Renowned Scientist: Bird Flu will kill 50% of humanity

Renowned Scientist: Bird Flu will kill 50% of humanity

Quote:

---

March 14, 2006 — Robert G. Webster is one of the few bird flu experts confident enough to answer the key question: Will the avian flu switch from posing a terrible hazard to birds to becoming a real threat to humans?

There are "about even odds at this time for the virus to learn how to transmit human to human," he told ABC's "World News Tonight." Webster, the Rosemary Thomas Chair at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., is credited with being the first scientist to find the link between human flu and bird flu.

---

Quote:

---

"Society just can't accept the idea that 50 percent of the population could die. And I think we have to face that possibility," Webster said. "I'm sorry if I'm making people a little frightened, but I feel it's my role."

---

That would be pretty nasty. I wonder if civilization would near collapse at that point? I mean, you have 1/2 of the world dying off, rioting in the street, economies basically grinding to a halt, faith in government falling as government officials die like everyone else, mass media slowing production, casulaties rates and news updates from every channel and news source. Meanwhile, what will happen to access to Nuclear weapons in Russia? As society teeters, will the nukes stay secure?

And as governments fail to control the population with police dieing off and quitting to care for loved ones, our militaries will patrol the streets. Food and water will be rationed. People will die in the streets waiting for care at makeshift field hospitals.



I've got my list of stuff to buy. On that list is one AR-15 to join my Remington and my Glock .40 as well as a whole lotta ammunition. Maybe I'll buy the AR-15 on credit, heh. Who's gonna collect?

I seriously doubt it will be anywhere near that number.

After a relatively short while the virus will mutate into something much less deadly. After all it is counterproductive to kill the host too fast or too certainly (virus dies with person).

So I would expect at most 5-10%. But that is more than enough in my book.

Andwith those Romanians perfecting the vaccine for the current version, I think a human version might not get far enough.

Am I the only one who would like some evidence for this? If all they have is 'this could happen, you should start building another Ark now', then I'm going to treat it as nothing more then fear mongering.


It's interesting, but it would be more interesting if it explained how he reached those figures.

good more land for me

Well, since most of the vulnerable would perish, it would solve the United States Social Security Problem for now. [/end evil observation]


Let's consider this seriously just for the sake of discussion alone. What do you think will happen if it ends up being very serious? How do you think the world will handle it with anything above a 10% fatality rate? (Which is pretty catastrophic). What do you think will happen if it does hit 50%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Well, since most of the vulnerable would perish, it would solve the United States Social Security Problem for now. [/end evil observation]


Let's consider this seriously just for the sake of discussion alone. What do you think will happen if it ends up being very serious? How do you think the world will handle it with anything above a 10% fatality rate? (Which is pretty catastrophic). What do you think will happen if it does hit 50%?

---

Well if it does get that high the hardest hit countries will be the 3rd dirt poor countries and most of Asia. I mean on the positive side it releases pressure on Earth on the negative side 3,000,000,000 people die

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mongoose

Am I the only one who would like some evidence for this? If all they have is 'this could happen, you should start building another Ark now', then I'm going to treat it as nothing more then fear mongering.


It's interesting, but it would be more interesting if it explained how he reached those figures.

---

I doubt he's fear mongering. He probably feels that this is a very real danger and just wants people to be prepared. He is a well known scientist.

I doubt the 10%/50% would be evenly distributed. I imagine china and india would get hit worst. I'd say Japan but they're already anal about wearing face masks all the time.



I just looked it up and 20% of the world caught influenza during the 1918 pandemic. The mortality rate was something like 2.5% though. 20-40 million died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

good more land for me

---

Hey! But you could die to STFS.:laugh4:

He says that we only have to accept the possibility. There's a possibility that that happens, but I think there's no serious probability with 6000 million people or more in the Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Hey! But you could die to STFS.:laugh4:

He says that we only have to accept the possibility. There's a possibility that that happens, but I think there's no serious probability with 6000 million people or more in the Earth.

---

6 billion:juggle2:

World's population: 6,503,504,342

So at 50%, we would go back to world population levels from 1964...


But like SFTS points out, perhaps most of that 50% loss will occur in 3rd world countries.

What effect will that have on the world's economy? Will the developed nations be more tempted to move into these areas and exploit them once they are even weaker?

From the U.S. Perspective, Mexico would clearly suffer trmendously, being as poor and incapable as it is.

But then, all government social services and private services will be overwhelmed.

But I cannot help but wonder, why would 3rd world countries be effected more? No medical establishment can cope with this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

But I cannot help but wonder, why would 3rd world countries be effected more? No medical establishment can cope with this...

---

It would be crowded living conditions and poor hygiene. Poor health would make you more susceptible too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

World's population: 6,503,504,342

So at 50%, we would go back to world population levels from 1964...


