4 ms·

There's no theoretical reason to dismiss the possibility of a virus that quickly kills 50% of the population, as the article claims this virus could. Myxamatosi

There's no theoretical reason to dismiss the possibility of a virus that quickly kills 50% of the population, as the article claims this virus could. Myxamatosis killed about 80% of Australian rabbits within a few years of its introduction to Australia. Yes, it's true that the virus and host adapted to each other and it's nowhere near as deadly now, but we have a proof of concept of a virus that can do a lot worse than the flu virus in this article, and that's bad enough.

radu_floricica 15y ago
Rabbits don't react to an epidemic, AFAIK. I doubt there could really come a bug that would actually wipe out a sizable portion of the humanity, simply because there are too many efficient and cost-effective things we could do. Like institute effective quarantine measures, or basic hygiene, or vaccines. Like parent said, the major danger would be from the economic loss. Scared people won't go to work or to school - sometimes with good reason, and sometimes out of sheer panic. People who don't go to work are people who don't produce much, and if this happens on a large scale it'll be felt.
- rsheridan6 15y ago
  >I doubt there could really come a bug that would actually wipe out a sizable portion of the humanity, simply because there are too many efficient and cost-effective things we could do. Like institute effective quarantine measures, or basic hygiene, or vaccines. Maybe the rich, industrialized countries would be able to quarantine it quickly enough, but if it was released in, say, Africa, the governments there wouldn't be able to do much about it. Hygiene is helpful, but it only does so much against airborne pathogens, and even in hospitals where everyone is trained to wash their hands disease is spread all the time. As for vaccines, they take time to develop and deploy. Remember the H1N1 scare in 2009? That vaccine was in short supply at that time. Quantitatively, the only real data in this thread is that it's possible for a virus to kill ~80% of a population like myxamatosis (oops, it looks like I was wrong - it's more like 95%: http://books.google.com/books?id=wnlB7EMtqFYC&pg=PA427&dq=rabbit+myxomatosis+percent+of+the+population&hl=en&ei=6O3QTsOcEpLSiAK60bn-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=rabbit%20myxomatosis%20percent%20of%20the%20population&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=wnlB7EMtqFYC&pg=PA427&#... ) It's not obvious how much of a difference the factors you mention make. They could nip the virus in the bud so it only kills a handful of people, or they could make virtually no difference at all.
- nl 15y ago
  Like institute effective quarantine measures, or basic hygiene, or vaccines You say that like it is so easy. H1N1 spread all around the world despite the best efforts in all those areas.
  - Foy 15y ago
    You'd be surprised at how bad basic hygiene can be. At work and school I see people leaving the bathroom without washing their hands way too often. EDIT: Also about quarantine the same thing applies. Students and co-workers are encouraged NOT to come to work/school if sick but a lot do anyways, simply because at least in school it's easy to fall behind if you miss a couple lectures.

radu_floricica 15y ago

Rabbits don't react to an epidemic, AFAIK. I doubt there could really come a bug that would actually wipe out a sizable portion of the humanity, simply because there are too many efficient and cost-effective things we could do. Like institute effective quarantine measures, or basic hygiene, or vaccines. Like parent said, the major danger would be from the economic loss. Scared people won't go to work or to school - sometimes with good reason, and sometimes out of sheer panic. People who don't go to work are people who don't produce much, and if this happens on a large scale it'll be felt.

rsheridan6 15y ago
>I doubt there could really come a bug that would actually wipe out a sizable portion of the humanity, simply because there are too many efficient and cost-effective things we could do. Like institute effective quarantine measures, or basic hygiene, or vaccines. Maybe the rich, industrialized countries would be able to quarantine it quickly enough, but if it was released in, say, Africa, the governments there wouldn't be able to do much about it. Hygiene is helpful, but it only does so much against airborne pathogens, and even in hospitals where everyone is trained to wash their hands disease is spread all the time. As for vaccines, they take time to develop and deploy. Remember the H1N1 scare in 2009? That vaccine was in short supply at that time. Quantitatively, the only real data in this thread is that it's possible for a virus to kill ~80% of a population like myxamatosis (oops, it looks like I was wrong - it's more like 95%: http://books.google.com/books?id=wnlB7EMtqFYC&pg=PA427&dq=rabbit+myxomatosis+percent+of+the+population&hl=en&ei=6O3QTsOcEpLSiAK60bn-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=rabbit%20myxomatosis%20percent%20of%20the%20population&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=wnlB7EMtqFYC&pg=PA427&#... ) It's not obvious how much of a difference the factors you mention make. They could nip the virus in the bud so it only kills a handful of people, or they could make virtually no difference at all.
nl 15y ago
Like institute effective quarantine measures, or basic hygiene, or vaccines You say that like it is so easy. H1N1 spread all around the world despite the best efforts in all those areas.
- Foy 15y ago
  You'd be surprised at how bad basic hygiene can be. At work and school I see people leaving the bathroom without washing their hands way too often. EDIT: Also about quarantine the same thing applies. Students and co-workers are encouraged NOT to come to work/school if sick but a lot do anyways, simply because at least in school it's easy to fall behind if you miss a couple lectures.