Schneier on Security

Roxanne • October 27, 2005 12:45 AM

The comments that this post has generated are quite interesting, but some are not quite correct in facts. The 1918 Spanish flu was mutated from a bird flu, and did kill anywhere from 40-100 million people. However, the actual mortality rate was quite low–the virus killed, overall, less than 5% of the people it infected. It was very contagious, but not very virulent. A lot of people were infected, which is why the death toll was so high.

Surprised? Yes, many people are. And one reason for the high rate of infection was laxity in public health services. Plus, a war was on, and the flu proliferated in crowded army bases and trenches.

As far as the bird flus of 1957 and 1968, they did not cause a pandemic, and a huge death toll. The mortality rates were a little bit higher than the average flu season, but they most certainly did not cause the scenario that is being portrayed right now.

As far as this bird flu goes, it first passed from chicken to person in 1997. It is very diffucult to catch from birds at the moment. Since 2003, about 120 cases have been confirmed with 60 deaths. Out of hundreds of millions of people (ever been in an Asian city???) who have been exposed to the virus, only 120 odd cases. The cases occured in those who have had very close contact with infected birds, like those who partake in drinking blood from raw infected ducks! And the high death toll is largely attributed to substandard medical care in many of these countries, as well as getting medical care too late.

Does the avian flu present a potential for a pandemic? Yes, of course, but the key word here is potential. Should we improve our public health system? Of course. Should we be aware of the bird flu and maybe take practical steps, like improving conditions on poultry farms to keep chickens healthier and less likely to catch the flu? Of course.

But do we need this over-hype in the media? No. And that’s what it is. In the meantime, while the isolated cases of flu in birds is being picked up, the number of human cases is not growing, nor is the death rate.

Roxanne • October 27, 2005 4:31 PM

Ah, the backlash to my post about a 5% mortality rate. Before all of you get your knickers in a twist, I should explain that while 5% is high for influenza, it is quite low compared to what most people think the death rate was for the Spanish flu. Many think it was akin to Ebola, and that 90% or more of people infected with it died. The general thinking is that the Spanish flu was so deadly that virtually everyone died. And that was not the case. The 5% rate may be high for the flu, but is a low rate compared to what the public perceives about the Spanish flu.

I would say that many think that the Spanish flu was similar to the bubonic plague, which probably killed better than 50% of those infected. Especially in its most virulent form, the pneumonic plague–which has an extremely high mortality rate.

Thank you, Ian, for your enlightenment about the death toll. I already mentioned it in my previous post, that the reason so many died was because so many were infected. And you have to take the time period into consideration, when looking at the death toll. The officials in the US, for example, tried to ignore the outbreak of flu; patients were not isolated, no quarantines, public parades and other large gatherings were not cancelled, etc, so it spread very quickly. Due to the war, there were large groups of people gathered together very tightly, as in army bases and the soldiers in the trenches. You also had a breakdown of healthcare services throughout Europe. And the virus also made its way to very densely populated areas in Asia, where healthcare was nil.

“Look at New Orleans for lessons in ignoring real threats. Look at Iraq for lessons in fighting imaginary threats. And, realise how important it is to get your threat assessment right.”

New Orleans didn’t ignore the real threats. Truth be known, Ian, thousands of people had no method of getting out of the city. The poor lacked transportation, and even if they could escape, had nowhere to go. The govt was well aware that a sizable portion of the city’s population was stuck, and they did not provide any assistance. The vast majority of those who could leave, did so.

Also, money had been cut (thank you George Bush) from projects meant to strengthen and improve the levies in NO, money cut from projects to stop the erosion and build up the area, and so on. So people were well aware of the prcarious situation in NO. That the city was not ready had nothing to do with ignoring the threat.

So I still stand by what I said. A 5% mortality rate is not high, when compared with previous disease outbreaks that have plagued the earth. And the other two outbreak of a bird flu derived human influenza did not cause a pandemic, or come remotely close to it. We should be aware of it, that it COULD happen, but the experts who are talking gloom and doom and giving their projected death rates should be muzzled. The bird flu is extremely difficult to catch at this time–unless you think that 120 cases over a two year time period, out of probably 500 million exposures (at least) indicates a very contagious disease.