Branswell On the CFR Of H5N1

 

 

Credit CDC PHIL  - BSL-4 Lab Worker

# 6143

 

 

Yesterday we saw an article in Nature by Declan Butler that looked at the evidence (for and against) a high CFR (case fatality ratio) for the H5N1 virus (see Declan Butler On the CFR Of H5N1).

 

This, as you probably know, has been a major topic of debate in recent weeks as the controversy over H5N1 research in ferrets roils on. Some researchers maintain that the virus is not nearly as dangerous as others have portrayed.

 

Helen Branswell weighs in with her own highly informative piece, which appears in Scientific American today. 

Follow the link to read:

 

Dread Reckoning: H5N1 Bird Flu May Be Less Deadly to Humans Than Previously Thought--or Not

Are fears of human-to-human transmitted bird flu overblown or does it make sense, based on current fatality rates, to anticipate a worst-case scenario for a future outbreak of H5N1 flu?

By Helen Branswell  | February 14, 2012

Branswell On The New trH3N2 Flu Virus

 

H3N2 influenza virions –CDC PHIL 

# 5989

 

 

Helen Branswell has an article this morning in Scientific American on the trH3N2  swine flu viruses that have recently been found in a handful of patients across Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Maine.

 

Since no one does this sort of thing better than Helen, I’m going to do the smart thing and just step aside and invite you to read:

 

 

New Flu Strain Makes Health Experts Nervous

Is a new strain of H3N2 swine flu a danger to public health or just to the reputations of public health experts?

By Helen Branswell  | December 2, 2011

 

 

For some of my earlier coverage of this story, you may wish to revisit:

 

CIDRAP: New Details In The trH3N2 Story

Pseudo Pandemics And Viral Interlopers

CDC Update On trH3N2 Swine Infections

 

SciAm: Excerpts From Nathan Wolfe’s `Viral Storm’

 

 

# 5891

 

Nathan Wolfe is a field virologist . . . a virus hunter . . . who hopes his work, and those of his colleagues, will reveal the identity of the next deadly virus to jump species from animals to humans.

 

Dr. Wolfe founded and directs the  Global Viral Forecasting Initiative (GVFI), a collaboration of more than 100 scientists worldwide who work to serve as a pandemic early warning system.

 

I’ve called Wolfe the `Indiana Jones of Virology’ because he spends about half of each year tramping around the jungles of Africa looking for next doomsday virus (see Nathan Wolfe And The Doomsday Strain).

 

In 2008 the New York Times ran a major story (see Deep In The Rain Forest, Stalking the Next Pandemic) on Dr. Wolfe’s work, and you can learn more from his inspiring 2009 TED TALK  Video Link.

 

 

 

Today Scientific American has excerpts from Dr. Wolfe’s new book, The Viral Storm: The Dawn of a New Pandemic Age, published on October 11th.  Follow the link to read:

 

How an Interconnected Planet Is Fueling the Brewing Viral Storm

In his new book, award-winning biologist and author Nathan Wolfe​ examines the origins and spread of viruses around the globe

For more on the book, and an audio interview with Dr. Wolfe, visit:

 

The Viral Storm

The Dawn of a New Pandemic Age

SciAm: What Will The Next Influenza Pandemic Look Like?

 

# 5853

 

 

Last week in Malta, many scientists from around the world gathered for the 4th ESWI (European Scientific Working group on Influenza) Influenza Conference, where the latest research was shared.  

 

Today, Katherine Harmon has a terrific roundup of views from some some of the world’s most respected virologists.  We hear from such familiar names as Ab Osterhaus, Frederick Hayden, Ron Fouchier, and Malik Peiris . . .  to name just a few.

 

There is too much good content to synopsize, so I’ll just step out of the way, and invite you to read:

 

 

What Will the Next Influenza Pandemic Look Like?

Predicting pandemics might still be impossible, but with millions of lives at stake, researchers are using the latest science and lessons from history to best prepare for the next big one

By Katherine Harmon  | September 19, 2011

Referral: In Science We Trust

 

 

# 4925

 

 

Scientific American, in partnership with Nature, have conducted a fascinating poll of their (largely science literate) readers on how much they trust what scientists say about different topics.

 

Given the readership of these two publications, it isn’t terribly surprising that most tend to find modern science reasonably trustworthy . . .  the surprises come when you drill down into the data and see how different regions view scientific opinions on different topics.

 

Topics like the safety of nuclear energy, GM (genetically modified) crops, nanotechnology, and yes . . . even pandemics.

 

Luckily, this data isn’t presented in dull, hard-to-decipher table form.  The authors have put together numerous graphic representations of the results.

 

I’ll not give any of this away and spoil it. Instead, I’ll simply give you the link to follow and read it yourself.

 

In Science We Trust: Poll Results on How You Feel about Science

Our Web survey of readers suggests that the scientifically literate public still trusts its experts—with some important caveats

 

 

Given the level of anti-science hysteria on the Internet, I’ve little doubt that a poll of the general public would produce somewhat less reassuring data for the world’s scientists.

 

Nevertheless, I  found this to be an extremely interesting survey.

Highly recommended.