Laugh now. Shit's not gonna seem so funny in a couple of days. Nobody's died yet in the US? Big fucking deal. 80/1300 x 20= 1, hardly a statistically significant sample. This disease is likely to kill a lot of people. Perhaps you should hold off on the jokes for a little while? Or how about in deference to the people of Mexico, who have lost 80 already and are scared out of their minds?
Sven, you're usually very logical and enjoyable, but relax for a few. We don't know anything about this flu. Who knows what will happen with it? There's a difference between being vigilant and panicked, it's a fine line to tread too.
Leslie@5: respectfully, we do know quite a bit about this flu. We know (a) that it spreads easily from human to human, and (b) that it's killing otherwise healthy young adults. These two facts together make it the most serious epidemic to come along in decades (since AIDS or potentially longer.) This is in form the outbreak the SARS folks were worried about 5-6 years ago.
I agree that there is a fine line between vigilant and panicked, but sometimes a crisis comes along that demands quick, decisive action. This may be one of those times.
@8, true, true. I have a morbid interest in medicine, so I've been following it pretty closely and the 'killing otherwise healthy young adults' is worrisome to me (especially as a healthy 19 year old). WHO has been warning about this potential for awhile, too. It has potential and quick decisive action is what's needed.
I find my way around the internet and it's interesting that quite a few people have already started to be concerned, even panicked, about this. People in Scotland, England, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, Canada, and here in the States are wondering what's going to happen.
I'm just worried that undue panic won't be translated well into proper vigilance that could be productive against a potential pandemic. People will either be vigilant and productive or wallow in panic that has no place.
Paul's joke is at least a joke with a point to make about the true price of our bacon/meat fixation in general.
For instance, on the subject of meat related pathogens, if it wasn't the various strains of influenza we're facing now, it could just as well have been E. Coli, MRSA or Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis, all of which are spread through contact with livestock and fowl populations.
And then there is antibiotic resistance which occurs because the same antibiotic formulations used to fight human disease are preventively dosed to livestock and fowl to boost yields, resulting in the creation of antibiotic resistant strains of deadly bacteria.
Yet the incubation of killer epidemics is just the icing on the cake of the social cost of large scale meat production. Consider the energy inefficiency of beef production, which requires some 40 parts input energy for each part of food energy produced. Pork is somewhat more efficient, costing only 17 units of energy per unit of produced food energy. Compare this with the 1 to 3.2 ratio of energy input to food energy output for soybeans, a major plant-protein source.
Another thing, which may seem irrelevant now, but is slated to become a well known issue as population continues to outgrow limited supplies, is water consumption.
Beef uses some 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Compare this to Soybeans, which, though a relatively water hungry crop, use 1/50th of the water per kilogram of food.
Epidemics, global warming, petrol wars and water shortages suggest that mass produced meat isn't such a good idea.
Paul's post is very cogent if grist.org's reporting is accountable. Apparently,many in Central Mexico have been pointing the issue at polluted water runoff whose pollution source is from a pig slaughterhouse in Perote, Mexico owned by Smithfield Foods, an American company.
Posted by
Mackro Mackro on April 27, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Comments (18) RSS