bird flu from asia?

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by //\/\/

maybe she'll stop ranting about 'open borders' if this turns out to be true...

...and maybe apologise to mexico/retract her stories/do the decent and responsible thing and point it out?

admittedly i don't have the energy to read this whole thread, and i'm sure there are awesome little tidbits sprinkled throughout, but why should anyone apologize for making statements on the origin of this virus? life isn't like CSI, the CDC doesn't walk onto the scene of a breakout and know everything instantly. it's going to be a long time before this thing is fully understood. anyway, i'm probably responding to something that wasn't intended as i read it.

i'm concerned that people are becoming cynical about the warnings and preparation and press coverage now that the virus is proving to be less deadly than we feared. like because the worst didn't happen we should blame the government or media or whathaveyou for "fearmongering." just seems like the way the wind is blowing. but the fact is, there was no way of knowing in the beginning how serious this new illness would be. based on reports of deaths and a very rapid spread it made sense to mobilize the way everyone did. still, it just seems like that cynicism is out there on the horizon. we didn't all die, so why did we bother caring?

the way these viruses typically work, it will be back next fall and it will actually be worse and harder to fight off. i just hope we haven't decided this was a "cry wolf" situation here and decide to ignore the warnings next flu season.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by cacophony

admittedly i don't have the energy to read this whole thread, and i'm sure there are awesome little tidbits sprinkled throughout, but why should anyone apologize for making statements on the origin of this virus? life isn't like CSI, the CDC doesn't walk onto the scene of a breakout and know everything instantly. it's going to be a long time before this thing is fully understood. anyway, i'm probably responding to something that wasn't intended as i read it.

i'm concerned that people are becoming cynical about the warnings and preparation and press coverage now that the virus is proving to be less deadly than we feared. like because the worst didn't happen we should blame the government or media or whathaveyou for "fearmongering." just seems like the way the wind is blowing. but the fact is, there was no way of knowing in the beginning how serious this new illness would be. based on reports of deaths and a very rapid spread it made sense to mobilize the way everyone did. still, it just seems like that cynicism is out there on the horizon. we didn't all die, so why did we bother caring?

the way these viruses typically work, it will be back next fall and it will actually be worse and harder to fight off. i just hope we haven't decided this was a "cry wolf" situation here and decide to ignore the warnings next flu season.

For me, the problem is that reporting on this was blown out of proportion to the point that it's probably hurt more people than the flu itself has. The pork industry - which has zero chance of actually spreading the H1N1 flu - has taken a big hit, entire pig farms are being culled, and in Egypt, Christian pig farm owners are even having to physically fight off those who would force them to unnecessarily destroy their livelihoods. So while I agree that it's worthwhile to be cautious and prepare for the worst just in case, the reporting has been sensationalized to an unreasonable extent, and has single-handedly caused an unreasonable, damaging and dangerous panic around the entire globe - all in the name of having that attention-grabbing lead story every day whether it's warranted or not.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Sean

For me, the problem is that reporting on this was blown out of proportion to the point that it's probably hurt more people than the flu itself has.

i beg to differ. it was handled in exactly the proportion it needed to be handled while the nature of the virus was unknown. at the point that the news broke and the first cases were coming to light the mexican government was saying hundreds of people were already sick and as many as a hundred people were already dead. that was on first report and discovery of the illness. it spoke to a virulence that could be catastrophic if it wasn't contained. couple that with the rapid rate at which new cases popped up, in country after country after country, and you're talking about a knew, poorly understood virus with incredibly fast transmission and the mexican government raising the alert that it could kill as fast as it could travel. not only that, the reports coming out of mexico were saying it was the young and fit who were dying first, which is a highly abnormal way for the flu to kill. so now you've got fast transmission, rapid death, and illness among the strong. all reasons to react as quickly and as vocally as the WHO and CDC did.

it takes time to understand microoganisms. in the time it takes to isolate and thoroughly understand the nature of a virus and study how illness affects the infected, they can spread to hundreds and thousands of immune-compromised people.

