-
OOh britian have now been put on alert.
-
OOh britian have now been put on alert.
Ok, this thread seems to have been hijacked... But, if we're going to get all serious about it, I think we could all do well to bear in mind that 'normal' influenza kills shitloads of people every year. 30,000+ per annum on average in America alone and up to 12,000 per annum in the UK .
So yes, a pandemic will result in more deaths, but we aren't working from a zero baseline to start with. Also its easy to be scared by the numbers, 10s of millions dead sounds staggering but that is from a global population of approx. 6.8 billion., so even if 68 million people die from a pandemic - that represents 0.1% of the global population or 1 in 1000. The 68 million figure is just an illustration - my understanding is that the pandemics in the 2nd half of the 20th century saw much much lower numbers of deaths. It is also likely that those societies with lower standards of healthcare provision and general nutrition will suffer relatively higher death rates. Callous I know but its the reason people in parts of the world regularly die from diseases we consider minor inconveniences (pardon the pun) like diarrhoea. If you live in the UK and you get flu which then results in a chest infection you get given antibiotics. In other parts of the world that isn't guaranteed (and its shocking indicment on modern society that many life saving drugs are not globally available, primarily due to cost in numerous cases).
So, even if there is a pandemic, the probability that an individual reading this will die as a result is very small indeed.
I could just be telling porkies of course.
-
Ok, this thread seems to have been hijacked... But, if we're going to get all serious about it, I think we could all do well to bear in mind that 'normal' influenza kills shitloads of people every year. 30,000+ per annum on average in America alone and up to 12,000 per annum in the UK .
So yes, a pandemic will result in more deaths, but we aren't working from a zero baseline to start with. Also its easy to be scared by the numbers, 10s of millions dead sounds staggering but that is from a global population of approx. 6.8 billion., so even if 68 million people die from a pandemic - that represents 0.1% of the global population or 1 in 1000. The 68 million figure is just an illustration - my understanding is that the pandemics in the 2nd half of the 20th century saw much much lower numbers of deaths. It is also likely that those societies with lower standards of healthcare provision and general nutrition will suffer relatively higher death rates. Callous I know but its the reason people in parts of the world regularly die from diseases we consider minor inconveniences (pardon the pun) like diarrhoea. If you live in the UK and you get flu which then results in a chest infection you get given antibiotics. In other parts of the world that isn't guaranteed (and its shocking indicment on modern society that many life saving drugs are not globally available, primarily due to cost in numerous cases).
So, even if there is a pandemic, the probability that an individual reading this will die as a result is very small indeed.
I could just be telling porkies of course.
Hmm thanks for that, ive recorded it in my diary for future reference ;~)
-
Awesome - Got a holiday booked to Mexico leaving May 15th - non-refundable flights :)
First post by the way - hi!
-
Awesome - Got a holiday booked to Mexico leaving May 15th - non-refundable flights :)
First post by the way - hi!
You swine :~]
Hi Ron
-
Also its easy to be scared by the numbers, 10s of millions dead sounds staggering but that is from a global population of approx. 6.8 billion., so even if 68 million people die from a pandemic - that represents 0.1% of the global population or 1 in 1000.
10's of millions dead is staggering. You should be scared by those numbers.
68 Million dead is one in 100 (not one in 1000).
1 person in every 100 on earth is an enormous death toll.
The world population during the 1918 pandemic was only around 1.5 billion - so back then the 50 million killed by that particular strain represented 1 person in every 30 on the earth.
If we extrapolate these figures *(as a percentage of the world population killed - a better indicator due to the nature of communal infection*) - that would equate to a global death toll today of around 225 million. That would be around 250,000 corpses in London alone, we simply couldn't bury that number of people fast enough, I expect even Hyde Park would struggle to fit in a quarter of a million corpses.
**ie: don't expect a virus outbreak that kills 10 people in a population of 100 - to also kill 10 people in a population of 10,000 - it will more likely (assuming all other things equal) be 1000 deaths. 10% percent in either case.
And remember how we got about in 1918 - basically we didn't ! No air travel and public transport infrastructure back then to help spread the virus, if you factor in today's modern air travel and public transport we potentially have a very big problem.
