My apologies, It will not happen again. I this case, as a career professional journalist, this was a jab against my own profession, which I know well enough to be an expert witness.
because of the survival rate, i guess
the young and the old ( IMO ) do not have a strong immune system
plus it could be an epidemic on a world wide scale, with people not realizing that they have it. until its to late …
Low survival rate actually makes it less likely to spread, since dead folks don’t spread disease as well as a live person walking around. Interestingly, that makes diseases evolve to be less deadly.
Most flu work can be done in BSL-2 conditions. The so-called “pandemic” strains require enhanced BSL-3 at a minimum.
I think that how quickly a disease kills not how thoroughly it kills is what you’re thinking of. A disease that was 100% fatal 10 years after you contracted it probably won’t evolve to be less deadly.
Also recall that pretty much all of these deaths are occurring in parts of three relatively small countries, with a total population about equal to that of Texas. If there was a disease that had already killed almost 1,000 people in several counties in Texas over the course of 6 months that would definitely be a cause for alarm. An epidemic of this intensity magnitude expanded world wide (admittedly an unbelievable scenario) would represent a death toll of over 650,000 per year.
Whether it kills or not is irrelevant to how well it spreads. A disease could be 100% fatal and still be really problematic if:
-there was a long period of time between becoming contagious and dying, and
-it was relatively easy to transmit from an infected person to a non-infected person.
Imagine a disease that is 100% fatal and has the contagiousnes of the norovirus; that would be terrifying.
Especially considering that the 1918 flu managed to circle the globe in 18 months despite the fact that air travel was non-existent at the time.
I wonder how bad the ebola outbreaks will have to get before airlines stop / are stopped flying to affected regions.
Do not EVER read The Hot Zone if you are ill. Just sayin’.
There’s another flu that’s in living memory that was pretty serious, and caused a world pandemic, killing almost 70,000 people in the US in 1956-59, in spite of a vaccine being developed in 1957. It was the Asian flu, which mutated and reappeared about 10 years later as the Hong Kong flu. It’s not the Avian flu, but it was a zoonotic flu that began in domestic fowl, and literally didn’t know a species boundary. It even killed a tiger in a Thai zoo.
It’s the reason for the panic and stockpiling of vaccines in the 1970s over fear of its return, which never happened, and left President Ford with some egg (pun intended) on his face, and also started the first anti-vaccine panic in the US, when the fear of the flu proved to be unfounded, and a few people reported developing chronic fatigue after receiving the vaccine (something that was never proved either, but you know how anti-vaxxers can be).
I think the standard answer is that people are horrible at risk assessment. They fear dying in a plane crash while driving to work every day is much, much more likely to kill them. They fear dying of some obscure disease while they are much more likely to die from smoking, drinking and many many other every day activities. People don’t fear the flu because they think they know the risks (they don’t as other posters up thread have noted), while they fear ebola because they don’t understand the actual risks and thus can’t make a rational risk assessment (which, as the OP points out, is that you are much, much more likely to die from the flu than from ebola).
Well, frankly, anyone who doesn’t get a flu vaccine, and can, it foolish, but the flu is very preventable. You can still catch it if you have been vaccinated, but the odds are very low, and you will get an attenuated version of it, so if you live in the US, where there is usually plenty of vaccine available, there isn’t a lot of reason to fear the flu. If you have a child with asthma, and an allergy that prevents him from receiving a flu vaccine, you probably do, and rightly so, fear the flu.
There’s no vaccine for Ebola, no treatment, and you can be exposed to someone who is infected but asymptomatic, so it’s a bogeyman.
With the flu, there are lots of escape routes. People know when flu season is, so they take extra precautions with handwashing, and try to minimize the possibility of exposure. If they get exposed, and are vaccinated, they probably won’t get it, but if they do, there is a good chance they won’t get very sick, but if they do, there are lots of palliative treatments, and treatments to prevent secondary infections.
There aren’t any “but…ifs” with Ebola. Exposure = death. Now, that may not be precisely true, but that’s certainly the way it seems.
Personally, I fear Ebola more than the flu, but that doesn’t mean I worry about Ebola more than the flu. I don’t actually worry about Ebola at all, at least not personally. I don’t worry about the flu either, once I’m vaccinated, but I do wash my hands a lot.
This article suggests plausible reasons. Basically the combination of a disease that is dramatic in its fatality and the horrific nature of the symptoms, plus a popular mythology of pandemics that is fueled not so much by media as by movies and fiction. The reality side of this is that a mutation of something this potent that made it more transmittable and contagious is always possible.
Wolfpup’s link is a good article.
I read The Hot Zone and I get the fear.
your organs can turn to mush and you can bleed out of every orifice! :eek: so besides deadly and very painful, it’s horrific.
the flu we’ve had, can’t be as scary.
It was helped considerably by WWI. There is still some controversy about patient zero, but certainly the large scale infection developed on Army bases in the U.S., which brought first thousands and then millions of men from all over the country together and then shipped them off to various points in Europe where they came in contact with millions more people from a huge number of nations from all over the world. (The British especially brought in laborers from every country in the Commonwealth.) A highly unusual, probably unprecedented, 18 months.
[And several cogent posts in response]
Another point is that this particular bug lives quite compatably in its natural host resovior (some species of bats apparently) without killing them. They, and any other animal it spreads to (rats perhaps) that can be such a host, can spread it well to “accidental hosts” like humans even if kills all humans who get it with rapidity.
Now mind you I am not so worried about this bug as a worldwide pandemic possibility, but that point still should be made.
Ebola is not a big deal (yet) because it cannot transmit efficiently by air from person to person. (Ebola is highly contagious when in contact with body fluids, but apparently does not mutate that much.) Start worrying more about H5N1 instead. Now this is a virus with the capacity to bring this civilization to its knees. All it needs are a few more mutations.
I read an interview with an influential virologist during the H5N1 scare of 5 years ago:
So, it pays to worry about H5N1. Forget Ebola.
Ebola is legitimately scary because of the high mortality rate and gruesome (if sometimes exaggerated) effects.
Lots of people fear it because they worry it’s going to become the next global pandemic, but it’s not. It’s not particularly contagious (why flu is scary), and it’s not contagious before symptoms appear (why HIV is scary). It can spread where sanitation and medical care is poor, but it really is a third world disease. We tend not to give two shits about malaria, and if we want to be consistent we shouldn’t give even one shit to Ebola. But as mentioned earlier, people aren’t very good at risk assessment.
30 years ago but anyway I would rather have the flu or HIV than Ebola.
Ebola is a scary disease because it a furrener and dem are scarier than good old white fella flu.
It’s probably best if we work on both.