[HN Gopher] WHO says avian flu cases in humans 'worrying' after ...
___________________________________________________________________
WHO says avian flu cases in humans 'worrying' after girl's death in
Cambodia
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 40 points
Date : 2023-02-24 20:02 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| fwungy wrote:
| I used to have so much respect for the WHO. They need to rebuild
| their credibility now.
| peyton wrote:
| Corruption at the WHO is legendary. Been the case for at least
| 30 years.
| jcadam wrote:
| I'm sure handing them broad new powers via the forthcoming
| pandemic treaty will encourage them to reform themselves /s
| fwungy wrote:
| They need to reform themselves before that level of power
| is justifiable for sure.
| [deleted]
| ambientqtns wrote:
| Is it unreasonable to be worried about H5N1 flu killing
| someone? That seems like something to be keeping an eye on, and
| I'm glad the WHO is.
| timr wrote:
| To worry? Yes, it's unreasonable, because there's not a thing
| the WHO can do about it. "Worrying", in particular, does
| nothing. For that matter, pretty much anything involving a PR
| spokesperson from the WHO does nothing.
|
| But that goes 10x for hyperbolic articles from the Guardian,
| which are the real problem here. They take the inanities from
| the PR person, and twist them into hysterical headlines that
| panic people for clicks. You'll note the use of the classic
| "X happens _after_ Y " pattern, which is a standard yellow-
| journalism trope to link X and Y implicitly, even if they're
| unrelated ("puppies die after politician speaks!")
|
| In this case, the WHO spokesman said that the _' increasing
| reports of bird flu in humans are "worrying"'_ (which is
| itself an anti-pattern of quoting a _single word_ ), but the
| rest of the article doesn't at support the headline. If
| anything, it goes out of its way to say that this particular
| case is _not_ worrying, literally in the _first paragraph_ :
|
| > The discovery of two cases of bird flu within the same
| family in Cambodia has highlighted the concern over potential
| human-to-human spread of the virus, although experts have
| stressed the risk remains low.
| graeme wrote:
| > Yes, it's unreasonable, because there's not a thing the
| WHO can do about it.
|
| The WHO exists to contain such things so as to minimize the
| risk of wider harm.
|
| It is not inevitable that every new disease spreads widely
| and becomes endemic. SARS and MERS were contained, for
| example.
|
| If this new bird flu started transmitting human to human
| and was as lethal as it is in birds and animals there would
| be efforts to contain it.
| timr wrote:
| > SARS and MERS were contained, for example
|
| No, they weren't. They spread widely, and then simply
| petered off for reasons we don't fully understand.
|
| To conclude that we therefore "contained" these viruses
| via some bureaucratic measure is a classic example of
| human hubris with regards to our power over nature.
| wheelerof4te wrote:
| "The WHO exists to contain such things so as to minimize
| the risk of wider harm."
|
| The WHO exists to do nothing but spread panic and chaos
| across the globe.
|
| They are morally and humanly corrupt people.
| [deleted]
| tpmx wrote:
| Easy fix. Get rid of any influence from that giant country
| that's to the east of Russia. I use that ambiguous term for a
| reason.
| chr-s wrote:
| What has actually been done to prevent the next outbreak?
|
| I remember there was an acknowledgement that we all knew
| something like COVID-19 would happen eventually. There was
| Contagion, a 2011 film about a realistic pandemic, or Bill Gates'
| TED talk, 'The next outbreak? We're not ready', in 2015.
| Globally, we weren't prepared for what seemed like an
| inevitability. Perhaps the 1918 flu pandemic was just outside our
| familial experience. Just as the memory of The Great War fades,
| and perhaps the lessons of the Second World War as well, as our
| parents' parents become memories.
|
| Now, we're more prepared. Although, I suspect stockpiles will
| fall over the next decade. What are we doing to prevent the next
| outbreak? We know that research of viruses needs the utmost
| controls and oversight. They are more deadly than nuclear weapons
| and we should treat them as such. We know keeping animals in
| close quarters, mixed species, and in poor conditions is a
| perfect environment for natural viral evolution. I've seen images
| of chicken farms in the USA and vertical hog farms in China that
| give me chills. How can we get a handle on this situation?
| thedrbrian wrote:
| [flagged]
| coolspot wrote:
| Just two weeks to flatten the curve?
| wheelerof4te wrote:
| Those are rookie numbers.
|
| We need at least two and a half.
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| The WHO absolutely bungled the last pandemic. And now it has
| increased authority [1]. It's mostly a function of the Bill and
| Melinda Gates foundation now, sadly.
|
| [1]:https://chrissmith.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docume.
| ..
| favaq wrote:
| [flagged]
| fwungy wrote:
| The problem is in late stage capitalism is there is so much
| incentive to not letting a "crisis go to waste."
|
| Scientists should be running the show, not MBAs looking to goose
| Financials.
|
| Good science is done in the open. Skepticism and challenges to
| theory are part of the scientific process, not a hindrance. The
| WHO could restore a lot of credibility by fighting their image as
| corporate enablers.
| smt88 wrote:
| Whether or not people agree with you, this seems to be an
| unrelated rant about the WHO. How does it apply to this
| specific topic and article?
| fwungy wrote:
| The WHO is making the claim.
|
| If Alex Jones was making the claim could I not could consider
| that?
| 988747 wrote:
| > Scientists should be running the show
|
| Hard disagree. Scientists have tunnel vision, they are so
| focused on their own area of expertise that they totally ignore
| second order effects their actions have on society. Covid
| pandemic was one such example: scientists advised lockdowns,
| which did not help much in stopping virus spread, but did ruin
| the economy.