it takes one person contracting a new, deadly virus to walk into a daycare or nursing home, sneeze, and touch a doorknob.

what we CAN'T do is decide it's crying wolf just because the world didn't end. you can't know the level of pandemic that something like this is going to reach without studying its mode of transmission and trying to keep pace with it. you can't get one step ahead of an unknown new bug.


what if katrina had never hit new orleans? knowing what you know now, do you think people would have been any safer living in the 9th ward with the insufficient levees just because that one storm didn't hit? what would happen the next time a storm really did hit? the danger was present. if evacuating 3 times on a false alarm means the 4th evacuation clears people from deadly consequences, the 3 false alarms were worthwhile drills.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by cacophony

i beg to differ. it was handled in exactly the proportion it needed to be handled while the nature of the virus was unknown. at the point that the news broke and the first cases were coming to light the mexican government was saying hundreds of people were already sick and as many as a hundred people were already dead. that was on first report and discovery of the illness. it spoke to a virulence that could be catastrophic if it wasn't contained. couple that with the rapid rate at which new cases popped up, in country after country after country, and you're talking about a knew, poorly understood virus with incredibly fast transmission and the mexican government raising the alert that it could kill as fast as it could travel. not only that, the reports coming out of mexico were saying it was the young and fit who were dying first, which is a highly abnormal way for the flu to kill. so now you've got fast transmission, rapid death, and illness among the strong. all reasons to react as quickly and as vocally as the WHO and CDC did.

it takes time to understand microoganisms. in the time it takes to isolate and thoroughly understand the nature of a virus and study how illness affects the infected, they can spread to hundreds and thousands of immune-compromised people.

it takes one person contracting a new, deadly virus to walk into a daycare or nursing home, sneeze, and touch a doorknob.

what we CAN'T do is decide it's crying wolf just because the world didn't end. you can't know the level of pandemic that something like this is going to reach without studying its mode of transmission and trying to keep pace with it. you can't get one step ahead of an unknown new bug.


what if katrina had never hit new orleans? knowing what you know now, do you think people would have been any safer living in the 9th ward with the insufficient levees just because that one storm didn't hit? what would happen the next time a storm really did hit? the danger was present. if evacuating 3 times on a false alarm means the 4th evacuation clears people from deadly consequences, the 3 false alarms were worthwhile drills.

Reports that "swine flu could wipe out tens of millions of people" (actual CNN quote) when only like a dozen people were actually sick is irresponsible overkill to an incredible, brazenly out of proportion degree.

[Rog]

Originally Posted by Sean

Reports that "swine flu could wipe out tens of millions of people" (actual CNN quote) when only a few people were actually sick is irresponsible overkill to an incredible degree.

my sentiments exactly mate!. half the people in the uk who have contracted this deadly virus are out of hospital and saying it was like a heavy cold. A bit of a warning would have been enough instead of the massive fuckin media overkill we are presently experiencing.
maybe in a few years when we really do have something serious happening then everyone will be like 'yeah yeah....we've heard it all before' and we'll all die.....'the media who cried wolf'?

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Rog

my sentiments exactly mate!. half the people in the uk who have contracted this deadly virus are out of hospital and saying it was like a heavy cold. A bit of a warning would have been enough instead of the massive fuckin media overkill we are presently experiencing.
maybe in a few years when we really do have something serious happening then everyone will be like 'yeah yeah....we've heard it all before' and we'll all die.....'the media who cried wolf'?

ask anyone in toronto how they feel about the media's handling of SARS.

Cacaophony, the argument, it seems to me, boils down to whether or not you can say the media acted responsibly *EVEN IF* the worst case scenario was realized. Clearly the answer is no. Even if this thing turned into spanish flu, the media was not informative, it was stoking anxiety. To prove that point, someone can simply sit through the days of american network television coverage and count how many minutes were spent covering actual facts and information and how many minutes were spent covering looped, fetishized, stories of anxiety. Would I be making an up-at-night assumption if I claimed to know how that experiment would turn out?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

... Would I be making an up-at-night assumption if I claimed to know how that experiment would turn out?

