Re: Probability of H5N1 Pandemic within 5 years?
As for Goju's question, I don't so much see my main mission in getting some few people
in my direct neighborhood prepared. That would be really minute compared to the
whole of mankind who is threatened by a pandemic.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o
></o>
I agreed, but the meaning was that if we can do nothing globally ? than we try to do something locally, even if we know that this is globally useless, because we cannot do anything else.<o></o>
If this is not acceptable for us, individually, than we must forget everything and start to "playing a cetra in Rome", like Shannon(?) said in this thread.<o></o>
I want to contribute to provide the masses and politicians with the info to reasonably
estimate the real risk with many expert probability estimates and ongoing dispute
and improvement about this - the best what we can do to estimate the risk.<o></o>
<o></o>
I understand your position to get an "the best estimated" pandemic risk, but I think that we will not see it officially till the "thing" will start worldwide.
<o></o>
From one your previous post at this thread we can extract some factors "why":<o></o>
the downside of overpreparing is, that it costs money.
When you say better monitoring,better helth care, better supply chains ,
then yes, of course. But how much better ?
How much should we invest into monitoring,health care,supply chains now ?
Give 3 numbers. And which budgets would you cut to finance it ?
And even more important, how would you convince the politicians about it ?
My suggestion : probability estimates and damage expectation values by
expert-panels. You could hardly argue against that. It's the best what we
can do concerning prediction of the risks and thus evaluating the proper
amount of preparation needed.
___
"if we can do nothing globally ? than we try to do something locally, even if we know that this is globally useless" -<o></o>
<o></o>- If we don't wan't try to do anything, than we must accept that:
things will going on at the same way by the same inner circles of peoples who now can decide what to do, or people that probably "don't think pandemic will happen", or "don't care about, till it came", because there are realy so much, and so various other problems now (ever) to resolve, and money is needed. The "same old story".
And nothing will change without the decision of those (globaly, or localy), we could had 1000 discussions about in the mean-time...
<o></o>
As long as people simply refuse to work on quantifying the risk, they
have no legitimation to call for preparation, to issue warnings but also
to dismiss it as hysteria.<o></o>
<o></o>
Why we have not an joint statement from the world scientific community - like for a climate change? <o></o>
See that only a few scientist debate about pandemic on the web by real names? Why?<o></o>
When this will changed, than maybe we can expect an official pandemic estimate.<o></o>
As for Goju's question, I don't so much see my main mission in getting some few people
in my direct neighborhood prepared. That would be really minute compared to the
whole of mankind who is threatened by a pandemic.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>I agreed, but the meaning was that if we can do nothing globally ? than we try to do something locally, even if we know that this is globally useless, because we cannot do anything else.<o
></o>If this is not acceptable for us, individually, than we must forget everything and start to "playing a cetra in Rome", like Shannon(?) said in this thread.<o
></o>I want to contribute to provide the masses and politicians with the info to reasonably
estimate the real risk with many expert probability estimates and ongoing dispute
and improvement about this - the best what we can do to estimate the risk.<o
></o><o
></o>I understand your position to get an "the best estimated" pandemic risk, but I think that we will not see it officially till the "thing" will start worldwide.
<o
></o>From one your previous post at this thread we can extract some factors "why":<o
></o>the downside of overpreparing is, that it costs money.
When you say better monitoring,better helth care, better supply chains ,
then yes, of course. But how much better ?
How much should we invest into monitoring,health care,supply chains now ?
Give 3 numbers. And which budgets would you cut to finance it ?
And even more important, how would you convince the politicians about it ?
My suggestion : probability estimates and damage expectation values by
expert-panels. You could hardly argue against that. It's the best what we
can do concerning prediction of the risks and thus evaluating the proper
amount of preparation needed.
___
"if we can do nothing globally ? than we try to do something locally, even if we know that this is globally useless" -<o
></o><o
></o>- If we don't wan't try to do anything, than we must accept that:things will going on at the same way by the same inner circles of peoples who now can decide what to do, or people that probably "don't think pandemic will happen", or "don't care about, till it came", because there are realy so much, and so various other problems now (ever) to resolve, and money is needed. The "same old story".
And nothing will change without the decision of those (globaly, or localy), we could had 1000 discussions about in the mean-time...
<o
></o>As long as people simply refuse to work on quantifying the risk, they
have no legitimation to call for preparation, to issue warnings but also
to dismiss it as hysteria.<o
></o><o
></o>Why we have not an joint statement from the world scientific community - like for a climate change? <o
></o>See that only a few scientist debate about pandemic on the web by real names? Why?<o
></o>When this will changed, than maybe we can expect an official pandemic estimate.<o
></o>