But like SFTS points out, perhaps most of that 50% loss will occur in 3rd world countries.

What effect will that have on the world's economy? Will the developed nations be more tempted to move into these areas and exploit them once they are even weaker?

From the U.S. Perspective, Mexico would clearly suffer trmendously, being as poor and incapable as it is.

But then, all government social services and private services will be overwhelmed.

But I cannot help but wonder, why would 3rd world countries be effected more? No medical establishment can cope with this...

---

Well less stuff. Sure the medical establishment may be overwhelmed in the USA but Somilas is non exastint not to mention the close quaters of some of the countries.

Good Points, both of you. I assumed as much. My concern is that our medical facilities would be stretched beyond the breaking point.

World Health Organization Tidbits:

Quote:

---

During past pandemics, attack rates reached 25-35% of the total population. Under the best circumstances, assuming that the new virus causes mild disease, the world could still experience an estimated 2 million to 7.4 million deaths (projected from data obtained during the 1957 pandemic). Projections for a more virulent virus are much higher. The 1918 pandemic, which was exceptional, killed at least 40 million people.

---

Quote:

---

Pandemics can cause large surges in the numbers of people requiring or seeking medical or hospital treatment, temporarily overwhelming health services. High rates of worker absenteeism can also interrupt other essential services, such as law enforcement, transportation, and communications. Because populations will be fully susceptible to an H5N1-like virus, rates of illness could peak fairly rapidly within a given community. This means that local social and economic disruptions may be temporary. They may, however, be amplified in today’s closely interrelated and interdependent systems of trade and commerce. Based on past experience, a second wave of global spread should be anticipated within a year.

---

Quote:

---

Is the world adequately prepared?
No. Despite an advance warning that has lasted almost two years, the world is ill-prepared to defend itself during a pandemic. WHO has urged all countries to develop preparedness plans, but only around 40 have done so.

---

Quote:

---

What about the pandemic risk?
A pandemic can start when three conditions have been met: a new influenza virus subtype emerges; it infects humans, causing serious illness; and it spreads easily and sustainably among humans. The H5N1 virus amply meets the first two conditions: it is a new virus for humans (H5N1 viruses have never circulated widely among people), and it has infected more than 100 humans, killing over half of them. No one will have immunity should an H5N1-like pandemic virus emerge.
All prerequisites for the start of a pandemic have therefore been met save one: the establishment of efficient and sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus. The risk that the H5N1 virus will acquire this ability will persist as long as opportunities for human infections occur. These opportunities, in turn, will persist as long as the virus continues to circulate in birds, and this situation could endure for some years to come.

---

Does a virus keep the same severity of illness as it mutates to allow a different vector of dispersion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Does a virus keep the same severity of illness as it mutates to allow a different vector of dispersion?

---

I believe that is the very problem that scientists are most concerned about.

Interestingly enough,

Scientists: 1918 Killer Spanish Flu Was a Bird Flu

Quote:

---

Scientists who re-created the 1918 Spanish flu say the killer virus was initially a bird flu that learned to infect people. Alarmingly, they find that today's H5N1 bird flu is starting to learn the same tricks.

---

Quote:

---

"These H5N1 viruses are being exposed to human adaptive pressures, and may be going down a similar path to the one that led to the 1918 virus," Taubenberger said in a news conference. "But the H5N1 strains have only a few of these mutations, whereas the 1918 virus has a larger number."

---

Quote:

---

The good news is that the H5N1 flu bug still has a long way to go. The 1918 bug seemed to need several changes in every one of its eight genes. The H5N1 virus is making similar changes but isn't very far along.

"So, for example, in the nuclear protein gene we speculate there are six genes crucial [for human adaptation]," Taubenberger says. "Of those six, three are present in one or another H5N1 strain. But usually there is only one of these changes per virus isolate. That is true of other genes as well. You see four, five, or six changes per gene in the 1918 virus, whereas H5N1 viruses only have one change or so. It shows they are subjected to similar [evolutionary] pressures, but the H5 viruses are early on in this process."

---

The avian virus adopts its genes from contact with a human virus. The genes "switch" and both apparently mutate.

What is not clear from my readings is what specific genetic material is retained in the swap.

The severity of the symptoms are a product of the virions capability to infect; the more facilitating a virion's genes are towards this end, the more cells that are infected, and ultimately, the greatest the symptoms will be.

The major issue with this mutation is the capability of H5N1 to infect and consequently destory cells; couple that destructive ability with adaptability to a new host and we have the pandemic. We lack the ability to combat it and it is extermely destructive.

IIRC, the human casualties have largerly been a product of deep lung tissue damage. This is unusual in typical influenza.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Well, since most of the vulnerable would perish, it would solve the United States Social Security Problem for now. [/end evil observation]

---

Quite the opposite. The 1918 flu seemed to affected the healthy more than the sick. 20 something males were the hardest hit and children and the elderly seemed to get passed by.

