• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Vallat - OIE Remarks Clarified

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Please.
WHO is looking for reassortment with HUMAN flu genes, which has never happened for H5N1. Therefore it is "stable".
When it was done in the lab by the CDC, nothing interesting happened then either.
Consequently, WHO, the CDC, and consultants are not as interested in H5N1 becausen they are in a lose / lose situation (no pandemic or a pandemic without reassortment).

O.k., so then if H5N1 is stable, with nothing interesting happening, and no human gene involvement likel to happen or relatively innocuous if it does happen - what's all the hype about?

Vallet is correct; let's go home and have some vino.

[ a row of those new smilies, with redish faces, goes here ]

J.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

O.k., so then if H5N1 is stable, with nothing interesting happening, and no human gene involvement likel to happen or relatively innocuous if it does happen - what's all the hype about?

Vallet is correct; let's go home and have some vino.

[ a row of those new smilies, with redish faces, goes here ]

J.
This is the underlying theme of virtually all WHO statements (human or birds).
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

That is not correct. I have attended a speech with Dr. Chan and I can tell you she is very concerned about H5N1 becoming a pandemic.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

That is not correct. I have attended a speech with Dr. Chan and I can tell you she is very concerned about H5N1 becoming a pandemic.
The WHO consultants focus on reassortment. That is why they give exposed workers seasonal flu shots, that is why they are worried abiut pigs in Egypt, that is why they say "no mutations" in sequences, that is why they say it can't be H2H because there are no human genes in the H5N1. That is why they say H5N1 is "stable".

All of these statements are variations on the same theme.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Dr. Chan said:

"H5N1 has fulfilled all prerequisites for the requirement of a pandemic except one (sustained and efficient H2H).....

...seriousness of present situation is not likely to diminish in the near future."


S.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

The left had really doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/heal...=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=401

Prepare for flu pandemic economic hit: U.N.

Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:30am EST
LONDON (Reuters) - Governments around the world need to do more to prepare for the dramatic economic impact of the next flu pandemic, the United Nations influenza coordinator said on Thursday.
David Nabarro said his team had recently collected information from nearly 150 countries to see how prepared they were for a pandemic and the picture was mixed.
"Most countries have now focused on pandemic as a potential cause of catastrophe and have done some planning. But the quality of the plans is patchy and too few of them pay attention to economic and social consequences," he told BBC radio.
"The economic consequences could be up to $2 trillion -- up to 5 percent of global GDP removed," he said, reiterating previous World Bank and UN estimates.
Nabarro will deliver a lecture at the London School of Economics later on Thursday on the global state of preparedness for any pandemic, which could be triggered by bird flu.
The current H5N1 form of bird flu is mainly an animal disease, but experts fear it might mutate into a strain that could spread easily between people, causing a pandemic which could kill millions.
(Reporting by Ben Hirschler, editing by Mike Peacock)

? Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.




Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

<SCRIPT language=javascript>doLoginMenu(); doWeatherFrame();</SCRIPT><META content=News name=DCSext.rChannel><META content=US name=DCSext.rCountry><META content="News - Print Friendly Article" name=WT.cg_n><META content="" name=WT.cg_s><META content=reuters.com.dart/printerfriendly_G3 name=DCSext.DartZone><SCRIPT type=text/javascript><!--[if !IE]>setModuleImpressionTracking();var gDomain="statse.webtrendslive.com";var gDcsId="dcsncwimc10000kzgoor3wv9x_3f2v";var gFpc="WT_FPC";var gConvert=true;if ((typeof(gConvert)!="undefined")&&gConvert&&(document.cookie.indexOf(gFpc+"=")==-1)&&(document.cookie.indexOf("WTLOPTOUT=")==-1)){ document.write("<SCR"+"IPT TYPE='text/javascript' SRC=""+"http"+(window.location.protocol.indexOf("https:')==0?'s':'')+"://"+gDomain+"/"+gDcsId+"/wtid.js"+"'><\/SCR"+"IPT>");}//<![endif]--></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="/resources/js/dcs_tag.js"></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="/resources/js/dm_clientUS.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript>function revSciPixel() { DM_cat("reuters.com.dart > printerfriendly_G3");DM_tag();}revSciPixel();</SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Dr. Chan said:

"H5N1 has fulfilled all prerequisites for the requirement of a pandemic except one (sustained and efficient H2H).....

...seriousness of present situation is not likely to diminish in the near future."


S.
But WHO says H2H will be via ressortment, which doesn't happen in "stable" H5N1.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

But WHO says H2H will be via ressortment, which doesn't happen in "stable" H5N1.

"Truth forever on the scaffold,
wronged forever on the throne,
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadows,
keeping watch above his own."


