scary virus epidemics

[Lyle Najita]

In article <03NOV94.09941225.0194 at UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>, JARDINE  P
<F3CM at UNB.CA> wrote:

> There have been a number of postings lately about emergent viral strains
> and how they threaten us. Concern over this subject bothers me for two
> reasons.
> 1) It shows how biased we are in Western culture regarding how disease
> is working in the world. Every year 2.5 million people contract malaria
> and of these 250,000 die. Emerging strains of influenza, a nuisance to
> us in the "modern" world, kill thousands on there trip from China or
> Indonesia. But we put emphasis on a few deaths from hanta or elbola?
> I think our priorities are a little screwy. Selfish at best.

The difference between the deaths caused by "hot" agents like Hantan and
Ebola viruses versus influenza virus is that unlike flu the "hot" agents
seem not to discriminate based on the well-being of the victim. Influenza
is more commonly lethal in the very young, the elderly and people who are
not in very good health in general. Moreover, there are vaccines and
vaccination programs for influenza which do not exist for some of the
newer and potentially more deadly viruses. Furthermore, "emerging" strains
of influenza usually result from recombination of surface proteins
(hemagglutinin and neuraminidase, the major surface protein components) in
hosts infected by multiple strains. This leads to reassortment of the
viral genetic components which encode these proteins leading to "new"
strains. Most lethal outbreaks of flu can be traced back to reassortments
of surface proteins which have not been "seen" by the current human
population.

> 2) This whole deal about lethal viral strains shows our ignorance about
> the biology of these bugs in the first place. In the absence of real
> understanding or at least respectful understanding of these
> pathogens, we allow the media and ourselves to make these events seem
> drastic and exciting. New viral and bacterial pathogens will continue
> to emerge as long as we're on this planet. They do not spell doom. They
> are as much a part of the system as we are.
 
Agreed! The problem is making the people who control the research budgets
understand that if these viruses become a problem, it's already too late.
The time to do the research and look for vaccines is before any major
outbreak can occur. BTW, if I remember correctly, the budget for the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ranks third of all
the NIH institutes and the bulk of the money is earmarked for AIDS
research. I'm not saying that AIDS is not a problem and shouldn't be
researched to a high extent. Rather, I find it disturbing that we do not
see the logic in directing more research effort towards other infectious
diseases. If reports are correct, some of these agents are very highly
contagious and airborne. I don't remember anyone ever claiming cancer was
particularly communicable (I'm, of course, omitting references to HTLVs
since I do not know about horizontal transmission of these viruses).


> By the way, nothing we might try to create or accidentally turn loose
> from a lab can beat the reservoir of disease natures been hiding.
> 
> fight the hype
> PJ Jardine

Whole-hearted agreement. I doubt that we'll ever create a test tube
scenario that can compete in complexity with any natural host.

L