand for heat, power and transportation, is a significant contributer to the global warming phenominon.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually I will carry on as normal. The media is whipping this up to a large degree.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, I'm delighted that they're taking it seriously. I've read about the 1918 epidemic and one of the factors in the large number of deaths was how slowly it was recognized as a big deal. (There were plenty of other factors, but there was a lot of denial at first.) Maybe this isn't the big deal epidemic, but a couple of things they're saying make me think it might be, especially that the ones who are dying aren't the old and the sick, but young, formerly healthy people. That's what happened in 1918.
>>>>
>>>>Tamar
>>>
>>>Penicillin (and other anti-biotics) is the main factor. Most likely, media was the same stupid in 1918 as it is now.
>>
>>Since influenza is caused by a virus, antibiotics aren't effective against the initial infection, though of course, they can help with secondary infections.
>>
>>In fact, the media and government handling of the 1918 epidemic was quite different than what we're seeing now. Remember that there was a World War going on. If you're interested in knowing about what happened then, I highly recommend this book: The Great Influenza: The story of the deadliest pandemic in history by John Barry.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Influenza-deadliest-pandemic-history/dp/0143036491/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240889344&sr=8-1>>
>>Tamar
>
>It is not flu that is actually dangerous, it is possible complications, and the latters are treated by anti-biotics. I don't think that insulating humans from this kind of initial infection is either feasible or even reasonable. People are always exposed to zillions of bacteria, many of them can cause varied set of diseases, but our immune systems keep us relatively healthy. No media awareness may replace immune systems, neither it can replace medical science (i.e. anti-biotics).
All understood. However, the normal pattern is that the people who die in an epidemic are the very young, the old and those with weakened immune systems. The 1918 flu took young, healthy people disproportionately, so it's not as simple as having the right medication.
>In regard to the book, thank you. I don't think that I will read it, just because I have different set of interests, far away from pandemics. I would just disagree that 1918 influenza may qualify as the deadliest in historical sense. It might be that death toll was the highest, but I still believe that 14th century Black Death deserves the 'deadliest' label more, both percentage-wise and by societal impact.
Fair enough. If you want to know more, it looks like the Wikipedia article is pretty good.
Tamar
