The media coverage reminds me of the killer bee threat of about ten years ago, or the year 2000 computer bug.
I agree that the way an issue like this is treated in the media is not necessarily a good indication of the actual degree of risk. As I've indicated earlier, I'm more concerned by the growing consensus among experts in virology, microbiology, and epidemeology that the risk is very high.
It's always a good idea to consider the objectivity a source of information. Like yourself, I regard mainstream media as particularly suspect; much of it hardly rises above the level of entertainment. It's unfortunate that our appetite for thrills has created an atmosphere in which distinguishing genuine concerns from sensationalized ones often presents such a challenging figure-to-ground problem. Perhaps there is something about human nature that makes this unavoidable. What may be even worse is the way so many people seem to become desensitized to an issue once it has recieved a certain amount of media attention.
As far as overenthusiastic media coverage of the Y2k bug problem goes, it is often noted that millions of dollars and thousands of programmer-hours were spent toward preventing serious widespread problems from that. The fact that those efforts were successful does not mean that the threat was not real, and neither does the fact that the media got a lot of mileage out of it.
Its shrill and focuses almost totally on worst case scenarios (2 million dead in the US!).
In coming up with realistic predictions of the numbers likely to be affected by H5N1, does it seem reasonable to you to rely on previous pandemics as models? Two million deaths is based on an attack rate of less than thirty percent, and a mortality rate of less than three percent (in other words, about like the Spanish flu pandemic). To put this in perspective, while AIDS killed 25 million in its first 25 years, the Spanish flu probably killed that many in 25 weeks.
But those really aren't "worst-case" numbers anyway; one leading researcher in the field, Henry "
not just some guy in a garage" Niman, has criticized the WHO for being too conservative in their estimates. He warns that if H5N1 is transmitted with the same efficiency as human flu, even a single digit mortality rate could have an impact significantly greater than 1918, and the high pathogenicity H5N1 has demonstrated so far indicates that the possibility of a double digit rate cannot be easily dismissed. NOW you're talking worst-case scenario.
Keep in mind that influenza typically strikes 10% to 20% of the U.S. population yearly, and is often associated with about 36,000 deaths nationwide -- and this in the face of antivirals, antibiotics, steroid anti-inflammatories, and all that modern medicine can bring to bear.
Meanwhile whether the pendemic even happens or not is dependant on a lot of "what ifs".
If you take a close look at the mechanics of viral reproduction, you may come to appreciate why it is that so many of the people who do that sort of thing for a living have come to regard
whether a flu pandemic will happen as pretty much a slam dunk. The open questions mostly have to do with
when and
how bad. There are also some specific and (very scientifically defensible) reasons why they consider H5N1 to be such a likely candidate.
