8 ms·

Wikipedia: The 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak

57 points by curtis 18y ago

kierank 18y ago
I hope that article becomes protected or semi-protected soon. Someone could create a lot of panic from that.
- rms 18y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2009_H1N1_flu_outbreak_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_pro...
sdurkin 18y ago
Watch and make sure no edits come from anyone connected to Roche pharmaceuticals. They hold the marketing rights to Tamiflu and stand to profit tremendously from this.
- mikedouglas 18y ago
  Watch and make sure no edits come from anyone connected to Michael Bay. This totally sounds like a viral ad campaign for his latest shitty movie.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    At least it promises to be better than Transformers. That movie was like watching a large, HIV positive felon rape my childhood in the jailhouse shower.
    - randallsquared 18y ago
      ... Your childhood was in jail?!
- maxharris 18y ago
  Roche makes one of the two drugs that can treat this outbreak, and you're talking smack about them? That's tasteless. Oseltamivir is not available OTC. People that want it need permission from their doctors to get it, at least in the US. In Mexico, emergency procedures are being taken, and its distribution is being handled appropriately.
  - sachinag 18y ago
    Note: the other is Relenza, made by GSK. Also, apparently, KPCB had a $200 million pandemic disease fund, which strikes me as hysterical: http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN2445216420090424 http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN244...
    - tomsaffell 18y ago
      > strikes me as hysterical Why? KPCB is a tech VC fund, so it invests in high-risk companies that use technology to solve problems. Why is that hysterical?
      - sachinag 18y ago
        I dare you to find me an example of someone so shamelessly, transparently looking to profit off of the hypothetical suffering of others. EDIT: OK, I guess it wasn't clear why I find this hysterical. I'll explain how I see it. (As background, my job previous to starting Dawdle was as the junior member of the investment team at Ascension Health Ventures, a health care VC fund. I know a little something about how this all works in this space. Also, it's Saturday night and I'm sick at home but nonetheless tipsy.) To me, a fund dedicated to pandemics is an example of thematic investing gone to its extremes. Pandemics are a such a minor subset of the incredibly large and complex health care system that it strikes me as implausible that there are $200 million worth of worthy VC investments. I could be wrong, but that's my gut. But what really strikes me as hysterical is that pandemics are hypothetical situations. Medical devices and new pharmaceuticals are generally about finding solutions to known - and existing - problems. The economic returns from investments in those things are well known and replicable. Pandemics are totally different - the next pandemic could be any from a range of diseases with any sort of transmission protocol with who-knows-what root cause. To me, trying to find infrastructure investments for something that doesn't exist (cause Lord help you decide what the next pandemic is going to be) that takes rapid adoption by the moribund and dysfunctional health care industry is crazy. KPCB strikes me as being perhaps the world's only venture firm that could get $200 million in commitments from LPs for such a crazy-ass thesis. To me, it's just a crazy-ass boondoggle to think this could possibly work. But, hey, I could be wrong. Thanks for the downvotes, though. Those who did showed a total lack of appreciation for the English language. Y'all saw "hysterical" and read "terrible". Perhaps you'll do better next time. [EDIT 2: If I were to invest in "pandemics", I'd try to take advantage of the certain hysteria among the public that would result. That, at least, is predictable. EDIT 3: http://www.fluidinfo.com/terry/2009/04/26/a-few-comments-on-pandemic-influenza/ http://www.fluidinfo.com/terry/2009/04/26/a-few-comments-on-... is worth the read.]
- mhb 18y ago
  I'd be more concerned about the government stockpiles of antivirals going to the big investment banks and car companies.
lionheart 18y ago
Just my personal opinion: I don't want to see this on HN. I get enough of this from the regular media outlets.
- mpk 18y ago
  I'm perfectly fine with this appearing on HN because I don't pay that much attention to regular media outlets anymore and I might actually pick up something relevant, useful or just interesting in the comments here.
  - spaghetti 18y ago
    I'm glad this appeared on HN. I'm far more interested in this community's thoughts than those of the main stream media.
  - davidw 18y ago
    It's not our problem that you don't want to read cnn.com or corriere.it or whatever every now and then. It is our problem when the home page gets filled up with "doom! gloom!" stories and various other things unrelated to Hacker News.
hs 18y ago
can *.flu spread to plants? go vegetarian!
- smanek 18y ago
  It spreads human to human, not pig to human. And you can't get it eating pork (so says the CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090423.htm http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090423.htm
  - dejb 18y ago
    Possibly true. However there must have originally been some transfer from pigs to humans. Eating pigs and keeping them as livestock almost certainly contributed to the disease occurring. It is too late to stop this one but what about the next one. Anyone care to dispute the notion that the risk of these diseases 'crossing over' would be much reduced if humanity was vegetarian?
    - scott_s 18y ago
      If all of humanity was vegan, the risk would probably be greatly reduced, since no one would have any livestock. Vegetarian diets still include eggs and dairy. But it's just a completely unhelpful comment. Humanity as a whole is not going to go vegetarian, let alone vegan. Proposing it as a solution is just pushing an agenda.
      - dejb 18y ago
        Partially agreed about the vegan part. I wasn't trying to get too technical. However disease transmission mostly seems to occur via eating meat rather than milk or eggs. I do think it is entirely practical and possible that that most of humanity could go vegan some time in the future. Reducing the risk of disease is just one of many reasons why it would improve the world. If it is an economically superior solution then eventually that is the way the world is likely to head. How's this for a more incrementally useful statement? Reductions in livestock and meat consumption would be likely to reduce the incidences of these type of diseases - therefore it is something we should look to minimise. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
mhb 18y ago
More, with good comments: http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/04/swine_flu_while_we_wait.php http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/04/swine_flu_whil...
mynameishere 18y ago
"How about this mad cow disease? It was here a while then it went away." My thoughts: This will also go away. http://tinyurl.com/b8xyvh http://tinyurl.com/b8xyvh
- andyn 18y ago
  It went away after 4.4 million cows were destroyed in the UK.
numair 18y ago
If this actually becomes a big deal, it will be a massive economic problem - remember, it's not just the people who get sick who are the problem, but also the people who change their behavior/consumption based on risk mitigation. On the other hand, it would probably provide a boost to e-commerce spending, which would help people in our community.
andyking 18y ago
Everyone's got a bit bored of the recession. Quick, let's find a new mass panic.
- electromagnetic 18y ago
  I thought we were supposed to be afraid of Bird Flu, not Pig Flu. Can someone please make up their mind on what I'm supposed to panic about, I'm getting quite bored with all the changes.