You could save yourself a lot of time by just looking @ Teremiflu(or whatever the names of them are) & it's competitor's stock values. Maybe.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

Cacaophony, the argument, it seems to me, boils down to whether or not you can say the media acted responsibly *EVEN IF* the worst case scenario was realized. Clearly the answer is no. Even if this thing turned into spanish flu, the media was not informative, it was stoking anxiety. To prove that point, someone can simply sit through the days of american network television coverage and count how many minutes were spent covering actual facts and information and how many minutes were spent covering looped, fetishized, stories of anxiety. Would I be making an up-at-night assumption if I claimed to know how that experiment would turn out?

i guess i see it from a different perspective. most of the "media" you're describing is entertainment media. i don't expect much from them. i see CNN sending sanjay gupta to mexico so he can mingle unmasked (*gasp*) with the infected and i see entertainment. not news.

i think you have to be choosy with your news sources. and frankly, the public consumes the coverage it wants regardless of the truth of the situation. we at webmd have tried to put this into perspective from the beginning by pointing out that the "regular" flu kills 36,000 people every year. pneumonia kills upwards of 60,000, and those figures are for the US alone. and while we've had incredible traffic, totally breaking all records since the site's launch, people consume what they want to consume. if they want to consume the "symptoms" article more than they want to consume the "why you shouldn't worry" article, that's a self-directed preference.

i'm not arguing that the media is a responsible outlet for information. i'm saying the public's desire for the excitement of doom drives a lot of the hysterical coverage.

look, i manage the cancer content for the site. i'm responsible for knowing the user base, knowing the conditions, and providing responsible information that people will consume. and i will tell you with absolutely no exaggeration that the most responsible perspective piece will never EVER hold a candle to the fearful content in terms of audience consumption. penile cancer is one of the rarest cancers on earth but people consume the "symptoms" content in quantities that put it on par with a REAL public health issue like diabetes.

i'm also not arguing that the media should cover the worst just because we have a natural human tendency to dwell on the worst. i'm just saying there's a call-and-response relationship between the audience and media outlets. when people stop consuming it, media moves on to the next drama.

i just think it's far too easy to point at media and cry, "YOU'RE THE SOURCE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS!" it's easier than admitting that we're the source of our problems, too.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Rog

my sentiments exactly mate!. half the people in the uk who have contracted this deadly virus are out of hospital and saying it was like a heavy cold. A bit of a warning would have been enough instead of the massive fuckin media overkill we are presently experiencing.
maybe in a few years when we really do have something serious happening then everyone will be like 'yeah yeah....we've heard it all before' and we'll all die.....'the media who cried wolf'?

in the first week of discovery there was no way to know whether this would be a supervirus or a bad cold. as i already described, the mode and speed of transmission was justifiably alarming to health professionals.

i guess what i dislike is using "cry wolf" to describe this situation. in the original fable the boy DELIBERATELY cried wolf in order to stir up a frenzy. thus teaching his community that he was a deliberate liar.

in the case of emergency alerts, like virus outbreaks or potentially catastrophic weather, no one is deliberately lying in order to stir up chaos. officials justifiably raise the alert because these things aren't perfectly predictable. we lack the ability to tell the future with precision so yes, sometimes the warning call will go out and nothing bad will manifest.

that doesn't make the warning system unjustified. it's not crying wolf.

crying wolf was saying "there's a link between iraq and 9/11. let's go get 'em!" warning the public about a potential health hazard is not.

[Rog]

Originally Posted by cacophony

in the first week of discovery there was no way to know whether this would be a supervirus or a bad cold. as i already described, the mode and speed of transmission was justifiably alarming to health professionals.

i guess what i dislike is using "cry wolf" to describe this situation. in the original fable the boy DELIBERATELY cried wolf in order to stir up a frenzy. thus teaching his community that he was a deliberate liar.

.

i agree with the first paragraph.....health professionals being the operative words.

but the media have deliberately stirred up an unwarranted frenzy and even if they aint guilty of lying then they are guilty of deliberately distorting the situation.