William Cullen Bryant [circa, 1889]
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Average Concerned Mom



http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/avianflu/news/jan1108vallat.html

OIE chief's downplaying of pandemic risk draws fire

Jan 11, 2008 (CIDRAP News) ? Disease experts and preparedness advocates reacted negatively today to comments by the head of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) suggesting that the risk of an influenza pandemic posed by the H5N1 avian flu virus is minimal.

In news reports yesterday, Dr. Bernard Vallat, director-general of the Paris-based OIE, was quoted as saying that the H5N1 virus is "extremely stable," implying that it is unlikely to evolve into a human pandemic strain.

In interviews today, experts such as Dr. Kathy Neuzil, MD, chair of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's (IDSA's) Pandemic Influenza Task Force, countered that the virus has been known to mutate many times already and that both science and history suggest it still represents a very real threat.

(snip)

"H5N1 has a demonstrated ability to mutate and change," she added. "We've seen it change in Vietnam, where in the course of a week or two in patients on [antiviral] therapy it has developed resistance." Mutations also have been seen in Indonesia, she noted.

"If you just stick to the science, science tell us pandemic threats are real, and there's nothing to say that H5N1 couldn't cause a pandemic by either of those routes [mutation or reassortment]," she concluded.

David Halvorson, DVM, a veterinary pathologist and avian flu expert at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, said he was hesitant to respond to Vallat's comments, given the differing accounts of what he said. However, Halvorson allowed, "People have noted that the Asian lineage highly pathogenic H5N1 has been around since 1997 and nothing has happened yet to cause it to spread from human to human. Does that mean it couldn't happen tomorrow? No."

David Fedson, MD, a retired professor of medicine from the University of Virginia and former researcher with Aventis Pasteur who has spent his career working on vaccination issues, agreed with Neuzil that Vallat's assessment doesn't fit with history.

"The statement [suggesting the risk of a pandemic is minimal] ignores history," said Fedson, who also is on the IDSA's Pandemic Influenza Task Force. "The history is a pandemic coming out of nowhere in 1918 and causing great global disruption. . . . A statement like this, if people pay attention, has the practical effect of telling people they don't need to worry, they don't need to be prepared."
(snip)

Infectious disease expert Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, a leading pandemic preparedness proponent, recommended viewing the reports of Vallat's comments with caution because of their differences. Nonetheless, he took strong exception to the idea that the virus is stable and doesn't represent much of a threat.

"Regardless of what Dr. Vallat said, this virus is hardly stable," said Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, publisher of CIDRAP News. With multiple clades and subclades of the virus identified, he said, "This virus has demonstrated an unprecedented ability to change through mutation."

He said the virus is stable only in the sense that it seems to have found a permanent home in poultry and wild birds. "There is nothing in the foreseeable future to suggest that this virus is going to die out or somehow disappear through competition or attrition in the bird reservoir," he added.

(snip)

Osterholm concluded, "Unfortunately, some have read this [Vallat's comments] to mean that the final chapter has been written on our concern about pandemic flu. There's nothing that could be further from the truth. We're closer today to the onset of the next pandemic than we were yesterday, but not as close as we'll be tomorrow."
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Thanks Siam.

Let's hope this article gets some media attention.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

how can they reasonably discuss about the pandemic likelyhood
without assigning (subjective) numbers to it's probability ?

We don't know how likely Vallat or Fedson or Osterholm consider it.
What for one is a low probability for the other one may be high.
(low as compared to what ?)

Like when you discuss about buying some thing or not,
without knowing its (approximate) price.


We still have Webster's "50% probability and 50% could die"
or Peiris' "extremely likely in the next 10 years" - these
have not been corrected/modified AFAIK.

It's also important to consider the possible impact.
Earlier a 1968-like pandemic was the standard, (pandemic plans)
recently it's more often compared with 1918 (papers)
and we know with the current CFR it can be even much worse.
But how likely ? Multiply likelyhood with damage, sum over the
possible scenarios for the expectation value which should be
a first measure to determine how much we should spend for
preparation. With just 1% yearly probability for a 1918-like
pandemic for the next 5 years and a US-damage of $5e11
as estimated by world-bank, and even ignoring the other
possible scenarios, and a chance of 50% that our spendings
will half the damage, the $7e9 required by Bush in 2005
would still be justified.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

how can they reasonably discuss about the pandemic likelyhood
without assigning (subjective) numbers to it's probability ?

We don't know how likely Vallat or Fedson or Osterholm consider it.
What for one is a low probability for the other one may be high.
(low as compared to what ?) . . . .

gsgs you repeatedly ask for likelihood numbers for the probability of the next pandemic. In essence you are asking for a prediction based on ratio level measurement (with a non-arbitrary zero point i.e. no probability of a pandemic).

The reality is that researchers are most likely to only provide their estimates at an ordinal level of measurement. Ordinal levels of measures are always relative to each other and can not be subjected to any kind of arithmetic manipulation since there is no zero or starting point.

