Re: Zero avian 'flu risk from wild birds


"Malcolm" <Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mge8YiMp4iUEFwsv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In article <1146233081.39699.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, BAC
<casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

"Malcolm" <Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0w24c8EItgUEFwuM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In article <1146219308.34801.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, BAC
<casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

To simplify,
(1) I do not agree there is 'zero risk' of a person contracting
avian
flu
from infected birds, hence my initial involvement in John's thread,
which
claimed (tongue in cheek, as it happens) that the risk was zero. The
risk
may be, and almost certainly is, very small indeed, but it is not
'zero'.
The distinction is perhaps similar to that between 'impossible' and
'extremely improbable' over which we disagreed some years ago.

So we did.

(2) It follows from (1) that I am unable to disagree categorically
with
Angus's opinion that there might be a risk of contracting avian flu
from
an
infected bird and hence, if a person wished to avoid that risk, he
might
decide to avoid locations where he believed he might encounter
infected
birds.

OK, you may not disagree with Angus's opinion, and certainly if a
person
decides they want to avoid certain locations, that's fine. But that is
not what Angus is doing. He already avoids bird reserves, though for
other reasons. He is deliberately setting out to try and persuade
people
not to visit bird reserves and equally deliberately not mentioning the
many other places where, unlike at bird reserves, people and wild
migrants actually do come into physical contact. Surely you would agree
that if someone had genuine concern for the well-being of his fellow
humans and wanted to prevent them becoming infected, he would advise
visiting any locations with wild migrants, and especially town parks
where people feed the birds by hand and can hardly avoid treading in
their droppings? Angus's failure to do that demonstrates that there is
nothing genuine about his advice, merely his anti-conservation agenda
at
work, leading him to make these dishonest statements.

As should be clear from my other postings on this matter, IMO, if a
person
were so concerned about the possibility of encountering concentrations of
migratory waterfowl that he thought it advisable to avoid one particular
location where he thought they may be encountered, it would be illogical
for
him not to also avoid locations which he thought might be equally
'contaminated'.

Are you saying that Angus is "illogical"? Goodness me!

No, I'm not saying Angus is illogical. I'm saying that, if he believed other
locations were equally as risky as he thinks some nature reserves to be, it
would be illogical for him to advocate visiting them at the same time as
suggesting it would be prudent to visit the reserves. However, I believe he
has made it plain he doesn't regard, for example, duck ponds in local parks,
to be equally risky.


I suspect you may well be right as to Angus's motives in picking out
nature
reserves for a mention in this newsgroup. As I've said elsewhere, the
'debate' between Angus and MK (in particular) and yourself on this group
generally consists of attempts to score points and 'wind up' the
opposition,
and if that were his objective he certainly seems to have hit the mark.

But he doesn't just try and wind us up, he posts his silly nonsense to
the newspapers, even when he has been given the facts here. It seems
extremely likely that he will have sent his nonsense about avoiding bird
reserves to various newspapers, however the absence of him claiming it
in "A letter I agree with" strongly suggests that the various editors
could see his agenda a mile off.

I doubt whether correspondence column editors give a fig about a person's
'agenda' (unless it goes against the proprietor's policies, or would
prejudice career prospects to do so) the more controversial a piece, the
more likely it is to engender lively debate :-)


Nevertheless, I doubt whether anyone reading the thread would conclude
reserves were any more risky to visit than other locations.

Good, because I certainly agree that, with two exceptions, the posters
here are intelligent and honest.

Oh, dear. You are incorrigible.



(3) I accept that people are going to react differently to the
'scare',
just as there have been different reactions, say, to the BSE
situation,
or
to the threat from non-indigenous species, and I believe (rational and
non-confrontational) discussion of people's reactions and opinions is
one
way of helping us all get them into perspective. Perhaps you should
have
more faith in people's commonsense?


I have plenty of faith in people's commonsense! What I don't care for
is
the blatant dishonesty of what Angus is saying.


Given the history, I can well understand the sceptical perspective from
which you view Angus's activities and remarks.

Yes, it would be nice if one could believe his claims, but sadly so many
of them are based on incomplete knowledge, deliberately leave out
important information or are just plain lies :-((


The history I meant was that of the almost ritual exchanges of personal
slights and abuse, which has led to an ingrained mutual antipathy which
makes impossible normal discussion between the protagonists. IMO, that is.


.