1918--2005 different times, better tech, better pharma etc.
It has more to do with immunity, how contagious the virus is, and what the lethality rate is. ... all of which neither of us knows about wrt: the bird virus.
In 2005, you can treat the symptons better than you could in 1918, but then in 2005 the virus with the same contagious characteristics would spread a lot faster, sic air travel.
When do the symptoms appear vs. when is the contagious period. You could be infected with a virus, not have any visible symptoms and still be contagious. Witness a good number of STDs
The ebola virus has a very high lethality rate and they can't do much about it other than minimize the pain until the person dies. Fortunately, it doesn't spread easily.
BTW, of course i know aids is a ww scourge but in the US it is under control and if folks stopped engaging in dangerous behaviour it would be eradicated by now.
As soon as everyone stops having sex everything will be ok. What are the numbers on people having unprotected sex with more than one partner in their lifetime? I think you'll have a very difficult time finding any period in human history when there wasn't unprotected sex. You should also make a note to women that they should stop being raped.
1918--2005 different times, better tech, better pharma etc. I am no expert on this but from swine flu, legionaires disease, sars, and aids have all been described in these terms so pardon my skeptism. BTW, of course i know aids is a ww scourge but in the US it is under control and if folks stopped engaging in dangerous behaviour it would be eradicated by now. Noticed this week that for infants treated with new meds HIV defeated early on.
Sorry about repeating your entire text here, but ... I'm trying to figure out where you are wrt to AIDS. You clearly say it's a ww scourge, but it's under contol in the US. And you also cite AIDS in your list of examples that contributes to your skepticism. I'm not sure that those three views converge to something that makes sense to me.
infoplease.com
On a world wide basis [Dec 2003] there are some 40 million people infected with AIDS and about 3 million have died. I think we can go with that as being a ww scourge. Though I'm having some difficulty understanding why you would use this as an example in your list of why you've grown skeptical. In North America, we're seeing a much lower death rate. But that's far from anything resembling a cure. The people are living longer with AIDS but the prognosis is still death as far as I know. It's just taking them longer to die. Which I guess gives them a theoretical opportunity to spread it over a longer period of time.
cdc.gov [US Stats]
Deaths Due to AIDS
In 2003, the estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS was 18,017, including 17,934 adults and adolescents, and 83 children under age 13
The cumulative estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS through 2003 is 524,060, including 518,568 adults and adolescents, and 5,492 children under age 13. ...end of extraction.
I'm having some trouble finding articles that indicates that AIDS is "under control". But I have to admit that I don't know what you mean by "under control." So what do you mean by under control.
jttmab |
