Is your ISP Influenza-ready?

On 4/18/06, Crist Clark <crist.clarkglobalstar.com> wrote:
> Uhh... I think, I _hope_ that we are talking about 40%
of your
> workforce NOT SHOWING UP TO THE OFFICE for days or
weeks, not
> dropping dead, not even necessarily getting sick.
>
> A 40% mortality rate among otherwise healthy adults,
and we have much
> bigger issues to worry about.

Indeed. Estimates I've read on CNN in the past few days (I
know, I
know) say that if H5N1 were to be approximately as virulent
and deadly
as the 1918 flu, we would be
looking at 90 million infected and 1.9 million dead in the
US.

-Rusty

According to the wikipedia's quote of WHO the weighted
average
mortality rate, which would be across 50 human cases, is 66%
in 2006,
and 56% across all 194 cases reported since 2004.

                  http://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/H5N1

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzsTheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Login:
Nationwide
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     |
SINCE 1989     *oo*

> According to the wikipedia's quote of WHO the weighted
average
> mortality rate, which would be across 50 human cases,
is 66% in 2006,
> and 56% across all 194 cases reported since 2004.
>                   http://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/H5N1

All of this pandemic planning is *NOT* about the H5N1 virus.
Even though H5N1 kills 66% of the people who get it, there
is
nothing to worry about. This is a bird disease and the only
way to catch it is to handle sick birds.

The pandemic planning is about an unknown human flu virus
that will arise at some point in the future. They expect
that
the H5N1 bird virus will learn how not to kill its human
hosts by joining forces with a human flu virus. The new
virus will have RNA from both predecessors and *WILL* be
contagious among humans. Like other flu viruses, it will
sweep around the world, and if it inherits the worst parts
of the H5N1 then it will create a dangerous pandemic.

There are still a lot of ifs there.

--Michael Dillon

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:29:10PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
> 
> According to the wikipedia's quote of WHO the weighted
average
> mortality rate, which would be across 50 human cases,
is 66% in 2006,
> and 56% across all 194 cases reported since 2004.
> 
>                   http://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/H5N1


But this is of cases that were (a) bad enough that the
person went to a
doctor [mostly in countries where this is rare anyway] and
(b) were
identified as something other than "drink plenty of
chicken [or plomik]
soup, and it will go away in a few days".

Is there a report which extrapolates the UNREPORTED cases
and estimates
the mortality rate from that?  [And does anyone have any
basis on which
to make these guesses?]


-- 
Joe Yao
------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
   This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center
policies.

Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:29:10PM -0400, Barry Shein
wrote:
> 
>>According to the wikipedia's quote of WHO the
weighted average
>>mortality rate, which would be across 50 human
cases, is 66% in 2006,
>>and 56% across all 194 cases reported since 2004.

> Is there a report which extrapolates the UNREPORTED
cases and estimates
> the mortality rate from that?  [And does anyone have
any basis on which
> to make these guesses?]

Let's extrapolate from an event that I know of, and
remember. In 1976, a 
particularly dangerous strain of flu, Victoria, was the
influenza du 
jour. As in most strains, there were two versions:
Victoria-B, where 
your life sucked for a few days, and then you got on with
it, and 
Victoria-A, which was life threatening, and BTW, yet another
"bird flu" 
entry. I'm not going to post a bunch of links, but if you
want 
entertainment (or validation) "influenza victoria
1976" in Google will 
give you hours of interesting data.

I had the A strain, and was gravely ill. My lungs are
scarred as though 
I had had tuberculosis, and I'm grateful that was the only
damage. In 
just the area I lived in, there were multiple deaths
reported. The 
outbreaks were localized, but quite dramatic in those
geographical areas 
where it took off. I don't mean to add to the hysteria, but
I also would 
prefer that you not discount it. Much will depend on your
local area, on 
whether people are tightly clustered (NYC, LA), or thinly
populated 
(Wyoming, North Dakota).


-- 
"You can't have in a democracy various groups with
arms - you have to 
have the state with a monopoly on power," Condoleeza
Rice, the US 
secretary of state, said at the end of her two-day visit to
Baghdad yesterday.             ...No Comment

On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 07:51:06AM -0700, Etaoin Shrdlu
wrote:
> Joseph S D Yao wrote:
(stuff)
...
> where it took off. I don't mean to add to the
hysteria, but I also would 
> prefer that you not discount it. Much will depend on
your local area, on 
> whether people are tightly clustered (NYC, LA), or
thinly populated 
> (Wyoming, North Dakota).


E.S., I apologise if I sounded like I wished to discount any
danger.
There is a possibility of danger.  There often is.  I may
just be tired
of people making noises as if this particular danger were
guaranteed.
Although it is guaranteed that SOME disaster will befall us,
at SOME
time, and so we should in general prepare for A disaster,
there is no
guarantee that this is that one (nor that it isn't!).  I
also have
enough trouble fully comprehending the entire theory of
statistics that
I feel it necessary to question when a study based on the 50
worst cases
is used to extrapolate to the entire population.

And I am a mathematician by nature and training.  Just, it
would seem,
not THAT kind of a mathematician.  


-- 
Joe Yao
------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
   This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center
policies.

How about this? I will not post anything to NANOG that
"discounts the hysteria." 
  Yall will take the bird flu discussion (and the discussion
of the meaning, 
origin and proper usage of "pessimal" for
crissake) elsewhere. Deal?

Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
> 
...I don't mean to add to the hysteria, but I also would
> prefer that you not discount it...