Hard News: There is History
412 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 17 Newer→ Last
-
Notable about the 1918 flu pandemic is how badly it affected young and fit people and affected some areas more than others. My grandfather was a policeman, patrolling the Armistice Day celebrations, in Invercargill (from the back of a horse) when he contracted the disease. He was dead within days, leaving five boys aged 12 to under one.
Invercargill was particularly badly hit because of the attitude of local health authorities. There is a particularly densely popultaed part of the Invercargill East cemetery where there were scores of burials over a matter of a few weeks. More progressive authorities enforced progressive notions such as strict quarantine and were less hard-hit.
So I'm filling the water bottles and preparing to stay in.
-
Yeah that struck me as odd. The fact that some kiwi tourists have picked it up suggests human transmission is pretty good.
Not just Kiwis - those New York schoolkids were on spring break, the Kansas cases were started by someone else who visited Mexico, there are six cases in Canada, only three of whom actually went to Mexico - human-to-human transmission is clearly pretty well established. WHO have even changed their definition of phase 3 (apparently it now means human-to-human transmission, but not enough to start "community-level" outbreaks.) They seem to be bending over backwards to not raise the level. It's...odd.
-
Which begs the questions as to why the WHO still seem to think it has "limited" human-to-human transmission.
Because "limited" doesn't mean "none", and the World Health Organisation is trying to make public statements that are slightly more reality-based than your average soundbite?
They seem to be bending over backwards to not raise the level. It's...odd.
Because, of course, media-driven panics have a long and wonderful history of positive outcomes? Look, all I'm saying is that it might be wise not to drive up the free floating paranoia levels without good reason.
-
Lots of studies have shown that the pillock who struggles valiantly into work does stuff all that is useful themselves and infects the whole workplace.
Really seriously, if you're sick the best thing you can do for your workplace is stay home.Capitalism/Mactional/The Business Roundtable/EMA/etc have a lot to answer for over this particular behavioural pattern where the 'pillock' with the nasty flu struggles into work.
Work is the ONLY thing worth doing, nothing else. The nasty Protestant strain of thought here inoculates capitalism with the mantra that those that struggle, even in the face of adversity, will triumph in the end. Companies and organisations buy into this thought cause it generates profits.
Struggling means side effects, in this instance, infecting all your healthy colleagues. The upshot is that everyone suffers, at a far greater cost to the company / organisation than if the person had instead, been encouraged, nay, ordered to stay home at no cost to him/her in terms of lost pay/sick leave for 5 - 7 days.
(Also, if you are on a shit wage, with shitty conditions, and work for an organisation that hates unions, you'll come into work regardless. That's how I got the flu in Toronto in 2006, two days before I came home. A Taco Bell worker, plainly and clearly sick, handled my order. I know, I should have left the place straight away, but goodness I was hungry!)
But we all know that, right? The wingnuts/business roundtables of the world don't. Can't see it.
Though, I was amused to see the EMA last winter start advocating that perhaps, just perhaps, companies should look at encouraging people to stay home. Plainly, the penny dropped for them, after how many years??
-
Because, of course, media-driven panics have a long and wonderful history of positive outcomes? Look, all I'm saying is that it might be wise not to drive up the free floating paranoia levels without good reason.
When you have to change your own phase definition in order to avoid looking like idiots for not changing the phase, then you're doing something wrong. Avoiding panic is definitely the way to go, but that's not what's happening. *By their own definition*, "limited" spread involves very close contact between the infector and the infectee, e.g. caregiver/patient. If random tourists are contracting it, it's gone a wee bit beyond that. The WHO are walking a line between not wanting to scare the horses and looking like they don't know what's going on; at the moment, they're erring towards the latter, which for the major world-wide health organisation is less than ideal.
Now, what *does* need to be emphasised in the media is that every case outside Mexico has been mild, with only one or two hospitalisations. The word "deadly" also needs to be excised from the media's vocabulary.
-
In New Zealand, more than 8000 people died, with Maori particularly badly struck. At its height, the country virtually ground to a halt.
Something like 22% of Western Samoa's population died in only two weeks.
Here's the rather bloodless policy perspectives paper on the economic impact of a pandemic that Treasury released in 2006: "Impacts of a Potential Influenza Pandemic on New Zealand’s Macroeconomy".
-
Looking at the (so far zero) mortality rate in the US vs Mexico City raises two possibilities. One is that the virus is undergoing quite significant "genetic drift" in the process of transmission, or that it was only marginally lethal to start with so even minor drift reduces its impact. The other is that it's particularly effective against people with reduced pulmonary effectiveness. Mexico City's pollution problem could well make residents very susceptible to nasty secondary effects such as bronchitis/pneumonia.
A close friend has a trip to South America booked for late June, five months travelling around before entering the US by way of a couple of weeks in Mexico. The friend she's travelling with is having a wee bit of a panic, ably assisted by neurotic relatives who're all insisting that "You can't go. We won't let you. You have to cancel the trip!" I've recommended that she get her travel insurance sorted in case some kind of travel ban is in place that will screw up the trip, and just generally take care of her health. The US hasn't yet given any advisories against travel to Mexico, so I figure it can't be that bad.
-
The word "deadly" also needs to be excised from the media's vocabulary.
At the same time as this happens, maybe someone could let the good people at the Herald know that Mexico is not a Central American country. Not particularly important in the scheme of things, I guess, but as this story begins to get consumed with the fear of the Third World, it would be nice to at least start on the right foot.
