From "FluWiki" today:
UK - yesterday's parliamentry debate on pandemic proposals.
http://www.publications.parlia...
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I declare a personal interest, as my wife is a director of public health.
I first questioned the attack and fatality rates in the Department's assumptions last July, so I very much welcome a fresh look at those assumptions.
Why is the Government's worst-case fatality rate still only 2.5 per cent., given that among humans catching the avian variant the fatality rate is in excess of 50 per cent., and given that the Department has accepted that there are no comparable statistics for the precursors of earlier epidemics?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State work with Ministers in the Department for International Development to increase production capacity in south-east Asia for pre-pandemic antiviral treatment, which might help to suppress an outbreak at source and increase global capacity for antiviral production?
Alan Johnson: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that
we are following the best scientific advice, which is still that the upper level for deaths will be 2.5 per cent. of those affected by the pandemic.
That remains the case, and that is the reasonable worst-case scenario.
To take absolute precautions on the reasonable worst-case scenario, and ensure that we have what we call defence in-depth, we should move from 25 per cent. coverage to at least 50 per cent. coverage. The scientific advice is very much with us on that. The mortality rate remains 2.5 per cent. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speak to his hon. Friend the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who can explore the issues when we gather with the experts, but that still remains the best scientific evidence, and I must be guided by that evidence.
<HR align=left width="50%">
by: UK - Bird @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 04:44:41 AM CST
______
Mr. Martin Horwood make a very good point for an novel pandemic in today world:
"there are no comparable statistics for the precursors of earlier epidemics"
But the answer he got is:
"... we are following the best scientific advice, which is still that the upper level for deaths will be 2.5 per cent. of those affected by the pandemic."
Stil, the answer to him later continue with:
"... ensure that we have what we call defence in-depth, we should move from 25 per cent. coverage to at least 50 per cent. coverage."
_____
Will be nice to see published that "ultimate research scientific proof" that an novel pandemic flu virus MUST have CFR<2,5%.
UK - yesterday's parliamentry debate on pandemic proposals.
http://www.publications.parlia...
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I declare a personal interest, as my wife is a director of public health.
I first questioned the attack and fatality rates in the Department's assumptions last July, so I very much welcome a fresh look at those assumptions.
Why is the Government's worst-case fatality rate still only 2.5 per cent., given that among humans catching the avian variant the fatality rate is in excess of 50 per cent., and given that the Department has accepted that there are no comparable statistics for the precursors of earlier epidemics?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State work with Ministers in the Department for International Development to increase production capacity in south-east Asia for pre-pandemic antiviral treatment, which might help to suppress an outbreak at source and increase global capacity for antiviral production?
Alan Johnson: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that
we are following the best scientific advice, which is still that the upper level for deaths will be 2.5 per cent. of those affected by the pandemic.
That remains the case, and that is the reasonable worst-case scenario.
To take absolute precautions on the reasonable worst-case scenario, and ensure that we have what we call defence in-depth, we should move from 25 per cent. coverage to at least 50 per cent. coverage. The scientific advice is very much with us on that. The mortality rate remains 2.5 per cent. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speak to his hon. Friend the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who can explore the issues when we gather with the experts, but that still remains the best scientific evidence, and I must be guided by that evidence.
<HR align=left width="50%">
by: UK - Bird @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 04:44:41 AM CST
______
Mr. Martin Horwood make a very good point for an novel pandemic in today world:
"there are no comparable statistics for the precursors of earlier epidemics"
But the answer he got is:
"... we are following the best scientific advice, which is still that the upper level for deaths will be 2.5 per cent. of those affected by the pandemic."
Stil, the answer to him later continue with:
"... ensure that we have what we call defence in-depth, we should move from 25 per cent. coverage to at least 50 per cent. coverage."
_____
Will be nice to see published that "ultimate research scientific proof" that an novel pandemic flu virus MUST have CFR<2,5%.