[HN Gopher] Congo gov. says it's 'on alert' over mystery flu-lik...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Congo gov. says it's 'on alert' over mystery flu-like disease that
       killed dozens
        
       Author : amichail
       Score  : 101 points
       Date   : 2024-12-05 20:06 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.ctvnews.ca)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.ctvnews.ca)
        
       | lawls wrote:
       | Just in time for the holidays.
        
       | jimbob45 wrote:
       | _Epidemiological experts are in the region to take samples and
       | investigate the disease, the minister said...
       | 
       | "At the current stage, we cannot speak of a large-scale epidemic,
       | we must wait for the results of the samples taken," health
       | minister Kamba said regarding the mystery flu-like disease._
       | 
       | Not really "on alert" then, just waiting to see if what we're
       | seeing is novel or what.
        
         | uoaei wrote:
         | That's exactly what "on alert" means.
        
       | gorgoiler wrote:
       | Hmmm. What is "ctvnews.ca"? I do not have any prior reason to
       | trust this news source but would welcome some kind of hints.
       | 
       | Edit: I show my ignorance of north of the border! It is a major
       | Canadian news station. Thanks for the replies.
        
         | ceejayoz wrote:
         | Major news org in Canada.
         | 
         | If you prefer:
         | 
         | https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y83ejz7eeo.amp
         | 
         | https://apnews.com/article/congo-mystery-disease-0df7a70c883...
         | 
         | https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna182804
        
         | taysix wrote:
         | One of the largest Canadian news broadcasters
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTV_News
        
         | eddsolves wrote:
         | It's fine to not know, but why not google and check? It's
         | surely quicker than asking
        
           | Kye wrote:
           | I see people here in the US take The Beaverton seriously. I
           | see people in Canada take The Onion seriously. It's hard to
           | evaluate things like this from the outside.
        
             | zymhan wrote:
             | > It's hard to evaluate things like this from the outside.
             | 
             | No, it's not.
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beaverton
        
       | whalesalad wrote:
       | I've seen this movie before.
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreak_(film)
        
       | foobarian wrote:
       | Don't worry it's not airborne
        
         | VeejayRampay wrote:
         | where did you get that information?
        
           | mort96 wrote:
           | I think it's a joke? Probably referencing how everyone said
           | that COVID-19 wasn't airborne and we were hyper focused on
           | surface transmission when it is, in fact, airborne
        
             | XorNot wrote:
             | I love how everyone is a retrospective expert on COVID-19,
             | claiming things were "obvious" about it when it was in
             | fact, a brand new disease - characterized by in fact, never
             | having been seen before and as a result was completely
             | unknown.
             | 
             | "It was airborne! They should've known that!" - like, how?
             | You can't exactly grab a few hundred people, and run an
             | experiment where you deliberately infect a bunch of them
             | with a brand new, deadly disease to really pin down the
             | transmission mechanism. And given that everyone _lost their
             | minds_ over face masks,  "wash hands" was some pretty mild
             | initial advice while so much wasn't certain.
        
             | foobarian wrote:
             | It's Morgan Freeman's classic line from Outbreak. Young
             | people I tell ya... :-)
        
       | losteric wrote:
       | So as I understand it:
       | 
       | - Panzi is an isolated, hard-to-access area where malnutrition,
       | prior epidemics, and seasonal flu have already weakened the
       | population.
       | 
       | - Poor healthcare infrastructure and delayed medical intervention
       | have amplified deaths.
       | 
       | - There is no evidence of rapid or widespread transmission. (see
       | first point).
       | 
       | - Samples have been retrieved for testing. At this point, there
       | is no information on transmission vector (assuming it's even a
       | disease)
        
         | giarc wrote:
         | 300+ cases is quite a few when you consider that many will not
         | be reported.
        
       | hvenev wrote:
       | Despite the sad context, this seems refreshing -- an alert is
       | raised due to a real and serious concern.
        
       | cmriversepi wrote:
       | I'm an epi professor and longtime HN lurker. I wrote a short
       | essay yesterday about how to think about these mysterious
       | outbreaks [1]. Briefly, the most common outcome is they are
       | determined to be an endemic disease. Less likely is an emerging
       | infectious disease. The most concerning possibility is something
       | novel or highly unexpected.
       | 
       | [1] https://caitlinrivers.substack.com/p/understanding-
       | mysteriou...
        
         | etiam wrote:
         | Are you willing to hazard a guess how long it will take to get
         | material analyzed to determine which of your categories this is
         | in?
        
           | cmriversepi wrote:
           | The first round of test results should come in Friday or this
           | weekend. The longer it goes undiagnosed, the more we tip into
           | categories 2 and 3.
        
             | etiam wrote:
             | Thanks.
             | 
             | So basically, if it's any of numerous reasonably well-known
             | but very local diseases a fluid's probably going to go
             | colored in some field test kit and say which one, else it
             | could be something known (and often of known substantial
             | concern for large-scale contagion) but too rare or
             | understudied to have cheap robust quick tests yet so that
             | has to be shipped to a real lab (probably with very high
             | biosecurity rating), and if the lab doesn't recognize what
             | they're seeing in their electron microscope and has to do
             | fundamental research first to get a good biochemical
             | profiling it's something truly expanding the boundaries of
             | known infectious pathology?
             | 
             | Something like that?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-12-05 23:00 UTC)