The World Forum - Political Forums

Nonpartisan political forums. Political blogs. International news.

Discuss and debate political, cultural, social and environmental issues.

submit story | sections | topics | your account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | RSS
] International %% Africa %% Asia %% Australia/Oceania Europe %% North America %% South America %% Blogs %% Site Talk ]

 Bird Flu May Kill Millions of People


Health & Medicine

By QuickFox (Sweden), Section International
Posted on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:42:36 AM PST

A bird flu that is widespread among Asian birds, and very lethal to humans, may acquire the ability to spread easily from human to human. If this happens we may get a pandemic (a worldwide epidemic) that could kill anywhere between 2 and 100 million people worldwide. Some cases of contagion from human to human have already been recorded.

A flu in 1918 that may have been similar killed between 20 and 50 million people. Major flu pandemics occur roughly every 20 years, and the last one was in 1968, so it could be argued that a new outbreak is overdue.

The affected Asian countries have huge costs trying to prevent the outbreak. Who should pay for this?

It's impossible to stockpile medicine for everyone. Who will get medicine?

The flu that may threaten us was first discovered a few years ago among poultry in Asia. In an attempt to contain its spread, last year the governments of several Asian countries ordered the destruction of millions of domestic chicken, ducks, geese and turkeys. In spite of this, later it was discovered that the flu was so widespread, both among domestic and wild birds, that it is unlikely to ever be eradicated.

It is very difficult to assess the risk that the virus may mutate so that it spreads easily from human to human. The risk may be high, because different kinds of flu viruses mix and exchange genes all the time -- this is why we get new outbreaks of flu every year.

To prevent further contagion to humans, more poultry must be destroyed. Viet Nam has even banned all duck and goose farming. This represents a great economic setback to farmers and to the entire local economy. If they don't get compensation, many will keep their poultry, to keep from starving, and the flu is more likely to spread to humans and mutate. Since this is important to everyone around the globe, and rich countries have far more resources than the affected countries, it seems reasonable that rich countries contribute significantly to these costs.

If the flu starts spreading as a pandemic, its deadly effects can be greatly diminished if people take a flu medication called oseltamivir, sold under the brand name Tamiflu. This medicine would have to be produced and stockpiled beforehand, because when the pandemic has started it's too late. Once you show symptoms you must start medication in two days.

Doctors recommend that people do not stockpile Tamiflu at home, because if it's used incorrectly, viruses may develop resistance, so that when the pandemic appears the medicine has very little effect. Then the death toll will be much greater. Therefore they recommend that the medicine be stockpiled by the health system.

Recently it was reported in Sweden that some Swedish doctors have stockpiled Tamiflu at home for themselves and their families. If doctors don't trust the health system, can others be expected to trust it?

Bird flu has now been in the news for a few days in Sweden, and now all the stocks of Tamiflu in Sweden's capital Stockholm have been sold, not a single package can be found in any of the pharmacies. This means that sensitive people who need the medicine to overcome ordinary flu, primarily the elderly, cannot get the medication they need.

Tamiflu is expensive. Stockpiling sufficient quantities so that every citizen can take them in a pandemic would be hugely expensive. Tamiflu can only be stored for a few years, so if there is no outbreak in that time the investment has been wasted, and new stockpiles must be bought. One solution may be to only stockpile quantities that are sufficient for key personnel who are essential to the continued functioning of society, such as medical personnel, garbage collectors and government officials. Burning questions arise. Is such selection ethical? Who is essential?

Because of the high costs, perhaps only rich countries can stockpile quantities that are sufficient to contain the pandemic. However, it might make more sense to stockpile the medicines in those Asian countries where the flu is widespread among birds, so that the spread can be contained at its source, and we don't get any pandemic at all. If this can indeed stop the pandemic, millions of lives could be spared. But of course we are only human, and therefore we will think first of ourselves.

That's assuming Tamiflu can limit the spread of the disease. It is not yet clear whether it can do that. It's quite possible that it will only alleviate the symptoms, without affecting its spread. If so, the only medicine that can limit the spread will be a vaccine. Unfortunately, production of a reliable vaccine can only be started after the outbreak, when the virus has been identified. Exploring this, and then developing, testing and producing large quantities of vaccine, may take many months.

