politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Just gonna leave this here -- the recent fatality rate in humans is about 30%. There are a tiny number of data points but the point is, it looks to be more deadly than Covid was by quite a lot. And clickbaity news about the 2022 dolphin case aside, it's clearly everywhere, and able to jump to new mammal species readily.
Maybe I am missing something but assertion that the current public health risk is low seems to be based on more or less nothing. Why is the risk low? People are still working among animals some of whom are definitely infected, every day, in messy conditions. The consequences once it figures out how to spread person-to-person will be somewhere from moderate to apocalyptic, and what we're doing right now is clearly just half-measures to delay that happening by a little bit. Why is that low risk?
What matters more for public health risk is virility, and mortality tends to have a negative correlation with virility. In simpler terms, the more deadly it is the worse it is at spreading. It's not a hard rule but is true more often than not, though I don't know any details about avian flu. I assume if the CDC has determined the public health risk is low that it's probably because it's not particularly virile.
Do you mean transmissibility? I get what you mean, but I've never heard this word used this way. (Virulence is, more or less, the non-fatal version of mortality -- how much damage the disease does -- so not that.)
Be that as it may, once the disease is established in a new species it tends to get less harmful because of exactly what you're talking about -- but plenty of diseases through history have been in the short run both fast-spreading and deadly, especially right after they jump into a new population. Which is exactly what H5N1 is doing right now (on all three counts).
One of the reasons how deadly it is correlates to lower spreading is just how quickly deadly things kill.
If something like the original SARS had a 7 day infectious window before killing you things would have been very different.
I'd be interested to know how quickly it incapacitates humans, and how long you're infectious for.
Edit: changed infectious window, accidentally used a incubation period by mistake.
The risk is low because we have not yet detected a variant with the mutations needed to facilitate human to human spread. If we do it will jump from low to extreme very quickly.
"It is okay! The fire is only in the building next door along with the 10-15 others it spread to. Once we've detected it in our building, the risk won't be low anymore, of course."
(Edit: Actually, once it's spreading inside our building the risk won't be low -- we've already detected it in our building a couple of times, but it didn't spread so it's fine.)
That paragraph kind of reminds me of this...
~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
We could use a new Black Death to lower real estate and rent prices.
I am going to assume you don't really understand what it would mean if there was a pandemic with a 10-50% case fatality rate in the modern global economy where it would be on every single continent on earth in a matter of days. I can assure you that housing prices would be the last fucking thing on your mind.
It was a sardonic comment.
Yes, obviously the end of the world as we know it would be /extremely/ bad.
the world as I know it is a bit shit tbh
Yeah, but when the old world dies without a new one being born, we'll all yearn for the days of 'a bit shit'.
Fair enough, and thank you for clarifying. I was really hoping that was the case.