
Wikipedia: The 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak - curtis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_H1N1_flu_outbreak
======
kierank
I hope that article becomes protected or semi-protected soon. Someone could
create a lot of panic from that.

~~~
rms
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_pro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2009_H1N1_flu_outbreak_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29)

------
sdurkin
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.

~~~
maxharris
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
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/idUKN244...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN2445216420090424)

~~~
tomsaffell
> _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
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-...](http://www.fluidinfo.com/terry/2009/04/26/a-few-comments-on-
pandemic-influenza/) is worth the read.]

~~~
Eliezer
What the flying feeple is your problem? Should we all just roll over and die
because no one invested in advanced medical tech that could save us?

Let me put this very clearly: Money is the basic unit which measures how much
society cares about something. Money implements the power of professional
specialization. Money is how real grownups get things done.
<http://lesswrong.com/lw/65/money_the_unit_of_caring/>.

If no one is allowed to make money, that means society is not allowed to care.
If scientists are not allowed to make money off suffering, it means that you
are not allowed to hire scientists and pay them to work on the problem.

Grow up.

~~~
electromagnetic
Agreed. I take ibuprofen when I've got a head ache or a pulled muscle, but
Wyeth makes a major profit off of me when I buy advil. However I'd much rather
pay my money, like anyone else on the planet, to not feel like crap.

I worked construction, I know how painful a ripped muscle is. With ibuprofen I
can continue working, because it prevents the inflammation from being more
painful than my actual injury. What would anyone rather pay, 3-4 days wages
while your muscle gets back to strength naturally or 3-4 hours of wages while
your muscle gets back to strength with an anti-inflammatory.

I believe it's my right to pay as little as possible for the same quality of
medicines and such, however if I want to pay $100 (or whatever) for a
vaccination for the H1N1 virus, which has a very low death rate, then that's
my prerogative. I'd be buying a service, which is called 'Peace of Mind', and
the person selling it expects payments.

People have recovered from cancers without the necessary medical treatments.
However, everyone here would pay every penny they have to be cured of a
cancer, why? Because rational humans don't count on miracles happening, we
count on disasters happening.

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

~~~
electromagnetic
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.

------
mhb
More, with good comments:

[http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/04/swine_flu_whil...](http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/04/swine_flu_while_we_wait.php)

------
numair
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.

------
mynameishere
"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>

~~~
andyn
It went away after 4.4 million cows were destroyed in the UK.

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

~~~
mpk
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
I'm glad this appeared on HN. I'm far more interested in this community's
thoughts than those of the main stream media.

------
hs
can *.flu spread to plants?

go vegetarian!

~~~
smanek
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>

~~~
dejb
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
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.

~~~
hs
sadly, drinking soda, eating potato chips and candy = vegetarian too ...
anyway that's not what i'm doing; neither do i eat eggs, milk, even fish. i
should say go vegan!

i'm too selfish to care about what the rest of the world eat ... if you regard
my post as a solution, fine, that's my solution to avoid *.flu -- for my
selfish self

well, enough of myself

can you come up with better solution? something creative is even better, much
better than critical things you said about how unhelpful/unfeasible one's
solution is.

sorry if my comment hurts your ego

~~~
swombat
The calorie density of vegetarian food being what it is, it's probable that if
all of humanity went vegetarian, it would solve the over-population problem
pretty quickly too because we'd run out of food.

~~~
dejb
You have this completely wrong. It takes about 10 times the plant calories to
produce meat calories. If the world stopped eating meat we would would be able
to feed many more people.

~~~
likpok
The bigger issue with veganism (and to a lesser extent vegetarianism) is that
it requires cleverness to avoid malnutrition. Like it or not, the human colon
is too short for a generic vegan diet; we evolved to eat meat.

There are people who _already_ have issues getting enough iron and protein.
This problem would only be exacerbated by a pure vegetarian diet.

Furthermore, we do not have an issue producing food for people. We have an
issue convincing people to produce food for people. That is, most of the
people who starve do so because they cannot afford food, rather than because
food is too expensive. This is not a problem of too little food production,
because farmers can barely support themselves in places.

This is not to say that reducing meat consumption is not a bad thing, just
that it would probably not solve all the worlds problems (or even the food-
related ones).

~~~
dejb
> The bigger issue with veganism (and to a lesser extent vegetarianism) is
> that it requires cleverness to avoid malnutrition.

On balance I think it takes less cleverness to be a healthy vegetarian than it
does than a healthy meat eater. I'm not a vegan so I can't comment in detail
but if the misconceptions about vegetarianism are anything to go by I'd say
the difficulties are pretty much all BS. And of course if society was vegan it
would be trivial to find all the foods you needed regularly cause they'd be
everywhere.

> Like it or not, the human colon is too short for a generic vegan diet; we
> evolved to eat meat.

The opposite argument actually works better. Could humans live on a 'generic'
carnivore diet? It is just as easy to argue that we evolved to eat plants.

But if course that isn't how evolution works. We didn't 'evolve' to do
anything but to further our genes. We didn't evolve to drive cars or use
computers but here we are. Maybe we evolved to die early so there would be
more food for our grandchildren. Evolution can be a rough guide but now we
have science which favours a plant diet.

> There are people who already have issues getting enough iron and protein.
> This problem would only be exacerbated by a pure vegetarian diet.

People who are on the edge of starvation will benefit from any extra source of
calories or nutrition. In the long term though the most efficient way to
provide this would be via plants or perhaps even artificial means in some
cases.

> Furthermore, we do not have an issue producing food for people.

Fair point. However the cheaper it is to produce food the more likely it will
find it's way to the poorest of people.