| realworldperson wrote:
| [dead]
| fwungy wrote:
| Why all the aggressive down voting?
| timr wrote:
| Anything involving viruses has become a hot-button political
| issue (at least in the USA). There is a significant faction of
| people who want to panic at any suggestion of a new pandemic,
| and refuse to be mollified by any contradictory facts. There is
| also a significant faction who want to ridicule public health
| authorities, and refuse to believe that there might be any who
| are acting in good faith. Anyone in the middle -- like _actual
| scientists_ , who tend to be skeptical of hyperbolic claims --
| gets torched by both groups.
|
| Unfortunately, also in the US, these two factions break down
| almost perfectly along party lines.
| bsaul wrote:
| The fact that covid happened during the us presidential
| campaign is probably the second largest reason why the
| pandemic has been so poorly handled in the world (the first
| major reason being that it emerged from china and its very
| problematic regime)
| smt88 wrote:
| > _The fact that covid happened during the us presidential
| campaign is probably the second largest reason why the
| pandemic has been so poorly handled in the world_
|
| Handling of Covid in other countries seems unrelated.
| Japan, a very conservative country and close US ally,
| handled it well, as an example.
| timr wrote:
| Absolutely agreed. Don't forget that the presidential
| campaign involved an _extremely_ controversial figure.
| yabones wrote:
| Has person-to-person transmission been proven for H5N1? It's
| still quite likely they were both infected from the same animal.
| If they can prove spread between people, that's a big problem...
| Until then this isn't a risk, other than the major implications
| for agriculture and food supply.
| legulere wrote:
| Family clusters have happened for a long time with H5N1, with
| human-to-human being likely. For instance a paper that
| currently goes around from 2007:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857285/
|
| The issue is that each mammal/human infection gives the virus
| the possibility to adapt to mammals/humans and/or reassortment
| with other influenza viruses, like happened with H1N1/09.
| ambientqtns wrote:
| As far as I've read, they aren't sure about human to human
| transmission. Roughly a dozen people have had H5N1, but they
| all plausibly could have gotten it from poultry handling.
|
| Which means a) no need to panic, but definitely a good idea to
| keep an eye on things in case we _do_ observe human <->human
| transmission and b) Maybe we need to revisit how we raise
| animals for food....
| myshpa wrote:
| > Maybe we need to revisit how we raise animals for food
|
| Maybe the problem isn't how, but how many.
| [deleted]
| timr wrote:
| Probably, but it's rare and hard to confirm. Animal-to-human
| transmission is also rare, for that matter.
|
| The headline is irresponsible and fear-mongering clickbait,
| even just by referencing the contents of the article below it.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| Even just probably-unwarranted "worrying" is now "fear-
| mongering clickbait"? I feel so genuinely sad about the
| feverish level of shitflinging that so many topics are
| subject to due merely to their proximity to social politics.
| timr wrote:
| Read the article. The headline is not at all supported by
| the content, which itself is based on a single-word quote
| from a WHO spokesperson that leaves a great deal of doubt
| about the intent of the comment. Literally the first
| paragraph of the story contradicts the headline:
|
| > The discovery of two cases of bird flu within the same
| family in Cambodia has highlighted the concern over
| potential human-to-human spread of the virus, _although
| experts have stressed the risk remains low._
|
| By the third paragraph, you will know that human-to-human
| transmission _hasn 't even been confirmed in this case_. By
| the _fourth_ paragraph, you will know that the thing
| "worrying" the WHO is the growth of human cases, not this
| particular case.
|
| Unfortunately, most people don't read past the headline,
| and the Guardian knows it.
| biorach wrote:
| After 2 cases in the same family in Cambodia a director
| of the WHO says "The global H5N1 situation is worrying
| given the wide spread of the virus in birds around the
| world and the increasing reports of cases in mammals
| including humans,"
|
| The Guardian's headline is "WHO says avian flu cases in
| humans 'worrying' after girl's death in Cambodia"
|
| This sounds a) reasonable grounds for worry by someone
| who studies epidemics and b) an accurate headline by the
| Guardian.
| TSiege wrote:
| I don't think it's been proved, but I tink the concern is that
| it's viewed as a matter of when not if.
|
| > The discovery of two cases of bird flu within the same family
| in Cambodia has highlighted the concern over potential human-
| to-human spread of the virus, although experts have stressed
| the risk remains low.
| kaushikc wrote:
| Quality of comments and articles is going the reddit way.
| IndySun wrote:
| This is a fair comment. May I add, broadsheet headlines also.
| SantalBlush wrote:
| Every article about some kind of research is met with low-
| effort "this sucks" comments. "This headline sucks." "This
| research sucks." "This sample size sucks." The comments are
| never enlightening, they should probably just be removed unless
| the poster is willing to elaborate using more than two
| sentences.
| eganist wrote:
| It's been a slow transformation, but one that nevertheless has
| been happening as reddit itself devolves and people on that
| platform look for alternate homes.
|
| But for what it's worth, the moderation team (dang etc) has
| been doing a good job of clamping down on unproductive or non-
| contributing comments. And I think the best we can do at this
| point is to just downvote or flag (as appropriate) anything
| that either doesn't contribute or just goes against the spirit
| of HN.
|
| Anyway, this is entirely off topic. If my point is well made,
| you and I should both be flagged to death for breaking an HN
| rule about meta discussion.
| fwungy wrote:
| So we are only supposed to discuss the article from the
| perspective that the subject of the statement, WHO, is beyond
| question?
|
| If someone posted an article in which MTG said the sky was
| green would it be off topic to mention that MTG is a kook?
| andrelaszlo wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=926703
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-24 23:02 UTC)