An Educated Guess  

I don't know what to think of it. It's very possible....I just figure there's nothing I can do about it so I'm not going to worry about it for now. It's not here yet.

The same COULD be said for peak oil but I feel there is at least a chance to do something about that especially if peak is not but 20 years out. Even if we carry on on the plateau for awhile, it will allow time for preparation.

I figure if the bird flu hits me, I'm probably a goner anyway. Kind of like a nuclear hit near where I live. It won't be pretty but there isn't much I can do. Since I'm a nurse, the only thing I would hate would be that I could be separated from my family and quaranteened at my hospital until I finally succumb and die, too. Maybe I'd be one of the lucky ones, who knows, if you'd call living through the hell of what a real pandemic/plague would bring lucky.

Right now, I look at it in the same context as the swine flu, the small pox scare, and a few other hyped things.

I recently read some data that talked about how of the number who died of the 1918 Spanish flu, half died of complications like pneumonia. Back then, there were no antibiotics. So the event of antibiotics could technically cut the number of deaths down as compared to the Spanish flu statistics. Bird flu mortality statistics would probably only sound higher because we have more population than we've ever had before. We also have more elderly and disabled living only because of advanced pharmaceutical intervention. So the numbers would be higher with these variables--population and the artificially extended lives of people due to modern medicine.

But technically, if we could combat the complications with IV antibiotics and IV fluids, I believe most healthy people could survive. At least the percentage would be higher. In other words, we may not have the vaccine for the bird flu but we DO have the antibiotics and technology to help people with complications from the bird flu.

Does that reasoning make any sense?

In any event, if the bird flu were to mutate to h2h, I would prefer to get the first strain and not the strengthened succeeding strains. A "natural" innoculation provided by the first strain would lessen the effects of succeeding strains, in my opinion.

I may be twisted in my thinking but that's how I feel.

peaknik

I think you might be right about our ability to better combat H5N1 than the Spanish flu - the world's population was quite weakened by World War I and supposedly quite susceptible to it at that point in time.

Plus public health and medicine are a lot more advanced now and combined with anti-virals for those most at risk (like nurses - I hope you guys get priority access to Rummy's gold pills if it does start affecting large numbers of people).

As for getting it first, I'm not so sure about that theory. I've read some people talking about virus' burning themselves out if they are too virulent (a virus that has a live, contagious host spreads better than a immediatley fatal one), so the theory is as they spread they become weaker (which is used to explain the fact that Ebola, for example, as never become widespread - its too lethal).

Who knows though - I kind of like the (money based) conspiracy theory explanation simply because its relatively comforting to think that its just another corruption / fear scam rather than a serious threat.

But I've got no idea what the truth of the matter really is.