Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken G
I... Can you confirm:
1) there should be a maximum-threat kill percentage, perhaps near the 5% (?) of the 1918 virus (too high and the virus can't spread quickly enough to cause a pandemic, too low and it won't lead to that many deaths).
|
Well there are many factors involved so one cannot look at a single factor in isolation. HIV is close to 100% fatal and look how far it is spreading.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken G
2) the people who die from a virus are less of a threat to the overall population than those with immunity, as the latter are more responsible for its spread. Not that I mean to imply any culpability or blame, we all spread viruses and it's not anyone's fault unless done intentionally.
|
Again, it depends on period of communicability, rate of viral shedding, number of contacts with susceptible persons and so on. With SARS there were certain individuals that shed a lot more virus than others. Whether or not they lived or died may not have had much affect on the number of persons they infected.
Quote:
|
Also, I wonder if the issue with birds might go beyond the genetic relationships to humans, to include the simple fact that birds fly? Since people fly now, a lot more than in 1918 (thuogh not as much as birds of course), maybe birds are not as crucial a component of the equation going forward?
|
Once a flu pandemic begins in humans, birds no longer play a role. And the fact we have air travel now will definitely have an impact should we get a virus similar to 1918 influenza.