topicolo said:
Would you say the same thing if the virus killed 10-20 people living in the poorest neighbourhoods in Washington DC or LA? Gee, it only killed some people who would've shot each other anyway, who cares? What makes diseases you and I may get more worthy of research attention?
[sarcasm]Why not, it seems to have been the mantra of the government and some people back in the 1980's with the HIV virus. [/sarcasm]
Either way, if we used your line of thinking and abandoned research in creating vaccines for the H5N1 virus because there wouldn't be any money in it, we would be screwed when this virus mutates and incorporates the better transmission mechanisms of more common flu viruses such as airborne transmission (which there are already circumstantial signs of). We would be sitting ducks for a global pandemic where half of the infected people die of this disease because of its special ability to replicate extremely quickly in the lungs, killing its victims by pneumonia. The last case of a global flu pandemic, the Spanish flu of 1918, killed between 20 to 40 million people without even the advanced forms of transportation we have today such as airplanes, which would make the next pandemic even more deadly and faster spreading.
The Spanish Flu of 1918 is the reason that the H5N1 virus is being taken seriously as a world wide threat.
cantthinkofone said:
Im not saying we should abandon research on the virus, im just saying they seem to be over-hyping it a little to much in my opinion. Back in 1918 we hardly knew any thing about diseases compared to today. Im sure simple quarantines would slow down the virus, if not stop the virus in its tracks.
Don't sell short the medical knowledge of that time period. Is there media hype? Yes. Hype sells advertising. But the threat is real.
Things have changed since 1918. We have many more pharmaceuticals to treat and vaccinate than they did back then. But viruses are smart, they can mutate over time. We are seeing more diseases that are resistant to current treatments because of use of drugs over time.
It could be a very short time for the H5N1 virus to mutate, so as to make human to human spreading possible.
Quarantines sounds simple enough. But by the time someone presents symptoms of H5N1 infection, they could have spread it 10 other people. And they then each spread it to 10 other people each.
You could easily have 25% of the population under quarantine, with certain death being the result. The effect on the world economy would be devastating. Not to mention how do you quarantine the infected? Even if only 10% of the population presented symptoms, where do you put them? How do you provide treatment?
And i think it is safe to say that most drug companies are in it for the money. If the disease is cured, then how are they to make money if no one is sick with it? I would bet my life (as much as its worth compared to the next guy) that there has been a cure for cancer for a few years. Isn't cancer the biggest disease in the world apart from AIDs and HIV? I have known a few people with cancer. Three that i know of. Two survived it, one died after she thought she was curved.
Wish it were that simple. Sort of like the technology that Detroit has been sitting on for years that would give the Hummer the same power, but 50mpg's.
There is money in a cure, as well as a treatment.
Im not trying to spark a conspiracy about the drug manufactures. They have done a lot for the world. But after generations of the business being passed down from grandfather, to son, to grand-son, the goal to help people, and make enough profit to pay off all the bills, and have some left over for your self, is probably switched. Money is the main goal. If they help a few people along the way then good deal. I guess you could tie it back to kings and emperors. The king or emperor might have been a great leader, and his son or daughter might have been great too, but what happens when the grand son/daughter or great grand son/daughter is born into such wealth, and power. They want more of it. Then the dynasty falls and a new one comes around and the cycle starts all over again.
I understand where you are coming from, even if I don't fully agree.
I do think that "profit" has over ruled basic common sense. Look at the drop in Apple stock, even though they did do well - but not up to some "experts" expectations.
My following comments may push this thread even further towards the Political Forum; but here I go. I believe that the "basics of life" should not be subject to profiteering. Meaning that food, housing, medical care, utilities, and the such should not be rewarded to the levels that we have allowed it to be in todays world.
If this concept had been in place, there would never have been the Enron scandal. Drug companies do see some profits off of research that has been government funded through our tax dollars. They also show some profit off of the system of healthcare we have in the US as opposed to other countries. Why is that some drugs are far cheaper in Canada than here in the US?
Much of this reminds me of "the money changers in the temple". I just hope we are truly judged on our final day, by the good deeds we have performed.
