One more time, for the not-terribly-clever person: there is a very small chance that swine flu (or some other possible pandemic source) could become a very big problem. Taking precautions against such low-probability but potentially catastrophic events is something that individuals cannot adequately do. This is one of the reasons that we have something called ‘government’.

The likelihood is – and has always been, if you read the epidemiological literature- that very few people will be killed by this outbreak of swine flu. But ‘it is almost certain that few people will be killed by this outbreak’ does not mean ‘it is absolutely certain that few people will be killed in any outbreak, so we can all just ignore the problem’.

Therefore you do not say that governments should ignore public health problems just because the tabloids are getting hysterical again, or that any stockpiling of drugs is merely a scam inspired by the drug companies (‘some guy said so in the Independent, it must be true’). Unless you’re stupid, of course.

Mexico have actually revised the death toll.

People’s arguments, like thouse of that fool Andrew neil on TV this week are that because Burd Flu hasn’t mutated yet, it won’t, and on that basis Swine Flu is something to not worry about either.

History tells us that in the past flu “has” mutated, on several occasions, and it will again. We may be lucky this time that it is H1N1 and not H5N1 that has made the jump to humans. The death rate from this flu may be <1% whereas H5N1, according to independent experts (not governments) might kill 10-25% of the world population.

A lucky escape this time, but no reason to ignore the very real threat,

If you don’t know that you are going to die, you are a fool.

If you alter your behaviour because you are worried about dying from swine flu, you are a complete fool.

I assume that you mean ships that are operated by robots rather than sailors? If I recall correctly, the spread of HIV/AIDS in North America is directly linked to a sexually active air steward. Unfortunately for the man and his family, his name will be eternally connected with the infection; the reality is that if he were not the vector for the virus, somebody else would have spread it.

If it takes just one individual (in theory) to infect all continents with a virus that is more difficult to transmit than swine flu, how should we respond? I kind of like what we are doing now. Don’t travel to Mexico (and other places to follow, no doubt). Don’t go the office or cinema if you are suffering flu symptoms. Acknowledge that flu is horrible to you but that you are not going to die unless you are already ill. Wait for the virologists to learn more.

Well, its debatable if stopping flights to Mexico will really have any impact. The experts seem to think not. It is how ever good in showing you to be a decisive government acting fast. The same with pointless pork bans.

Vaccines for flus like this can often be developed in months and produced to be widely distributed within a year. How do you think they do annual flu vaccines? Obviously its not certain they can do that, but to say it will probably be years is just something you have made up.

Your last paragraph seems to throw out all your previous points, so I’m not sure why you bothered to post them. The primary aim of measures is to slow and lower the rate of infection and minimise deaths. They can result in 10-20% less of the population being infected. They can also delay when infections occur, hopefully until after vaccine availability.

I didn’t propose prohibiting trade between nations – cargo can still move by ship as it always has done. I said I’d consider the problem a serious global threat if the world’s states initiated a ban on passenger air travel (for the duration of the crisis although if you take the threat to the world posed by climate change seriously I think one ought to consider a permanent ban on all but medically necessary travel). But I do doubt whether the world’s poor really benefit from tourism to their countries. The owners of the gigantic resorts do, certainly.

Some countries have banned flights to and from Mexico which does indicate a perception of threat (on the part of those states – mainly in South America). Apparently, according to an AP report, health officials don’t consider erecting a cordon sanitaire a means of stopping the spread of the disease. Which implies that one can simply do nothing – even staying at home and seeing no one (the order given to the Mexican population) won’t stop you getting it (who advised the Mexican State to order this isolation – according to anonymous health officials it doesn’t stop disease spreading at all). Health officials seem to place all their hope of stopping it on developing an effective vaccine (one doesn’t exist at the moment and who knows how long it will take to make one – years I’d imagine unless the researchers get lucky).

As far as I can see – according to the experts – isolating oneself either on an individual or collective basis – wearing face masks or any other cosmetic measure – won’t stop it – only a vaccination program will. So, in the absence of a vaccine, it becomes a matter of luck or fate or what have you whether you succumb. Doesn’t seem much point in worrying about it – it’s out of your hands. You can’t do anything short of getting injected with a vaccine to avoid it. No vaccine exists. If you’re the kind of person disposed to worrying about the prospect of catching a disease then you worry. If not, you don’t. The only people who can do anything to stop it are in labs right now trying to isolate the virus and develop a vaccine. Everyone else has nothing to do, except worry.

No, it has no indication at all, just explaining that is my personal reason (perhaps other peoples?) as to not take it so serious on first instinct. He’s probably taking a gamble on it not coming to anything here more than anything else, then credit claiming can begin.

Nice try, they had ocean liners conveying huge numbers of people all over the place (such as Ellis Island in NYC). Remember the Titanic, the Lithuania etc? Thousands of ships like them plied the seas taking people from one continent to another (ships with people confined in extremely cramped quarters in Third class – the perfect environment for a disease to spread). These acted as vectors unless the virus got conveyed by high altitude winds or something. Air travel from the 50s onward gradually took away their business.

How did part (not all) of the Third World become dependent on tourism from the West in the first place? Does Western tourism really spread the wealth? Have we got another example of ‘trickle down economics’? Good to hear that the third runway at Heathrow will benefit the poor, brown folk of the planet. Someone get the Prime Minister’s PR people on the line – they need to know this pronto. If you object to it – you want the poor and downtrodden to remain so: you want to promote the poverty and disease of undeveloped countries.

Most people have never had to wank a horse or kill a badger with a hammer let alone make candles from their own earwax so my survival skills will guarantee me a high position in future society.

I’d agree to an extent, except that politicians jump on anything to claim points, and I’m not sure what Brown does has much bearing in either direction on the seriousness of a situation.

A worldwide ban on air travel would cause (more) economic chaos, which would also have a serious impact on many developing countries that rely on things like tourism to support their economies. It would do almost as much damage as a virus. Apart from that, great idea.

I read a news item where Brown was talking about how this recent struggle he’s been in (Gurkhas, expenses) is nothing compared to the big issues that Labour will be delivering on. He cited the economy and swine flu.

It doesn’t fill me with confidence when a prime minister is either a) trying to score kudos points off of the media frenzy of the moment or b) actually believes that a government should be applauded for planning the best defence against the virus given both how much warning there’s been and how little is actually in politicians hands as to how it ends up playing out.

I mentioned it as that for me is why I tend to automatically think it’s hyped up, because politians…well, Brown…is jumping on it and flogging it for what it’s worth in an attempt to say “look at me, aren’t I great?”

Well, how many people are likely to be killed by police in the UK? Should we not pay attention to that? Can we talk about nothing except third world poverty? This doesn’t seem reasonable. People are more concerned about issues close to them; an illness they may end up having, that it is possible will kill people they know, is obviously of concern to people. Thats a natural result of people valuing personal relationships. Acting as if we should completly ignore that is inane.

Again – if it really does pose an immense threat, demand a worldwide ban on air travel. 99% of those journeys are completely non-essential.

On a serious note, I am slightly concerned. I was able to ignore the threat as long as the media blathered on about, but now there has been a balanced, intelligent post on it I am not so sure.

I’m having trouble parsing the second half of the comment, though. Apparently my brain is used up for the week.