Display:
There seems to be a trade off between infection rates and mortality. My guess is that mortality is high when the virus action is genetically very specific, which is why famiilies often go down together, but neighbours don't.

Not that a highly infectious variant with 'only' 10% or 20% mortality wouldn't be a terrible thing.

But the early variants of H5N1 were showing 80% mortality even with world class intensive care. If that's down to 50% after a couple of years, that's almost encouraging.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 08:35:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
There seems to be a trade off between infection rates and mortality.
The most virulent strands die off because they kill the hosts too quickly to infect other hosts.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 08:36:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
However, the 1918 influenza episode infected about half of the global population. If the mortality rate is 50% and the infection rate is 50%, 25% of the global population dies. This is comparable to the effect of the plague in Europe.
by asdf on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 08:59:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series