57 points by curtis 18y ago

kierank 18y ago

I hope that article becomes protected or semi-protected soon. Someone could create a lot of panic from that.

rms 18y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2009_H1N1_flu_outbreak_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_pro...

sdurkin 18y ago

Watch and make sure no edits come from anyone connected to Roche pharmaceuticals. They hold the marketing rights to Tamiflu and stand to profit tremendously from this.

mikedouglas 18y ago
Watch and make sure no edits come from anyone connected to Michael Bay. This totally sounds like a viral ad campaign for his latest shitty movie.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  At least it promises to be better than Transformers. That movie was like watching a large, HIV positive felon rape my childhood in the jailhouse shower.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    ... Your childhood was in jail?!
maxharris 18y ago
Roche makes one of the two drugs that can treat this outbreak, and you're talking smack about them? That's tasteless. Oseltamivir is not available OTC. People that want it need permission from their doctors to get it, at least in the US. In Mexico, emergency procedures are being taken, and its distribution is being handled appropriately.
- sachinag 18y ago
  Note: the other is Relenza, made by GSK. Also, apparently, KPCB had a $200 million pandemic disease fund, which strikes me as hysterical: http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN2445216420090424 http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN244...
  - tomsaffell 18y ago
    > strikes me as hysterical Why? KPCB is a tech VC fund, so it invests in high-risk companies that use technology to solve problems. Why is that hysterical?
    - sachinag 18y ago
      I dare you to find me an example of someone so shamelessly, transparently looking to profit off of the hypothetical suffering of others. EDIT: OK, I guess it wasn't clear why I find this hysterical. I'll explain how I see it. (As background, my job previous to starting Dawdle was as the junior member of the investment team at Ascension Health Ventures, a health care VC fund. I know a little something about how this all works in this space. Also, it's Saturday night and I'm sick at home but nonetheless tipsy.) To me, a fund dedicated to pandemics is an example of thematic investing gone to its extremes. Pandemics are a such a minor subset of the incredibly large and complex health care system that it strikes me as implausible that there are $200 million worth of worthy VC investments. I could be wrong, but that's my gut. But what really strikes me as hysterical is that pandemics are hypothetical situations. Medical devices and new pharmaceuticals are generally about finding solutions to known - and existing - problems. The economic returns from investments in those things are well known and replicable. Pandemics are totally different - the next pandemic could be any from a range of diseases with any sort of transmission protocol with who-knows-what root cause. To me, trying to find infrastructure investments for something that doesn't exist (cause Lord help you decide what the next pandemic is going to be) that takes rapid adoption by the moribund and dysfunctional health care industry is crazy. KPCB strikes me as being perhaps the world's only venture firm that could get $200 million in commitments from LPs for such a crazy-ass thesis. To me, it's just a crazy-ass boondoggle to think this could possibly work. But, hey, I could be wrong. Thanks for the downvotes, though. Those who did showed a total lack of appreciation for the English language. Y'all saw "hysterical" and read "terrible". Perhaps you'll do better next time. [EDIT 2: If I were to invest in "pandemics", I'd try to take advantage of the certain hysteria among the public that would result. That, at least, is predictable. EDIT 3: http://www.fluidinfo.com/terry/2009/04/26/a-few-comments-on-pandemic-influenza/ http://www.fluidinfo.com/terry/2009/04/26/a-few-comments-on-... is worth the read.]
mhb 18y ago
I'd be more concerned about the government stockpiles of antivirals going to the big investment banks and car companies.

