Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- From: amacmil304@xxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:40:28 +0100
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:15:58 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <44514f55$0$303$7a628cd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Morgan
<shirley.yu@xxxxxxx> writes
"BAC" <casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
1146038563.13529.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And despite the facts, which the proponent of the idea of not going toMy intended meaning was that a reliance on the belief that a bird was'wild'
would render a person 100% safe from infection from it was equivalent to
reliance on the belief that wearing a banana skin would protect a person
from contracting malaria.
Interesting. My intention was to ridicule the notion that efficient
protection could be deployed (e.g. snake oil remedy) when in fact it is the
risk equating to zero - or so close to zero that it can be discounted -
which protects the individual. You may have seen a proposal that we can
protect ourselves against bird 'flu by not going to reserves for wild birds,
despite the fact that wild birds are everywhere around us.
reserves dishonestly tried to ignore, that at reserves people and birds
are separated while in town parks people feed wild birds by hand and
children play on paths and grass on which the birds have been walking
and crapping.
As I have pointed out before birds don't crap where you want them to.
Also, the greatest concentration of wildfowl which could have
infection but not show the symptoms are at bird reserves. One doesn't
get thousands of wildfowl in the local duck pond.
An outbreak of HSN1 could happen at any time in the UK and for you to
infer that there is zero risk is irresponsible.
The unexpected can happen at any time. Staying away from birds
reserves in an area where the infection has been identified is a
prudent suggestion.
It is acknowledged that if the virus mutates then it could kill
10,000 school children. That was announced last week. If that's not
a risk I don't know what is.
Experts, fear the virus could mutate at some point in the future, and
in its new form trigger a flu pandemic, potentially putting millions
of human lives at risk.
If someone has a mild flu and comes into contact with infected
droppings, mutation could take place and a pandemic ensue.
It's prudent to avoid bird reserves where large numbers of wildfowl
that may have been in contact with migratory birds are present.
So what's your problem?
The bird reserves won't be any the worse for lack of humans, will
they? More space and peace and quiet for birds I would say.
Your opposition to my suggestion is all about exploiting birds and
coining in money :-(
It's you who doesn't care about people getting bird flu; not me as you
try to infer :-(
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
.
- References:
- Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- From: John Morgan
- Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- From: BAC
- Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- From: BAC
- Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- From: John Morgan
- Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- From: BAC
- Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- From: John Morgan
- Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- From: BAC
- Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- From: John Morgan
- Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- Prev by Date: Re: Angus will be delighted :-)
- Next by Date: Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- Previous by thread: Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- Next by thread: Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|