Comments like ?a pandemic is more likely in 2008 and than it was in 2007? is a valid ordinal level evaluation. Similarly, ?H7Nx is less likely than H5N1 to cause a pandemic in the near future? is also a valid ordinal level prediction. You want to have predictions based on interval level numbers with a non-arbitrary zero point to mathematically calculate the differences between specific researchers. But it is not going to happen because most researchers recognize that are many facets of a pandemic that are poorly understood and most would prefer not to provide an absolute number that might be wrong and might reflect poorly on them in the future.

Osterholm quote: ?We're closer today to the onset of the next pandemic than we were yesterday, but not as close as we'll be tomorrow.?

A careful dissection of Osterholm?s comment shows that it is clearly an ordinal level prediction. For him the probability is increasing. ?Closer than?, ?equal to?, ?more than?, less than?, are all relative ordinal level measures about the direction of likelihood versus unlikelihood. Ordinal level predictions are more than sufficient to gauge the relative differences of opinion between such people as Osterholm and Vallat.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

yes, such comparisons are also useful. But less useful than numbers.
However, when you have many such comparisons, then you can almost
calculate their estimates from it.
So we have to play this game : what do we estimate from their vague statements,
that their probability estimate is ?

Maybe experts are less reluctant to give such estimates of other
expert's estimates ?!

Of course, we are closer to the next pandemic, than we were yesterday.
Just because there was no pandemic yesterday.
But does the yearly panflu (subjective) probability also increase ?
Presumably not.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Numerical estimates don't always tell the true story either.

If someone told me it was safe to walk on a frozen lake because the temperature had been at a certain point for a certain length of time, so the probability was that it was safe, I would NOT necessarily walk on the lake with confidence. NO......I'd know there are thin spots for a variety of reasons and I would err on the side of caution.

What this article is doing is telling people it's safe to walk on the frozen lake despite the fact that there are many factors pointing to the high probability of thin ice.

This article is saying there is no need to err on the side of caution.

This aritlce is very dangerous.

.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

OIE chief's downplaying of pandemic risk draws fire

Robert Roos
purple-speck.gif
News Editor

Jan 11, 2008 (CIDRAP News) ? Disease experts and preparedness advocates reacted negatively today to comments by the head of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) suggesting that the risk of an influenza pandemic posed by the H5N1 avian flu virus is minimal.


In news reports yesterday, Dr. Bernard Vallat, director-general of the Paris-based OIE, was quoted as saying that the H5N1 virus is "extremely stable," implying that it is unlikely to evolve into a human pandemic strain.
In interviews today, experts such as Dr. Kathy Neuzil, MD, chair of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's (IDSA's) Pandemic Influenza Task Force, countered that the virus has been known to mutate many times already and that both science and history suggest it still represents a very real threat.


Accounts from the Associated Press (AP), Agence France-Presse (AFP), and Reuters offered somewhat different versions of Vallat's comments, with the AP making him sound the most reassuring?or complacent.
According to the AP, Vallat said, "The risk [of a pandemic] was overestimated." Concern a few years ago about a possibly imminent pandemic represented "just nonscientific supposition," he said.


An AFP account focused on Vallat's statements about the stability of the H5N1 virus. "We have never seen a virus which has been so stable for so long," Vallat was quoted as saying. "Compared to other viruses, it is extremely stable, which minimizes the risk of mutation" into a pandemic strain.


He also said the virus is endemic in Indonesia, Egypt, and to a lesser extent Nigeria, according to AFP. "If we could eradicate the virus in those countries, the problem of a pandemic from Asian H5N1 would be resolved," he asserted.


But the Reuters report depicted Vallat as more cautious. "We notice that the virus is now extremely stable but there is no base to say that the H5N1 will not mutate," he said. "Bird flu will always remain a risk, be it H5N1 or another."


Despite the somewhat conflicting accounts, the other experts asserted that Vallat was sending the wrong signal.
"The main message that should be out there is that the threat is real," said Neuzil, senior clinical advisor with the nonprofit organization PATH in Seattle.


She and others pointed to the recent history of pandemics.
"The 1918 pandemic occurred from a mutation of a bird virus, to the best of our knowledge," she said. "The 1957 and 1968 pandemics occurred through viral reassortment, sudden events where human and animal viruses combined genes and came out with a new virus. So a pandemic can occur either way. You can have a very stable virus that reassorts with another virus."


"H5N1 has a demonstrated ability to mutate and change," she added. "We've seen it change in Vietnam, where in the course of a week or two in patients on [antiviral] therapy it has developed resistance." Mutations also have been seen in Indonesia, she noted.


"If you just stick to the science, science tell us pandemic threats are real, and there's nothing to say that H5N1 couldn't cause a pandemic by either of those routes [mutation or reassortment]," she concluded.


