> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:13 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Bird flu movie > > The acting was bad, the plot had some major holes, > some of the science was more-than-iffy - but it was > interesting to watch, and if it made people think > ahead just a little bit, that might actually be > helpful: > > http://www.webmd.com/content/article/121/114487.htm > ...ABC's Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America is > fiction. It presents a worst-of-worst-cases scenario > of what might happen in a pandemic of deadly, highly > contagious bird flu. > > Could what happens in the movie really take place? > Laurie Garrett, senior fellow for global health at the > Council of Foreign Relations, was a script consultant > for the movie (at her request, her name does not > appear in the movie credits). She's seen an advance > screening. > > "The film is very grim. But I don't think it is > sensationalistic," Garrett tells WebMD. "I didn't > think they exaggerated, but it is a worst-case > scenario. A virulent, highly contagious flu comes to > America. There is no viable vaccine on tap. The drugs > have limited or no efficacy. There are shortages of > essential supplies and goods that become acute later > in the epidemic..." > > Debbi > who has ~ 2 weeks worth of food on-hand, and could > probably hold out for 4 if necessary (but would likely > end up working at a temp hospital if a true pandemic occurred)
I didn't see the movie but did see the ABC nightline on the facts. I was also in this debate before, and have looked up some facts. They had some of the real life counterparts of people in the movie (the secretary of HHS and the governor of Virginia, as well as CDC scientists on Nightline. The most criticized part of the show was the end, when the second wave of the flu killed 100%. The CDC scientist said while nothing was impossible in biology, this was very very unlikely. That makes sense. If such things happened once every 100,000 years, the odds on humans still being here would be rather low. If the 1918 flu epidemic is the template for the next one, then the death rates are vastly overstated. In some countries, the death rate approached 10%. But, in the US it was less than 1%...0.6% IIRC. I'd argue that the state of medicine and nutrition had a lot to do with the difference. Further, we'd probably lose fewer people now than we did then for the same type of pandemic because: 1) We have better nutrition and general health. Few are starving in the US. 2) We don't have rampant TB. If you look at the TB deaths in the years following the flu, they dropped noticeably. One argument was that the flu resulted in an "early harvest" of TB deaths of people who appeared fairly healthy but had TB. 3) We are much better prepared to fight bacterial pneumonia, etc. than we were before 1920. 4) We do have some Tamiflu.....by 2008 it will be enough to dose an expected 25% infection rate. Given this, it's probable that the death rate from a pandemic that's the equivalent of the Spanish flu would be lower. I'd guess to the 0.25% level or so. It's harder to speculate on worse flu's, but if the exponential tail rule for pandemics works like the symptoms rule (30% get sick, 4% get very sick but only 0.6% died), then a death rate of >1% would require a once in a millennium flu or worse. It doesn't mean that it won't be a problem. Our standards for governmental response to a crisis is much higher than it was in the early 20th century, and I'd expect the response to fall short. Even if we have a US full of New Orleans, we should not expect a 1% death rate. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