The 68 million figure is just an illustration - my understanding is that the pandemics in the 2nd half of the 20th century saw much much lower numbers of deaths.
It's not a bad guide to the death toll possible from a pandemic like this, the previous H1N1 pandemic killed around 50 million (the 2nd half of C20 pandemics were not H1N1).
So, even if there is a pandemic, the probability that an individual reading this will die as a result is very small indeed.
Well if there is a pandemic and we see the same percentage of fatalities as the last big H1N1 pandemic I would expect this forum to have 268 fatalities (1/30th of 8039).
-
10's of millions dead is staggering. You should be scared by those numbers.
I agree it is staggering, but it is not the 'survivors' level as much of the media would have us believe. 10s of millions die from all sorts of shit every year and I am not scared.
68 Million dead is one in 100 (not one in 1000).
Fair point. I'm only an accountant. Want me to do your tax return?
1 person in every 100 on earth is an enormous death toll.
The world population during the 1918 pandemic was only around 1.5 billion - so back then the 50 million killed by that particular strain represented 1 person in every 30 on the earth.
\snip
It's not a bad guide to the death toll possible from a pandemic like this, the previous H1N1 pandemic killed around 50 million (the 2nd half of C20 pandemics were not H1N1).
It is a bad guide - a huge amount of those deaths were from secondary infections that are easily treated in the modern day (the anitibiotics/chest infection example). This was not the case in 1918. The two other pandemics in the 20th century resulted in millions dead, not tens of millions. Whether this is because of a different strain or better treatment/prevention is a matter for conjecture - the fact is however those pandemics did not result in 1/30 fatalities. Standards of general healthcare, nutrition and secondary infection treatment (at least in the developed world) are much more advanced than they were 90 years ago - it is not therefore reasonable to use the fatality rate 90 years ago in the modern context. Some consideration must be given to clinical advances in the interim.
The basic point I was trying to make is that, even if it is a pandemic, it is not the doomsday scenario many people are envisaging. At least in the developed world.
-
. . it is not therefore reasonable to use the fatality rate 90 years ago in the modern context. Some consideration must be given to clinical advances in the interim.
Absolutely, but equal consideration must be given to the massive ease at which any virus can now spread compared to 90 years ago.
I am also not aware of any clinical advances that would help reduce infection rates ?
The basic point I was trying to make is that, even if it is a pandemic, it is not the doomsday scenario many people are envisaging. At least in the developed world.
It is hard to say, a particularly virulent strain with a high mortality rate could cause an enormous death toll.
-
I bet you're getting a semi, just thinking about listing the dead ;)
-
Look, anticipating the future, and it looks like we'll all be dead soon, what about one last forum ride.
The Ride Of Impending Doom?
Tickets are selling quickly.
Heh, there is a bit of me thinking "global economy collapse + flu pandemic = collapse of society", and that bit of me is secretly looking forward to it*.
*Provided my family** make it with me
**By family I mean - at least my son, the wife is a bonus
-
Heh, there is a bit of me thinking "global economy collapse + flu pandemic = collapse of society", and that bit of me is secretly looking forward to it*.
*Provided my family** make it with me
**By family I mean - at least my son, the wife is a bonus
I am going to live in the tree at the bottom of the garden.
-
Shoddy scaremongering or Proceed to Level 6 and invest in tinned food time? You decide:
-
the fact is however those pandemics did not result in 1/30 fatalities.
Sir Liam Donaldson, the UK's Chief Medical Officer, has stated that a flu pandemic is inevitable and estimates that it will likely kill somewhere between 50,000 and 750,000 people in the UK alone. Although this particular strain may not be the big one we are apparently due, the next few weeks will tell.
Taking the higher end of that scale (for dramatic effect!) - that would be 1 in 80 people dead in the UK - an enormous number - 100,000 corpses piling up in the capital alone.
Or 100 forums members dead (I can nominate at least 30).
It really could be pretty bad and this is sticking within the governments own estimates (albeit at the higher end).
pifko
won't-do-hills
TheCatMan
RonHightower
tynan
GA2G
deleted
BringMeMyFix
hippy
Seeds-
Post a reply
About
Swine flu
Posted by
At last, someone else who recognises the danger.
T..d.. ...