5 ms·
Bird flu infections undetected
- GrantMoyer 2y agoAny chance we could just stop raising so many cows and chickens?
- AcerbicZero 2y agoSure, just ctrl-z the last ~60 years of population growth around the world; should be easy to get those chicken numbers under control then.
- ceejayoz 2y agoIndia will be surprised to find that population growth requires beef and chicken consumption, I suspect.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> India will be surprised to find that population growth requires beef and chicken consumption India is the sixth-largest consumer of chicken [1] and fourth-largest of beef [2] in the world. [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/chicken-consumption-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/chicken-c... [2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/beef-consumption-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/beef-cons...
- ceejayoz 2y agoBecause it's a huge country, but 40% are vegetarian. They seem to have kids and feed themselves reasonably well. Take a look at the per-capita numbers for the real story, where they're in the bottom 20 or so out of ~190.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoSure. The point is even with those low (but far from record low) per-capita numbers they still eat a lot of meat there.
- ceejayoz 2y agoThe point is meat/chicken consumption isn't required for population growth.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoIsn’t required but in practice occurs. With both population and wealth. We aren’t getting rid of chicken or beef any time soon.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> We aren’t getting rid of chicken or beef any time soon. This is a very different argument. We won't be. We could, in short order, if we all wanted to, without having to "ctrl-z the last ~60 years of population growth around the world" as asserted upthread.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> We could, in short order, if we all wanted to, without having to "ctrl-z the last ~60 years of population growth around the world" as asserted upthread This is akin to we could wish war away. Like sure. We could. If you want to reduce chicken consumption, the practical route is reducing population or wealth.
- fsflover 2y agoYou could also promote nature-friendly lifestyle and support vegetarians somehow.
- nomel 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- smegsicle 2y agofirst world countries will be surprised to find that india is used as a positive example of anything
- nomel 2y agoThey will not be surprised. * 60 to 75% of the population eats meat [1][2]. * Only 9% is vegan, so the remaining vegetarians still consumes dairy (Paneer, etc), and in some regions, the vegetarians eat eggs and fish. * 73% of the population has a protein deficiency [3]. 91% of the population consumes animal proteins, and they generally aren't getting enough. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/08/eight-in-ten-indians-limit-meat-in-their-diets-and-four-in-ten-consider-themselves-vegetarian/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/08/eight-in-... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1272322/india-typical-eating-styles/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1272322/india-typical-ea... [3] https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/indias-protein-deficiency-and-the-need-to-address-the-problem https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/indias-protein-defici...
- ceejayoz 2y ago> * 60 to 75% of the population eats meat [1][2]. Your link agrees with me; "39% of Indian adults describe themselves as 'vegetarian'". > 73% of the population has a protein deficiency... Is the population growing?
- leetharris 2y agoPeople are more than welcome to voluntarily stop eating meat! I'm curious, do you eat meat? I was vegetarian for a while and didn't mind it.
- Fomite 2y agoIf it's for flu risk, you need to add pigs to that list.
- cduzz 2y agoCurious how this is going to play out over the next 18 months.
- mikeyouse 2y agoVery, very poorly based on the likely direction of the CDC and general ID apparatus.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y agoMan, I do not want to pick up immediately where we left off last time.
- mikeyouse 2y agoThere's slight solace in that bird flus are much worse as pandemic viruses compared to coronaviruses -- but then again, unmonitored, uncontrolled spillovers are an excellent way to build a highly virulent strain. Also, there's one dipshit who's likely to be involved and is advocating for more raw milk and less regulation around pasteurization and you'll never guess where you might find an excellent vector for bird flu transmission to humans from dairy cow populations..
- Fomite 2y agoIf it helps, we won't. Everyone who works in public health is already exhausted. Many of the things put in place during the last pandemic are either already dismantled when COVID money got clawed back in reconciliation a year or so back, or is zeroed out in the next Republican budget. Any public willingness to engage in widespread nonpharmaceutical interventions is effectively gone. Anti-vaccine sentiment is quite high right now. We'll pick up in a worse place.
- totallydang 2y ago[flagged]
- marcosdumay 2y ago
- timr 2y ago> The agency believes the virus continues to pose a low risk to the general public. They buried the lede. This is story about testing people who work in dairy farming, and finding out that a small number of people had inconsequential infections. For those who will surely try, you can't just divide 8 (number of infections) by 115 (total population tested) and use that proportion for anything. The error bars are large (specifically, using Fisher's Exact, from 3% to 13%). Edit: while the original Stat title is atrocious clickbait, a truly non-fear-mongering title would be something like "Asymptomatic bird flu infections in a small sample of farm workers"
- Fomite 2y agoWhile wide, those are not uselessly so. "A low number, but non-zero" isn't great information, but it's a start. Because understanding so-called "inconsequential infections" would have been very helpful at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. "Cases are obviously symptomatic and will seek healthcare" is a very different beast from "Some people are shedding virus but are pretty sure they can power through".
- timr 2y agoPurely statistically, sure. But you haven't included sample bias -- they did a small sample of farm workers. So at best you have a point estimate with a wide confidence interval that tells you (maybe) what rate of undiscovered infection you might expect to see if you sampled lots of farm workers. > "Cases are obviously symptomatic and will seek healthcare" is a very different beast from "Some people are shedding virus but are pretty sure they can power through". Thankfully, the article tells you that human-to-human transmission isn't a concern, so there's no need to speculate.
- perihelions 2y ago("continues to pose a low risk to the general public") I don't agree, and I would point out they used identical language mere weeks before covid-19 exploded [0]. Federal bureaucracies are reactive, not proactive. [0] https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-02-26-20-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-... ("Coronavirus risk to American public is low, health secretary says"; February 26, 2020)
- tboyd47 2y ago[flagged]
- jonstaab 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- amluto 2y agoThe current H5N1 outbreak has been going on for a few years, and the US already has a pretty good system for (slowly) vaccinating around half the population against the flu. And the US just switched from a quadravalent to a trivalent seasonal flu vaccine because one of the Influenza B strains seems to have disappeared. Would it have made sense to instead keep it quadravalent and add H5N1 to the mix?