Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : SARS and Avian Flu -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (2652)	10/14/2005 8:24:46 AM
From: SG	Respond to of 4232

I'll take the apparent drop in mortality from a little Tamiflu, thanks, if I can get my M.D. to give me some before I need it. It is odd, though, that this year I may have to rely on my local Stop and Shop supermarket to get an early regular flu shot. What a country. I always thought that Iraq was safer than Detroit. My friend is, unfortunately, not close enough for me to suggest a prolonged cruise for me and my wife. I have actually not been on his boat. He keeps that part of his life separate from me and the other folks with whom we congregate at a book club, which, ironically enough, is a science fiction group where books we read have regularly speculated about the effect various disasters might have upon humanity. Say, John, according to your profile, you should be partying it up about now while we arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic?! A once-in-a-lifetime trip to Eastern Europe, perhaps, LOL? SG

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (2652)	10/15/2005 1:31:51 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 4232

<More people are murdered in Detroit every year than are killed in Iraq. Pretty interesting that Iraq is safer than Detroit, eh?> I don't think you are including as "people" the many Iraqis who are killed. For USA troops, perhaps it's safer in Iraq than being in the wrong socioeconomic group in Detroit. I wonder whether self-vaccination with H5N1 or H12N8 or whatever virulent form gets going wouldn't be a good idea. One could get 1 virus and dab it on the inside of their cheek, then stick a patch over it so the virus can only work on that one surface. The virus will dig in there and start replicating and start the immune system reaction. Before it has had a chance to double and double and double and spread, the immune system would already be on the job. Then as soon as symptoms show, or even before, start taking Tamiflu, Relenza and whatever else might slow the bug. Then, the full immune system response will swing into gear and the bug will be identified and killed over a few days as the T cells get the bug's number. Hey presto, no major illness, no death, not even much time off work, not much cost, no need to go to hospital which will be full anyway and spreading the disease [or more likely empty as everyone flees], or mortuary, or mass-burial pit operated by a guy with a mask and a bulldozer. The problem with catching the bug naturally is that one inhales several sneeze particles with millions of viruses in them and inhales them deep into the lungs, giving the bug a very good start on the new victim. Before the new victim's immune system even knows there's a bug on board, the bug will have gained many beach-heads and will have over-run the victim. The turbo-charged T-cells etc won't even know what they are looking for before the victim has spread the disease further and has died. It makes sense to me. Maybe an immunologist could say that it won't work for some reason, and I'm sure they would. But with the death rate is 70% without Tamiflu, a lot of people will be trying a lot of things and if they have a significant mortality, well, they were likely to die anyway. Normal epidemiological standards such as 1 harmful side effect out of 10,000 treatments will be irrelevant. Mqurice

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (2652)	10/15/2005 1:36:37 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4232

<WHO estimates death count could be 100 Million. > How can it be that low? Suppose mortality of those infected is only 50% without Tamiflu treatment [it could be as bad as 70%] or even only 30%. Something like half the population would catch the bug over a 2 year period, but suppose it's only a third, which is what some influenzas get. That would be about 2 billion people challenged with the disease. With a kill rate of 50% that would be a billion dead people. If it's only a 30% death rate, that would still be 600 million dead. With luck and a following wind and fingers crossed, it might drop to a 15% mortality rate and that would mean 300 million dead. These are still very big numbers. Mqurice