Not only that but those who are at work are likely to be in greater contact with more people hence more likely to be infected.

Also the virus is likely to leave many people with long term disabilities, respatory (sp?) problems etc for which the US is very under covered/insured.

But don't let that get in the way of your pipe dream.

Quote:

---

That would be pretty nasty. I wonder if civilization would near collapse at that point? I mean, you have 1/2 of the world dying off, rioting in the street, economies basically grinding to a halt, faith in government falling as government officials die like everyone else, mass media slowing production, casulaties rates and news updates from every channel and news source. Meanwhile, what will happen to access to Nuclear weapons in Russia? As society teeters, will the nukes stay secure?

---

On the contrary, when people die off there's little need for rioting and conflict, because there's less competition for the survival resources. On the contrary I think most people who survive will live better lives after the flu than the average person today does, like was the case after the black death, once the smelly bodies were buried that is.

@the world: If you live in a world where everyone gets too many children, and there's too much travel connections between continents and populations, you can't expect anything but that large pandemics killing off 50% every now and then. I don't understand how people on one hand can support the mass-breeding project and the next second explain horror and surprise at the consequences of it. The bird flu is coming, it's your fault, and you'll probably all die - so get used to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

On the contrary, when people die off there's little need for rioting and conflict, because there's less competition for the survival resources. On the contrary I think most people who survive will live better lives after the flu than the average person today does, like was the case after the black death, once the smelly bodies were buried that is.

@the world: If you live in a world where everyone gets too many children, and there's too much travel connections between continents and populations, you can't expect anything but that large pandemics killing off 50% every now and then. I don't understand how people on one hand can support the mass-breeding project and the next second explain horror and surprise at the consequences of it. The bird flu is coming, it's your fault, and you'll probably all die - so get used to it.

---

Ok - I think I have pinned you down. 17 year old male, sleeps in late. Seldom opens curtains. Gets angry with parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Ok - I think I have pinned you down. 17 year old male, sleeps in late. Seldom opens curtains. Gets angry with parents.

---

I'm afraid you're wrong in all observations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I seriously doubt it will be anywhere near that number.

So I would expect at most 5-10%. But that is more than enough in my book.

---

Lessee, world population of 6.5 billion?
hang on, is billion 100 million, or 1 million million?

5-10% of 6.5 billion?
that's ... :jawdrop: a lot of people...

it's like mother earth taking a good crap.

:hippie:

/hippy off

If that happens, I'll buy a lot of canned foods, quit my job and live in isolation. At least I get to relax.

i live in London... I'm f**ked

On the upside the bird Flu might kill off AIDs.

I don't believe 50% of the population would die, espically given that that would probably require 100% infection.

Viruses tend to mutate into something less deadly once they become airbourne because the victims with the deadly strains don't live long enough to pass it on to a lot of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic brew

Lessee, world population of 6.5 billion?
hang on, is billion 100 million, or 1 million million?

5-10% of 6.5 billion?
that's ... :jawdrop: a lot of people...

---

1 billion = 1000 million (thus Soulforged is right SFTS, 6000 million = 6 billion).
10% would be 600 million. Nasty enough for me.

If the flu ever gets to Africa we shold see the continent pratically ripped clean. All those HIV and AIDS cases running around down there wouldn't last two days with the flu, besides it isn't a continent where flus are common so they mgiht not have the best natural defences for it.

India will suffer heavily, too. There are places in Bombay where there is one toilet seat per 2,000 people.

I just heard from Radio today that Finland has now vaxines for the entire population of our country.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

i live in London... I'm f**ked

---

Pah. Me too. But ask yourself, what would Oscar Wilde do? We get to die in the best city on earth, instead of "surviving" up some mountain in Montana eating lichen and cuddling up to a rifle at night. I've made my choice.

Anyway, I make it a rule only to worry about things that I have some control over. Mutant avian vruses do not fall into that category.

Quote:

---

There are places in Bombay where there is one toilet seat per 2,000 people

---

Who says you learn nothing in the Backroom?

The 1918 flu probably seemed to target the young more because of WW1, and (probably more importantly) several horrific flu epidemics in the late 19th century had left some level of immunity in the surving population.

Imagine if this flu had a week long incubation period and a high mortality rate. Could have infected half the world before anyone notices...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

I just heard from Radio today that Finland has now vaxines for the entire population of our country.:2thumbsup:

---

I don't want to depress you Kagemusha, but this can't be true. The virus hasn't mutated yet, so there's no way anyone can make an effective vaccine against it.

The vaccine you read about might slow things up, or make things worse. At best, it'll be a generic vaccine that may reduce virulence.

:nurse: