Article

2006-02-28 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-02-28 12:19|| || Front Page|| [11140 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Okay, you're on an island off the coast and looking for signs of bird flu. You find a dead feral cat. Do you test it for the H5N1 bird flu virus? There's something strange about this report.

Posted by Darrell 2006-02-28 13:42|| 2006-02-28 13:42|| Front Page Top

#2 So do we call it Cat Flu now?

Posted by BH 2006-02-28 13:52|| 2006-02-28 13:52|| Front Page Top

#3 Cat Scratch Fever

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2006-02-28 14:07|| 2006-02-28 14:07|| Front Page Top

#4 Nothing strange about it at all. What do you think feral cats eat?

Posted by Phil 2006-02-28 15:50|| 2006-02-28 15:50|| Front Page Top

#5 Okay, avian flu in cats. It turns out that this is not an isolated incident -- see this recent story regarding cats in Thailand.

Excerpt:
"Several studies have shown that a small number of mammalian species, including pigs, seals, whales, mink, and ferrets, are susceptible to natural infection with influenza viruses that are purely avian in their genetic make-up. Of these species, only the pig has significance for human health. Pigs can be co-infected with both avian and human influenza viruses and can thus serve as the mixing vessel for the mingling of genetic material, possibly resulting in the emergence of a new influenza virus subtype."

I conclude that this cats news is NOT "Really Bad Bird Flu News" as headlined.

Posted by Darrell 2006-02-28 16:59|| 2006-02-28 16:59|| Front Page Top

#6 Darrell: Domestic and feral cats are seen as a primary predator for small wild birds, and as such are high on the watch list. (Ironically, #1 on the list is ferrets, because their immune system is very close to humans. Finding a bunch of diseased and dead ferrets is "blue panic" time.)

Cats, however, are not that close to people as far as immune system goes, which is almost as bad. That means that the spectrum of animals affected by the avian flu could be very large.

Two other biggies are dogs, again because of their numbers and proximity to people; and horses, because of their closeness to humans with their immune system.

Finally you have pigs, ducks and geese, which are the worst of both worlds: close to humans in proximity, and in immune system, *and* numerous.

I can see why the medicos are lighting fires under politicians around the world. Can't say that we weren't warned.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-02-28 17:11|| 2006-02-28 17:11|| Front Page Top

#7 And yes, it is bad. The primary fear from animals is not that they would contribute to mutations. It is that they are "vectors" of the disease, catching it from and giving it to humans.

This being said, the US has 120 million feral and domestic cats eating infected dead birds, giving the disease to each other, and sharing it with their human owners. Even if dogs can't catch the disease, this provides an "end-around" for any quarantine that we might set up for people, *and* creates a lasting repository for the illness outside of human controls.

That is bad.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-02-28 17:17|| 2006-02-28 17:17|| Front Page Top

#8 A 'bird flu' pandemic requires the virus achieves sustained transmission in humans precisely once. That is the pandemic will result from a single animal/bird to human transmission. That transmission will almost certainly result from domestic chickens somewhere chickens and humans are in frequent close proximity.

The spread of 'bird flu' into the West and into domestic pets is irrelevant to the genesis of the pandemic.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-02-28 18:30|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-02-28 18:30|| Front Page Top

#9 This could easily be worse than the looming Peak Oil crisis or global warming. Especially for Prissy.

Posted by 6 2006-02-28 18:51|| 2006-02-28 18:51|| Front Page Top

#10 moose - it's always a DISASTER LOOMING! for you. I agree we need to watch it, but keep perspective dude

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-02-28 18:57|| 2006-02-28 18:57|| Front Page Top

#11 "That transmission will almost certainly result from domestic chickens somewhere chickens and humans are in frequent close proximity."
phil_b, you clearly either didn't read or didn't understand the article I linked. The mutation required is extremely unlikely to occur in chickens.

Posted by Darrell 2006-02-28 19:28|| 2006-02-28 19:28|| Front Page Top

#12 WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
---What do we do now?

Posted by Thrinetch Tholumble7024 2006-02-28 19:44|| 2006-02-28 19:44|| Front Page Top

#13 "So Foxy Loxy led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. He led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling."

Posted by Darrell 2006-02-28 20:15|| 2006-02-28 20:15|| Front Page Top

#14 My point is not the disease genesis. It is its spread. Once it happens there are three big factors: what animals carry the disease; what are the inter-species transmissions; and the virulences.

Say for example, only bird-to-cat happens. This means that a lot of birds die, and some cats die from eating birds. But if cat-to-cat happens in addition to bird-to-cat, then a LOT more cats die. But this alone doesn't effect people much at all.

However, we know that bird-to-human happens, which means that birds and some people die. If human-to-human happens in addition to bird-to-human it is a LOT worse for humans.

Now consider other animal vectors. If you also have cat-to-human, dog-to-human, etc., along with bird-to-human and human-to-human, the number of human fatalities jump.

The disease may not be equally dangerous in different species. It could be deadly in humans but cats, dogs or some kinds of birds might be able to carry the disease for months without dying or even getting seriously ill.

Normally, a flu progresses in two waves (why exactly is unknown), because it is usually limited to human-to-human only. But when you introduce an animal vector, the progression gets a lot less predictable. A two-year long epidemic? More?

Typically, the two main animal vectors are ducks and pigs, which is why most new flus happen in the Orient. They initially jump from ducks and pigs to people, but from there, they spread h2h only because there are far fewer animals to act as vectors in the rest of the world.

But cats and dogs are everywhere, not just on the farm. The immune system of cats is not like humans at all, and for them to catch the same flu that people can catch means that it is very capable, as diseases go, not just among birds, but among mammals as well.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-02-28 20:30|| 2006-02-28 20:30|| Front Page Top

#15 Wow, real thing against cats!

Vector spread is most likely fowl to human. That the cat might be infected will be well behind you. The jump will be from fowl and then the human to human infection will carry from there.

No cats really needed. Please don't start slaughtering them now.

Posted by Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-02-28 20:57|| 2006-02-28 20:57|| Front Page Top

#16

Posted by .com 2006-02-28 20:59|| 2006-02-28 20:59|| Front Page Top

#17 I knew there'd be something interesting from dot com.

Remember, the more deadly the faster it dies out. Don't ask me to explain it; think Ebola versus the common cold. Bird flu spreads quickly among avians because it does NOT kill them!

I read it in Scientific American.

I think.

Posted by Bobby 2006-02-28 21:50|| 2006-02-28 21:50|| Front Page Top

#18 The ticker's the best part of that one, IMHO.

Posted by .com 2006-02-28 21:53|| 2006-02-28 21:53|| Front Page Top

#19 PLANET OF THE APES? - see REVENGE OF.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-02-28 22:08|| 2006-02-28 22:08|| Front Page Top

#20 The problem with "new" diseases is that they start extra deadly, then have a typical curve to less deadly forms. However, that curve can be vicious. It can be drastic or very gradual.

For example, in the first introduced rabbit epidemic in Australia, well over 90% of the rabbits in the country died in the first season. An additional 4% or so in the second season. It was only after that, that the curve "kicked in", the rabbits becoming universally immune to the disease.

AIDS also has a curve, but while its curve is taking decades for the disease to decline in virulence, it is still rapid for its class, and also variable by geography and other factors.

Now, influenza is far from being as deadly as the rabbit plague, and people have all sorts of ways to limit its spread and human casualties. But it is terribly flexible in finding ways around natural and artificial limitations.

I am personally very aware of this, having had an interest in the subject of epidemics in general and killer flus in particular since the 1980s. I have interviewed survivors of the Spanish flu epidemic, and was really taken aback by the murderous nature of the thing.

When I mention this, the first response is usually that we know so much more today. However, while that is true as to the mechanisms of the flu, our biggest advance is in public health awareness. That is, personal hygiene and sanitation are our biggest advances.

The medical community was very aware of what we would call sanitary procedures back then, disinfectants and the like, but it still seemed that the disease was everywhere, and just wouldn't go away. The people of the time were far more familiar with epidemics of all sorts than we are today, and so actually were better prepared in that way.

Many of the better homes had isolation rooms for sick family members, and every doctor had available quarantine signs, and would post them quickly when there was an outbreak. People knew that if you couldn't resist pawing over your bereaved dead family member, you would probably be next.

So what am I talking about in practical terms?

In the US on average, a "normal" flu will kill from 30-50,000 people each year. That is typical. So what will a killer flu do? anywhere from 250k to perhaps half a million. That is pretty horrific, but represents only 1/600th of the US population.

If everything is worst case scenario for the killer flu, we could lose as many as 2-5 million people. Maximum 1/60th of the population, at a very liberal estimate.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-02-28 23:04|| 2006-02-28 23:04|| Front Page Top

23:55 2b
23:46 Pappy
23:43 2b
23:35 2b
23:28 2b
23:25 2b
23:04 DMFD
23:04 Anonymoose
23:03 Alaska Paul
23:00 DMFD
22:56 DMFD
22:41 N guard
22:34 Listen To Dogs
22:27 Listen To Dogs
22:23 .com
22:23 mom
22:20 phil_b
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:11 Old Patriot
22:08 JosephMendiola
22:08 Hupomoger Clans9827
22:07 C-Low
22:05 .com
22:04 JosephMendiola