Nearly a Billion Dead in Viral Weapon Simulation

[Stercutus]

Not sure if this is a "give us more money" or "we are just trying to scare you in to trusting us" moment.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/07/3 ... -900m.html

“We don’t have the ability to produce vaccines to a novel pathogen within months rather than decades and we don’t have the global public health capabilities that would allow us to rapidly identify and control an outbreak before it becomes a pandemic

Since it started with Business Insider I am going with #2.

[JayceSlayn]

Link to the BI article: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/pand ... ity-2018-7
And the Center for Health Security Clade X site: http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/ ... index.html

I think this is mainly a scenario test for the various affiliated agencies, but the outcome of 900 million dead is not surprising. I was recently watching a 4+ part video series (it's not complete yet) on the "Spanish Flu" of 1918 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ9WX4q ... qIejFf4Rh2), and history similarly shows how a relatively common virus can mutate suddenly and, given the right circumstances, cause outrageous devastation. What is almost worse than the toll of the virus itself, are the consequences on the economy, military, society, etc.

[raptor]

Considering the 1919 flu pandemic casualties 900 million is not an out of the question figure. As to whether or not are the specific risks it s hard to say.

A link to the pandemic preparation thread.
https://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtop ... =6&t=84225

[SCBrian]

Skimmed the articles, but either didn't see a link to their methodology or it wasn't given. I'd think the infection rate would drop once outside of the initial breakout and information was forthcoming on what type of vector it was using to spread. SARS for instance, hand washing, masks, disinfection of surfaces, much like you'd do if a member of your family had the flu. Other than being at ground zero or close to it, it'd have to be pretty virulent or have a long incubation period to put western cultures at risk. Third world countries, sure - I can see that, but western would be difficult.

[JayceSlayn]

Skimmed the articles, but either didn't see a link to their methodology or it wasn't given. I'd think the infection rate would drop once outside of the initial breakout and information was forthcoming on what type of vector it was using to spread. SARS for instance, hand washing, masks, disinfection of surfaces, much like you'd do if a member of your family had the flu. Other than being at ground zero or close to it, it'd have to be pretty virulent or have a long incubation period to put western cultures at risk. Third world countries, sure - I can see that, but western would be difficult.

The nitty-gritty bits of the Clade X simulation are buried in their "Resources" page (http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/ ... -resources), at the bottom in "Background Materials". Even then, the discussion is pretty brief - I wasn't able to find a big, detailed report anywhere, just the Executive Summary (http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/ ... cument.pdf). The "Clade X Model" document (http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/ ... -model.pdf) has a bunch of differential equations, but little discussion on the outcomes/statistics of each condition tested.

I'd agree, that standard sanitation practices (even with less-than-stellar adequate handwashing rates) in the 1st world would make infection difficult. There are also some circumstances around the 1918 influenza pandemic that are different than today, notably that we aren't presently engaged in trench warfare. And that while the world has become more connected with air travel and ~4x as many people, we have also become more insular in some pockets, like working from home and home delivery of products. They did assume that, like the 1918 influenza strain, that infected people would have a short, asymptomatic-but-infectious incubation period, which could overcome some basic quarantine countermeasures.

EDIT: Or, if you have 5 hours to kill, you can watch the archived live-stream of some of their event proceedings: http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/ ... livestream.

[raptor]

I'd agree, that standard sanitation practices (even with less-than-stellar adequate handwashing rates) in the 1st world would make infection difficult. There are also some circumstances around the 1918 influenza pandemic that are different than today, notably that we aren't presently engaged in trench warfare. And that while the world has become more connected with air travel and ~4x as many people, we have also become more insular in some pockets, like working from home and home delivery of products. They did assume that, like the 1918 influenza strain, that infected people would have a short, asymptomatic-but-infectious incubation period, which could overcome some basic quarantine countermeasures.

The 2017 flu season which was not historically that bad, had over 7% of the US with flu like symptoms, simple math shows 7% of the US population at ~ 24 million people infected and assuming it was worldwide that would yield 420 million. So an assumption that 7% would be at risk of contracting such a virus is not out of the realm of possibility.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/heal ... eaths.html


The risk is nothing to sneeze at...


BTW the best advice to prevent influenza infections is not a mask but rather wash your hands, especially if you are putting on a mask.

[JayceSlayn]

I'd agree, that standard sanitation practices (even with less-than-stellar adequate handwashing rates) in the 1st world would make infection difficult. There are also some circumstances around the 1918 influenza pandemic that are different than today, notably that we aren't presently engaged in trench warfare. And that while the world has become more connected with air travel and ~4x as many people, we have also become more insular in some pockets, like working from home and home delivery of products. They did assume that, like the 1918 influenza strain, that infected people would have a short, asymptomatic-but-infectious incubation period, which could overcome some basic quarantine countermeasures.

The 2017 flu season which was not historically that bad, had over 7% of the US with flu like symptoms, simple math shows 7% of the US population at ~ 24 million people infected and assuming it was worldwide that would yield 420 million. So an assumption that 7% would be at risk of contracting such a virus is not out of the realm of possibility.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/heal ... eaths.html


The risk is nothing to sneeze at...


BTW the best advice to prevent influenza infections is not a mask but rather wash your hands, especially if you are putting on a mask.

+1 to Raptor's comment. I should have been more clear: I think infection throughout the 1st world would be difficult (compared to countries with less institutionalized sanitation). I'd still buy that a sizeable portion of the US could become infected, and potentially a good portion of that could die as a result. I think the death rate is greatly increased, once a large proportion of the population becomes infected, simply from overwhelming the available healthcare system (1st world or not). At the point that there aren't enough hospital beds for the infected, it doesn't really matter what kind of healthcare you could expect to receive, if you can't access it in the first place.

Public bathrooms are (mostly) maintained, public spaces are (mostly) routinely cleaned, health codes for restaurants are inspected and (mostly) well-obeyed, etc. Our environment is far from sterile, but we can expect relatively low risk day-to-day of contracting random illnesses in the US. Some might argue that the lack of routine challenge to our immune systems may have made us less hardy to novel pathogens, but my personal guess (borne out by the trend of longevity with improved healthcare over the ages) is that better routine sanitation and health reinforces better health.

[Stercutus]

What made the Spanish Flu so bad was all the travel associated with WWI. People would become infected or even just carriers in European Battlefields and then drag it back home with them in to small towns everywhere.

Today with our speedy and reliable global travel network it might spread even faster.

In the US a 10% infection rate with a 10% mortality is 3.3M people. This could effectively more than double the number of people who die in the US annually for that particular year. I say could because a lot of those who died would be people who were more likely to die anyway in a given year (older, weaker immune system etc) I imagine once the medical system became overwhelmed the mortality rate would climb some.

I carry an industrial size bottle of sanitizer in my car. After talking to someone or dealing with them I give the hands a good wipe down.

[flybynight]

I remember reading , the reason there was such a high mortality rate for the spanish flu was because it affected the young and strong the worst. Those with a higher immune system would go into a cytokine storm and quickly die . This group of people were also the most likely to be in the military or traveling the world. Those with the weaker immune system got very sick for a longer period but unless there was a separate health factor generally survived. I read somewhere it was common for a young adult to go to work in the morning feeling fine . Come home in the evening feeling ill, and be dead before the night was over.

[Halfapint]

Doesn't sound that out of whack. This last flu season (since we are talking about Spanish Flu), killed a lot of people. I don't know if we have an exact number or not yet. But part of the problem was that the vaccine given out didn't cover the flu that happened. By the time they could have worked up a new vaccine, distributed it, and gotten people immunized it would have been spring and the majority of the cases run their course.

Seeing as something that hits hard and fast it wouldn't be difficult to see millions/billions dead. There are about 8 billion people on Earth, it 10% got sick that's 800 million people.

[Stercutus]

They make the assumption that practically everyone would get sick. Even with a designed virus I am not sure how realistic that is.

[Halfapint]

They make the assumption that practically everyone would get sick. Even with a designed virus I am not sure how realistic that is.

Good point, that I don't think is realistic. However a high death rate of those that ARE infected would be a better guide. Again going back to Spanish flu, it's said that 500million people were infected which was about 1/3rd the total population, of those 50-100million died so that's roughly 10-20% death rate. In today's numbers that would be what? 1.6billion people on the high end? The Spanish flu was a naturally mutated flu virus. An engineered one, even if it effects only 1/3 ("only") with perhaps a 40% mortality rate would be absolutely devastating.

[raptor]

They make the assumption that practically everyone would get sick. Even with a designed virus I am not sure how realistic that is.

It takes only 16.6% of the population to get sick and die from a virus to have a 1 billion casualties world wide (6 billion x .166).

Some diseases are quite virulent but have been controlled (small pox) others that were controlled are now more wide spread (measles).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/30/38271607 ... -last-year

Now the simple fact we have not had a pandemic since 1918 is proof that it is unusual, but pandemics prior to the 20 the century while not common they were also not rare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic

In NOLA we had several epidemics in the 1800's albeit mainly from Yellow Fever.
http://nutrias.org/facts/feverdeaths.htm

[Stercutus]

You are assuming a 100% mortality rate with the 16% figure. Even if it were very high, say 10% mortality your numbers would be reduced close to 90% (again making the assumption that the health system becomes over taxed and could not treat a percentage of the victims).

[raptor]

You are assuming a 100% mortality rate with the 16% figure. Even if it were very high, say 10% mortality your numbers would be reduced close to 90% (again making the assumption that the health system becomes over taxed and could not treat a percentage of the victims).

I agree with your logic.

My post was simply trying to show that getting to a billion dead with a population of 6 billion does not require a high percentage of the overall population.

A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about a very high casualty rate....

[Stercutus]

The world population is now over 7.4 Billion.....

[flybynight]

The world population is now over 7.4 Billion.....

Too many rats in the cage . How long til ma nature put's us in balance?

[raptor]

The world population is now over 7.4 Billion.....

Hmmm ... actually 7.6 and climbing as I type...so then the % needed to get to a 1 billion casualties is 13.1%.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Shouting in no general direction ..."Hey you two! Stop that!"

[Dabster]

Something I've often wondered and this thread seems appropriate...

I've heard that the most likely point of infection (I'm sure there's a cooler and fancier term for this like vector or something) are our eyes. I suspect this is why hand-washing is so encouraged. If we're to the point where masks are being worn, when are goggles or something similar called for?

Thanks!

[raptor]

Something I've often wondered and this thread seems appropriate...

I've heard that the most likely point of infection (I'm sure there's a cooler and fancier term for this like vector or something) are our eyes. I suspect this is why hand-washing is so encouraged. If we're to the point where masks are being worn, when are goggles or something similar called for?

Thanks!

Not trying to shill my own thread but it has some discussion and links of that very subject. Scroll down to the links in the post.

The mucus membranes in your nose are actually better than the eyes but they are not far down on the list along with the mouth. The biggest risk is from your hands wiping your face (eyes, nose and lips). That is why washing hands and gloves are so important. BTW simple soap, water and friction are very effective at disease control. You are trying for clean, sterile is not necessary.

Considering the 1919 flu pandemic casualties 900 million is not an out of the question figure. As to whether or not are the specific risks it s hard to say.

A link to the pandemic preparation thread.
https://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtop ... =6&t=84225

[AraZombie]

That number seems a little bit overexaggerated. That looks like a "worst scenario simulation"

[raptor]

That number seems a little bit overexaggerated. That looks like a "worst scenario simulation"

I would say it is certainly not a best case scenario. However I would note that the Black Death killed anywhere from 30 to 60% of the population in Europe.

On a worldwide basis only 13% of the population would be required to achieve 1 billion casualties. It is certainly within the real of possibilites to achieve that level of casualties.

[NamelessStain]

Ok, here we go...