David Halvorson, DVM, a veterinary pathologist and avian flu expert at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, said he was hesitant to respond to Vallat's comments, given the differing accounts of what he said. However, Halvorson allowed, "People have noted that the Asian lineage highly pathogenic H5N1 has been around since 1997 and nothing has happened yet to cause it to spread from human to human. Does that mean it couldn't happen tomorrow? No."


David Fedson, MD, a retired professor of medicine from the University of Virginia and former researcher with Aventis Pasteur who has spent his career working on vaccination issues, agreed with Neuzil that Vallat's assessment doesn't fit with history.


"The statement [suggesting the risk of a pandemic is minimal] ignores history," said Fedson, who also is on the IDSA's Pandemic Influenza Task Force. "The history is a pandemic coming out of nowhere in 1918 and causing great global disruption. . . . A statement like this, if people pay attention, has the practical effect of telling people they don't need to worry, they don't need to be prepared."


Fedson said infectious diseases have caused major die-offs in several mammalian species in recent years, and humans are subject to the same threats. For example, about a third of the lions on Africa's Serengeti Plain died of distemper virus in the early 1990s, and more than 50% of gorillas and chimpanzees have died of Ebola virus infection in this decade, he said.
"Given what we know of the capability of flu viruses in general and this virus in particular, we have to take it seriously and . . . prepare for a pandemic that could cause a very high mortality," Fedson said. "We have to recognize that we're as vulnerable as the gorillas and chimps."


Infectious disease expert Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, a leading pandemic preparedness proponent, recommended viewing the reports of Vallat's comments with caution because of their differences. Nonetheless, he took strong exception to the idea that the virus is stable and doesn't represent much of a threat.


"Regardless of what Dr. Vallat said, this virus is hardly stable," said Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, publisher of CIDRAP News. With multiple clades and subclades of the virus identified, he said, "This virus has demonstrated an unprecedented ability to change through mutation."
He said the virus is stable only in the sense that it seems to have found a permanent home in poultry and wild birds. "There is nothing in the foreseeable future to suggest that this virus is going to die out or somehow disappear through competition or attrition in the bird reservoir," he added.
As for history lessons, Osterholm cited the flu virus subtype H3N8.


Originally an avian virus, it jumped in 1960 to horses and circulated in them for decades, he said. About 5 years ago it jumped from horses to dogs, and it continues to circulate in dogs in a number of areas worldwide.
"Why did it take nearly 40 years of nearly constant contact between horses and dogs before it finally made the jump to dogs?" Osterholm asked. "No one can answer that question. That should provide a rather sobering context to understanding H5N1. Three or 5 or 7 years of hypertransmission in the bird population doesn't really tell us anything about whether this could one day become a pandemic strain."


Osterholm concluded, "Unfortunately, some have read this [Vallat's comments] to mean that the final chapter has been written on our concern about pandemic flu. There's nothing that could be further from the truth. We're closer today to the onset of the next pandemic than we were yesterday, but not as close as we'll be tomorrow."


http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/avianflu/news/jan1108vallat.html
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

AD, how do you know ?

The article isn't talking about the amount of thin spots.
They say "few", while you say "many". Both can be right,
because both can have different interpretations/definitions
of "few" and "many".
What I require is that we coordinate our language and
improve our communication - by using numbers.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

gsgs - I agree with your above comment - however, the methodology for your calculus requires that your basis (numbers) are empirical. I question, in the face of the disparaging "numbers" floating around, that such numbers are in fact empirical.

To me, the basis really should be the isolates - even if incomplete - that show - empirically - the genesis of the movement of the actual threat.

To the extent that the basis numbers are in effect being provided by government agencies rather than independent science based NGO's - the data is even more suspect due to the fact that such information is filtered more in terms of economics and the impact of pandemic - rather than issues of world health and the survivability of earth's citizenry - as the gold standard.

After all, the linea alba that separates medical science from public health philosophically, is one of defining the "greater good doctrine." Government embraces survivablity of ORDER and Economic survivablity - and the other, which personally means more to me (and hence the individual) is MY survivability.

Would you disagree?

- Extrapolation
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

don't know, what you mean with "empirical".
Probability estimates are subjective.
Based on studies, talks with other, personal comparison with
other personal events, market data,history,computer simulations,...

Apparantly experts have some need to communicate occasionally
about their "threat-level", however in (deliberately ?)ambigous wordings.
I only ask that they improve their language.
 
Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

As to your "ambigous wordings" - by way of example, I do not think it unreasonable to postulate that the recent statement by OIE as to the benign nature of the "virus" - was/were "strategically" provided to the "citizenry" as a nuanced form of "Crowd Control" - in the interest of economic considerations. What else explains such an inane logic?? Certainly not Science.

Certainly not numerical facts - nor history recent or past.

- Extrapolation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom