Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds


"BAC" <casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
1145957433.19366.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"John Morgan" <shirley.yu@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:444cf3f5$0$303$7a628cd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"BAC" <casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
1145819666.16638.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Malcolm" <Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xynZMoYVt1SEFwOM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In article <1145788083.89829.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, BAC
<casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

"John Morgan" <shirley.yu@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:444b201c$0$303$7a628cd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>

Where does it say there is zero risk of contracting avian flu
from, say, a dead (infected) wild bird?

The suggested calculation is for the risk involved, based on the current
state of knowledge. Because there are no known cases of wild-bird to
human
transmission, the baseline figure for any risk calculation is that
popular
oxymoron, a big fat zero.

Not at all, since the distinction you are making between 'wild' and
'domestic' fowl is arbitrary and, I think, unjustified. What is known
about
those cases where humans have been known to contract HN51 (which are not
necessarily all the cases where humans have contracted it, but that's a
separate issue) is that they are believed to have contracted it from
contact
with a bird or birds which were sick with the disease or which had died
from
it. Hence any bird which is sick/dead from HN51 is a potential risk, if
dealt with inappropriately.

The WHO publication speculates that those who were infected were the sort
of
people whose circumstances dictated they might not feel able to discard
fowl
which were sick or which had died - they might well handle, pluck and
clean
them and eat them. I doubt whether such people would turn up their noses
at
a 'free meal' from a dead or dying wild duck which had mingled with their
stock, would you?

Your point is well made, of course, and as you probably realised, my
"calculation" was tongue-in-cheek rather than quality science. Risk
assessment is indeed possible by extrapolation from the incidence of related
or similar threats, and doubtless some-one, somewhere is working on it.

We can, of course, all go round wearing banana skins on our heads, as
this is known to be100% succesful in preventing malaria transmission in
temperate and polar regions. I prefer not to, taking my chances with all
the
other non-bananaskin wearers out there.


A good analogy. In your case, the 'banana skin' is the apparent belief
that
the fact an infected/dead bird may be 'wild' renders it any less
infectious
than if it were 'domestic'.

I can't quite deduce your intended meaning here. Can you rephrase it?

I got the banana skin idea from the old joke about the man walking through
London with a banana skin on his head. When asked, he explained it was to
keep wild elephants at bay. Told there were no wild elephants within 5,000
miles he replied,"See. It works".

I see the threat of avian 'flu occuring in humans in the western world about
the same as being trampled by a herd of wild elephants while walking down
the Old Kent Road. Once it mutates, however,..........


.