A less reliable vaccine can probably be developed, produced and stockpiled beforehand. This would be a vaccine against the virus that exists today. Unfortunately, since the virus that produces the pandemic will be a mutated version, there is no guarantee that such a vaccine will be effective.

We should not panic. Health experts point out that so far only very few cases of people contracting the virus have been confirmed, even though millions of people in Asia are handling poultry all the time. WHO, the World Health Organization, has confirmed only 55 cases worldwide of humans infected with this flu in the period from January 28, 2004, to February 2, 2005. And in the very few confirmed cases of contagion from human to human, so far the experts have never seen the swift and easy contagion that could spell worldwide danger.

However, of those 55 known and confirmed cases, 42 died from the illness. That's three out of every four patients.

What's your opinion?
Welcome to our discussion below!
(Free signup required to post comments.)

Advertisement

Coming soon!

The world could use more dialogue about its differences — a little understanding goes a long way. There are many online forums where people with different perspectives yell at each other and hurl abuse. There aren't so many where completely different points of view are expressed rationally and constructively. That's why The World Forum was created.
Display: Sort:
Pandemic Response (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by you look like a nail (Canada) on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 04:10:38 PM PST

I would think that affluent western nations should contribute to preventative measures in east Asia, but I also believe that countries should be primarily concerned with the protection of their own populations in the event of a pandemic event.

Canada's national health department has treated the possibility of a pandemic outbreak as a major priority and has established a very comprehensive plan, which can be found here.  It outlines measures to ensure the availability of vaccination against influenza, with 100% coverage within 4 months of the outbreak, prioritized for health care workers and high vulnerability groups.  

It is difficult to say whether a pandemic at this point in time would be worse than the one in 1919.  The speed of transmission would be increased due to greater interconnection between countries and greater mobility of populations between countries and continents, but we have better medical technology and our governments have had the opportunity to plan and prepare for the possibility of an outbreak.  

However, of the 55 confirmed cases, 42 died from the illness. That's three out of every four patients.

In the majority of those cases, diagnosis of the disease took place very late, sometimes after the patient had died.  When the cause was identified early, patient survival was much more likely.  Presumably if a pandemic is occurring, diagnosis of the cause of an individual illness will be rapid.  I would expect that, during an actual pandemic, fatality rates would be much lower, although it does depend on the ability of government health care organizations to respond effectively.

-- Your Reality Check is in the mail.

Priorities (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by QuickFox (Sweden) on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:31:46 PM PST

although it does depend on the ability of government health care organizations to respond effectively.

The Swedish health authority has made a priority list where sensitive people, like children and the elderly, have the first position and health workers only have the second position. I think that's a mistake.

If health workers start dying from the disease, this might cause a scare, health workers might fear for their life and stop working in such numbers that the health care system collapses.

I don't think there will be much practical difference between first and second place, medicine will be available for both those groups. But I really think health workers should get the very best protection and medication that is available, before any other group, so they don't fear going to work.

-- Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
[ Parent ]

Health care workers (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by you look like a nail (Canada) on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 06:56:04 AM PST

Canada had some trouble with SARS recently and the experience highlighted both the lack of preparation on the part of the government to deal with a serious outbreak of disease, and the lack of concern paid to the health of health care workers.  I think that those events lit a fire under Health Canada.  

From my reading of the plan, it sounds like health care workers are first in line to be treated, followed by high risk groups.  Who is in a high risk group depends on the disease and its infection patterns, but would probably include children and the elderly.  I think this makes a great deal of sense.  I wouldn't ask someone to continually expose themselves to the risk of disease, in the interests of my safety and the well being of my loved ones, without doing whatever I could to see to their own well being.

-- Your Reality Check is in the mail.
[ Parent ]

New findings (none / 0) (#14)
by QuickFox (Sweden) on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:08:53 PM PST

There are now reports that human infection with bird flu may be more widespread than previously thought, and symptoms may be more varied, making diagnosis more difficult.

-- Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.


Login

Username:
Password:

Signup to post comments, to vote on story submissions and to set preferences.

create account | faq | search