-
Notable about the 1918 flu pandemic is how badly it affected young and fit people and affected some areas more than others.
There was a very interesting virologist on the radio this morning (either National or Radio Live, was flicking between the two) who had an explanation for this.
He said that the troops on the front lines during the war were generally extremely fit and healthy young men. An earlier and milder version of the flu hit them first, and then through the usual mutation/evoloution adaption to environment it became a virus which was very very good at killing fit and healthy people. ie because it only had fit and healthy men to breed on this is what it mutated/evolved to becoming good at killing.
-
At the same time as this happens, maybe someone could let the good people at the Herald know that Mexico is not a Central American country.
Clearly they outsourced the subediting to somebody who doesn't live on our planet. Maybe Gorlock?
-
Interesting new report - they're closing a whole school district in Texas for the next week due to "several confirmed cases of swine flu" (I assume that's the two reported Texas cases, but I'm not sure.)
-
Because "limited" doesn't mean "none",
Yes that's true. But most folks when they hear "limited" they don't think of it as a term that is used relative to the normal transmission rate for that virus. So Influenza is by it's nature is pretty damn infectious and this strain does not seem to be excessively highly transmitted, which gets it the title "limited". But that still leaves it as fairly easy to transmit. Just like any other flu.
Look, all I'm saying is that it might be wise not to drive up the free floating paranoia levels without good reason.
Ok fair enough. It is unlikely that we will see 20 million deaths. We have much better health systems and can treat severe cases much better now than was possible in 1918. We don't even know for sure it is a new strain (although it does seem likely). And most importantly for me is we now have the ability to generate a vaccine specific for this strain very quickly and distribute it very quickly.
But even a non-lethal flu outbreak is a royal pain in the butt. Even non-lethal flu makes most folks feel like shit for a week. And even a slightly wider spread flu outbreak than normal in winter can play havoc with schools etc. So a little simple caution isn't too paranoid is it?
And the single simplest way to reduce the spread is to encourage sick people to not go and associate with lots of other people.
Actually that's not entirely true the single best way to limit the spread is for people to wash their hands with soap and water for one rendition of Happy Birthday. Seriously :).
-
With limited sick leave, it's better to keep one's sick days for skiving and be actually sick on the company's time.
Also, if you genuinely have got swine flu/marburg disease/lassa fever and you survive and your co-workers die, it's possible that the natural reduction in headcount might help you avoid redundancy.
-
Not particularly important in the scheme of things, I guess, but as this story begins to get consumed with the fear of the Third World, it would be nice to at least start on the right foot.
Michelle Malkin's already sounding off about how if only all those illegal immigrants weren't flooding across the border the US wouldn't have a problem.
-
This would make for an interesting Media7 Russell - the clash of a health system with every good reason for over-caution, and a media system with a genetic-level love of hysteria.
-
Actually that's not entirely true the single best way to limit the spread is for people to wash their hands with soap and water for one rendition of Happy Birthday. Seriously :).
That would cost a fortune in royalties. (All your threads are belong to Copyright Must Change).
-
Isn't it interesting that the memetic spread of disease-stories in the media is far more contagious than an actual biological virus? I just think that's nicely ironic.
-
-
Also, if you genuinely have got swine flu/marburg disease/lassa fever and you survive and your co-workers die, it's possible that the natural reduction in headcount might help you avoid redundancy.
ROFL
You're terrible Muriel -
Uh oh?
Until someone can actually confirm the veracity of those comments, they're on the best-friend's-sister's-dog-walker-said level of accuracy. It's the internet, after all. That said, the press should be making an effort to try and confirm them (e.g. does a doctor by that name work in that hospital? Can we get his phone number?) But until then I'd put them in the rumour basket.
-
But until then I'd put them in the rumour basket.
Hence the question mark, although if that's any reflection of actual conditions there, you've got to feel sorry. It sounds genuinely frightening.
-
Don't panic, but the Guardian report is slightly alarming:
Another problem fuelling speculation is that so little has been revealed about who might be at risk for being close to outbreak centres. All authorities have been willing to say so far is that a disproportionate number of young adults are among the victims, rather that the usual concentration in the very young and very old.
This counter-intuitive fact has got the experts particularly worried because it is typical of pandemic strains. The other thing causing particular concern is that it is highly unusual for flu epidemics in the northern hemisphere to occur in spring.
"The last time that happened was in 1918," says medical historian Mark Honigsbaum, author of a book on that pandemic, which killed 50 million people worldwide, about 225,000 in the UK. "There was a first wave in the spring that affected the vulnerable and then it seemed to go away. Six months later it came back and this time young adults got sick with very high mortality. The question is whether we are seeing the first or the second wave."
-
But Obama's okay ...
-
There was a first wave in the spring that affected the vulnerable and then it seemed to go away. Six months later it came back and this time young adults got sick with very high mortality. The question is whether we are seeing the first or the second wave.
Or - a grim and nasty thought - whether the cases outside Mexico are the first wave, but Mexico has reached the second wave. That would be...not great.
-
Also, if you genuinely have got swine flu/marburg disease/lassa fever and you survive and your co-workers die, it's possible that the natural reduction in headcount might help you avoid redundancy.
It's the ideal ring wingnut response to the economic crisis. 9 Day working week? Too much overhead. Kill one in ten with a virus? Ideal...
That would cost a fortune in royalties. (All your threads are belong to Copyright Must Change).
LOL.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.