lionheart 18y ago

Just my personal opinion: I don't want to see this on HN. I get enough of this from the regular media outlets.

mpk 18y ago
I'm perfectly fine with this appearing on HN because I don't pay that much attention to regular media outlets anymore and I might actually pick up something relevant, useful or just interesting in the comments here.
- spaghetti 18y ago
  I'm glad this appeared on HN. I'm far more interested in this community's thoughts than those of the main stream media.
- davidw 18y ago
  It's not our problem that you don't want to read cnn.com or corriere.it or whatever every now and then. It is our problem when the home page gets filled up with "doom! gloom!" stories and various other things unrelated to Hacker News.

hs 18y ago

can *.flu spread to plants? go vegetarian!

smanek 18y ago
It spreads human to human, not pig to human. And you can't get it eating pork (so says the CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090423.htm http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090423.htm
- dejb 18y ago
  Possibly true. However there must have originally been some transfer from pigs to humans. Eating pigs and keeping them as livestock almost certainly contributed to the disease occurring. It is too late to stop this one but what about the next one. Anyone care to dispute the notion that the risk of these diseases 'crossing over' would be much reduced if humanity was vegetarian?
  - scott_s 18y ago
    If all of humanity was vegan, the risk would probably be greatly reduced, since no one would have any livestock. Vegetarian diets still include eggs and dairy. But it's just a completely unhelpful comment. Humanity as a whole is not going to go vegetarian, let alone vegan. Proposing it as a solution is just pushing an agenda.
    - dejb 18y ago
      Partially agreed about the vegan part. I wasn't trying to get too technical. However disease transmission mostly seems to occur via eating meat rather than milk or eggs. I do think it is entirely practical and possible that that most of humanity could go vegan some time in the future. Reducing the risk of disease is just one of many reasons why it would improve the world. If it is an economically superior solution then eventually that is the way the world is likely to head. How's this for a more incrementally useful statement? Reductions in livestock and meat consumption would be likely to reduce the incidences of these type of diseases - therefore it is something we should look to minimise. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

mhb 18y ago

More, with good comments: http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/04/swine_flu_while_we_wait.php http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/04/swine_flu_whil...

mynameishere 18y ago

"How about this mad cow disease? It was here a while then it went away." My thoughts: This will also go away. http://tinyurl.com/b8xyvh http://tinyurl.com/b8xyvh

andyn 18y ago
It went away after 4.4 million cows were destroyed in the UK.

numair 18y ago

If this actually becomes a big deal, it will be a massive economic problem - remember, it's not just the people who get sick who are the problem, but also the people who change their behavior/consumption based on risk mitigation. On the other hand, it would probably provide a boost to e-commerce spending, which would help people in our community.

andyking 18y ago

Everyone's got a bit bored of the recession. Quick, let's find a new mass panic.

electromagnetic 18y ago
I thought we were supposed to be afraid of Bird Flu, not Pig Flu. Can someone please make up their mind on what I'm supposed to panic about, I'm getting quite bored with all the changes.