Smallpox: https://i.redd.it/gnqbue14c0f11.png

1-3 weeks onset
30% mortality rate
supposedly eradicated in 1977.
"It is transmitted from one person to another primarily through prolonged face-to-face contact with an infected person, usually within a distance of 6 feet (1.8 m), but can also be spread through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated objects (fomites) such as bedding or clothing."


Truth time,
USSR and US were making weaponized versions of this since the 70s. Of course both were doing the research in order to create cures against the other. I did research on this back when I was in college. Now, think about this, NO ONE 40 years or younger in the US has been immunized against smallpox. With the long incubation time and assuming a weaponized version would probably be close to 50% mortality rate, what kind of number of deaths are we looking at? Oh, side note, there are only about 500k immunizations in storage in the US with up to 6 months to bring resources to bear to create new ones. Someone can do the math, but I'm guessing 1 billion is possible.

[raptor]

Ok, here we go...

Smallpox: https://i.redd.it/gnqbue14c0f11.png

1-3 weeks onset
30% mortality rate
supposedly eradicated in 1977.
"It is transmitted from one person to another primarily through prolonged face-to-face contact with an infected person, usually within a distance of 6 feet (1.8 m), but can also be spread through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated objects (fomites) such as bedding or clothing."


Truth time,
USSR and US were making weaponized versions of this since the 70s. Of course both were doing the research in order to create cures against the other. I did research on this back when I was in college. Now, think about this, NO ONE 40 years or younger in the US has been immunized against smallpox. With the long incubation time and assuming a weaponized version would probably be close to 50% mortality rate, what kind of number of deaths are we looking at? Oh, side note, there are only about 500k immunizations in storage in the US with up to 6 months to bring resources to bear to create new ones. Someone can do the math, but I'm guessing 1 billion is possible.

Great point. Thank you.

Deploying a weaponized small pox virus would truly be a truly devastating epidemic because of the slow onset and the fact most people have never seen it and ID'ing it would be initially slow resulting in more transmission of the virus. So assuming a 15% transmission rate (on a world wide basis) and a 30% mortality rate you get about 290 million dead +/- and about 1 billion +/- infected.

Note that the disease requires weeks of recovery and isolation to prevent further spread. So basically commerce as see it today would likely be significantly affected since people with any sense would avoid going to any place with large crowds (i.e. Walmart/Grocery store/mass transit). Any form of mass transit would pose a possible transmission risk.

Then there are the care givers who have to take care of the infected 15% of the people. They would also not be able to leave their quarantine areas.

So even in a more realistic scenario with fewer dead the world economy would be greatly impacted. Remember it is not just the dead but you have to factor in the impact of caring for the infected.


BTW this research article indicates that small pox vaccine has a longer residual protection than previously thought.

It is based upon only 209 subjects so obviously YMMV!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610468/

METHODS
We have examined the magnitude and duration of antiviral antibody immunity conferred by smallpox vaccination in 246 participants of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Of this population, 209 subjects were vaccinated one or more times 13 to 88 years before this evaluation, and stored serum samples were available at various intervals after vaccination. An additional 8 subjects who had documented childhood smallpox infection and 29 subjects with no history of infection or vaccination were included. We quantified the total vaccinia IgG and neutralizing antibody titers in each of these subgroups of participants over time.


RESULTS
Vaccinated participants maintained antivaccinia IgG and neutralizing antibody titers above 3 natural logs essentially indefinitely. The absolute titer of antivaccinia antibody was only slightly higher after multiple vaccinations. In 97% of the participants, no decrease in vaccinia-specific antibody titers was noted with age over a follow-up period of up to 88 years. Moreover, Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging participants who survived active smallpox infections in their youth retained antivaccinia antibody titers that were similar to the levels detected in vaccinated subjects.


CONCLUSION
These data suggest that multiple or recent vaccinations are not essential to maintain vaccinia-specific antibody responses in human subjects. Scarce vaccine supplies should be applied first to individuals who have not previously been vaccinated.