My Chicken has a cough !

Mike · 09-01-2006, 10:37

Hold all news.................forget Charles Kennedy, Prince William, big brother ..........my chicken has developed a cough over night. I heard it at about 0430 cough about 4 times and I am currently trying to contact all news channels so they can run with it as their headlines.

I realise this is major news following the sad death of a number of children from the same family in turkey. As the father stated on the news last night they realise their chicken was ill but the disposal method did not work in the form that they killed it and the children then ate it !!!!!

When will the British media get a real sense of proportion !

Mike

homealone · 09-01-2006, 11:00

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian.../en/index.html

no confirmed human to human infection, though.

**Chris** · 09-01-2006, 11:29

I was wondering about this while watching BBC news last night. It is a nasty disease alright, but it can't pass from human to human. So far as I can see it's on a par with rabies. Nasty if you get it, but you're not very likely to get it.

There is of course the much-trumpeted possibility that the virus will mutate into a form that is transmittable between humans but (and could a geneticist correct me if I'm wrong here) if it can mutate to be transmittable
between people, it can also mutate to be less damaging.

There are just too many ifs and maybes for my liking here. While I
I'm certainly going to be sensible about being near to any poultry I might come across (not that this tends to be a problem for me, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. At the moment it has all the hallmarks of a tabloid scare story, fuelled by the traditional lack of news at this time of year.

**David F** · 09-01-2006, 11:43

I did actually say in my first post(deleted) that maybe the op should call the vet not the news (still not actually ascertained if he has a chicken or not) The worry is that someone with human flu will contract bird flu and new virus transmitable through the air could mutate

**Chris** · 09-01-2006, 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

I did actually say in my first post(deleted) that maybe the op should call the vet not the news (still not actually ascertained if he has a chicken or not)

It's irony. The point of the thread is media hysteria over bird flu. I deleted all the posts that were not relevant to that point.

Nugget · 09-01-2006, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

It's irony. The point of the thread is media hysteria over bird flu. I deleted all the posts that were not relevant to that point.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's 'media hysteria'. If it's been proven that people have died from bird flu, then it's a legitimate concern (particularly seeing as it appears to be spreading (slowly) into Europe).

Having said that, I do agree that, sometimes, the media could do with taking a step back and thinking about the possible effects of what they're reporting.

**David F** · 09-01-2006, 11:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's 'media hysteria'. If it's been proven that people have died from bird flu, then it's a legitimate concern (particularly seeing as it appears to be spreading (slowly) into Europe).

Having said that, I do agree that, sometimes, the media could do with taking a step back and thinking about the possible effects of what they're reporting.

I agree that it may not be hysteria.We are due something bad and I think it would be a mistake to be apathetic about it,In the early 1900's after all a pandemic of a new virus killed millions of people(50 million+).I know we have better drugs now.But the chances of something awful occuring is very real indeed

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/06-h...anish-flu.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/437794a.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171329,00.html

09-01-2006, 13:15

Once more, Zinglebarb prooves he knows what he's talking about

The news slowly coming out of Turkey today doesn't make for good listening, or give any sense of security

Xaccers · 09-01-2006, 13:25

Anyone else hear on the news today that the common flu we have each year came into England back in '68 and most people now have some immunity to it becasue they've been infected with so many varients of the same virus?

Avian flu will only be a major problem if someone with human flu gets infected with it, and the avian strain absorbs RNA (remember, viruses aren't alive, and don't have DNA) from the human flu which enables it to be human to human transferable.
If that happens, I'm staying away from my airconditioned office with "hot desks"

Nugget · 09-01-2006, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

I agree that it may not be hysteria.We are due something bad and I think it would be a mistake to be apathetic about it,In the early 1900's after all a pandemic of a new virus killed millions of people(50 million+).I know we have better drugs now.But the chances of something awful occuring is very real indeed

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/06-h...anish-flu.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/437794a.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171329,00.html

Well, on paper, we're overdue a flu epidemic by about 40 years

The problem we have now is that, taking into account the advances in medicine, the flu virus has had to evolve to survive. As a result, we see more and more virulent strains emerging which, obviously, present more of a risk - as has been reported ad infinitum the fact that the flu virus can mutate is the main problem (IMO).

This also presents problems regarding the vaccine - the worst case scenario being what if, having mutated, the virus is now resistant to the vaccine? We live in a world where MRSA is becoming more prevalent and, by definition, is resistant to antibiotics. What happens if the flu virus reaches that point?

09-01-2006, 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

Well, on paper, we're overdue a flu epidemic by about 40 years

The problem we have now is that, taking into account the advances in medicine, the flu virus has had to evolve to survive. As a result, we see more and more virulent strains emerging which, obviously, present more of a risk - as has been reported ad infinitum the fact that the flu virus can mutate is the main problem (IMO).

This also presents problems regarding the vaccine - the worst case scenario being what if, having mutated, the virus is now resistant to the vaccine? We live in a world where MRSA is becoming more prevalent and, by definition, is resistant to antibiotics. What happens if the flu virus reaches that point?

Agreed, it seems Tamaflu, the golden protector, is useless against it, as reported on Sky tv news a few nights ago, so don't know where we'll stand then if it does mutate

**David F** · 09-01-2006, 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

Well, on paper, we're overdue a flu epidemic by about 40 years

The problem we have now is that, taking into account the advances in medicine, the flu virus has had to evolve to survive. As a result, we see more and more virulent strains emerging which, obviously, present more of a risk - as has been reported ad infinitum the fact that the flu virus can mutate is the main problem (IMO).

This also presents problems regarding the vaccine - the worst case scenario being what if, having mutated, the virus is now resistant to the vaccine? We live in a world where MRSA is becoming more prevalent and, by definition, is resistant to antibiotics. What happens if the flu virus reaches that point?

then we are stuffed m8

homealone · 09-01-2006, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Anyone else hear on the news today that the common flu we have each year came into England back in '68 and most people now have some immunity to it becasue they've been infected with so many varients of the same virus?

Avian flu will only be a major problem if someone with human flu gets infected with it, and the avian strain absorbs RNA (remember, viruses aren't alive, and don't have DNA) from the human flu which enables it to be human to human transferable.
If that happens, I'm staying away from my airconditioned office with "hot desks"

there is a theory that as diseases get established their virulence can decrease, notwithstanding the affect of immunity.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...5/ai_n15726748

The thinking is, that it is not 'practical' for any invading organism to have too high a mortality rate in the host, as that would ultimately be self defeating.

**Derek S** · 09-01-2006, 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Avian flu will only be a major problem if someone with human flu gets infected with it, and the avian strain absorbs RNA (remember, viruses aren't alive, and don't have DNA)

Errr some of them do.

All viruses are is some DNA or RNA (never both) surrounded with a protein covering. They aren't alive in the traditional sense as they don't reproduce and don't metabolise.

Xaccers · 09-01-2006, 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

This also presents problems regarding the vaccine - the worst case scenario being what if, having mutated, the virus is now resistant to the vaccine? We live in a world where MRSA is becoming more prevalent and, by definition, is resistant to antibiotics. What happens if the flu virus reaches that point?

Totally different beings, MRSA is a bacteria, and therefore antibiotics are able to attack it (just not that many left that can).
Viruses are strands of RNA, and require a cell to reproduce them. They are not alive, and antibiotics have no effect, hence why if you have a cold or the flu, your doctor won't give you antibiotics unless they believe you are at risk of a secondary bacterial infection.

Your body attacks infections in various ways.
A fever attempts to warp the virus, preventing it being able to enter cells and work, unfortunately your temperature can go so high that your own enzymes warp and your body is no longer able to function.
Some of the anti-bodies you produce (and normally it's the precence of anti-bodies which are checked for to see what infection you have) tell infected cells to self destruct, so that the virus is released and can then be absorbed by T cells etc and destroyed.
This leaves a hole where the destructed cell was, which normally isn't a problem, but if that cell was in the lining of your lungs, well liquid can seep in through the hole.
Multiply that up by the number of infected cells, and you get lovely things like double pneumonia, and eventually drown.
Yum.
If companies had a policy that if you have the flu, you take 2 weeks off to recover, then fewer people in the building would be infected, and the total number of hours lost to the flu would be less.
Unfortunately most companies don't have this policy, so infected people stock up on beechams or lemsip and carry on regardless, infecting their colleagues, and making more sales for beechams/lemsip (great marketting).

To attack viruses you have vaccines and anti-viral drugs.
Vaccines need to be given before infection, and have varying lifetimes.
They cause your body to think it is infected, and produces an immuno response, so if you do get infected, it's attacked straight away and doesn't get a chance to take hold.
Anti-virals are designed to attack the virus itself, either by damaging it or blocking it's receptors so it's not able to link with any cells.