What if the “Bird Flu” does kill 50-100 Million?

Specifically, if the world wide death toll reaches the 100 million mark, would the survivors benefit? Think about it. The existing infrastructure would still be there. The ability of advanced countries to produce food would not change, just the operators and laborers.

Would we not then be better able to supply those less fortunate? Same amount of food, less people to feed?

What about jobs? Less competition means lower unemployment.

I don’t mean to be insensitive to the dead, but has anybody really though through this scenario?

Anybody else have opinions or information about this?

That's assuming that the dead wouldn't include the professionals who currently contribute so greatly to our society, and it also doesn't answer the question of where those deaths would occur.

If a large number of say....medical experts died off, we'd be hard pushed to replace them with any kind of speed; but if the death tolls were restricted to one or two underdeveloped nations (for example) it wouldn't have much bearing on Western civilization. If those deaths mainly occurred in the US, then the US would be well and truly fubar.

That said, the 100 million mark perhaps isn't so high a number, all things considered, if it's spread out around the globe.

If it's in one area though, that'd be catastrophic...

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
That's assuming that the dead wouldn't include the professionals who currently contribute so greatly to our society, and it also doesn't answer the question of where those deaths would occur.

I suspect poorer people would be more likely to have better immune systems as they can't afford to go to the doctor and chomp down on antibiotics everytime they get the sniffles. I've met many who do this rather than take a day off work- I doubt their defences could withstand something that can't be simply treated with a course of pills.

Originally posted by riley
I've met many who do this rather than take a day off work- I doubt their defences could withstand something that can't be simply treated with a course of pills.

Absolutely right.

We're far too eager to reach for the pills.

This is why yeah, in all likelihood, us "antibiotically enhanced" folk would be the first to buy the magic bird flu bullet.

So to speak.

So I'm safe? I can't stand doctors, hospitals, pills, drugs, needles, so forth. Sister gets Strept Throat, she goes to doctor and spends hundreds on visit/pills. I get the same thing and after 4 days of pain come out a-ok. Same recovery time, hundreds less. I get a headache I take a nap instead of popping pills, if I stub my toe I deal with it unlike some who go "Oops, paper cut, give me my oxycottin"(cotton? not sure if it spelled the same) SO I should be able to deal with this.

Anyways, I just hope it hits the religous areas that do the whole "Prayer is the answer! Women who suffer from PMS the answer is Prayer!!!!!" I kid you not, one of the Bush Judges actually wrote a book/promotes prayer to cure PMS, aids, cancer, so forth. This way we get rid of the stupid/weak while others live to promote smartness and strength.

It's all a matter of perspective. If you, or one of your loved ones is amoung the dead....then that will most certainly suck.

If it were to concentrate on a country or region of the developed world, it would be economically disasterous. (ie; Europe, East Asia & North America mostly)

If 100 million Africans or South Asians died, as long as they dont cremate the bodies choking the sky with smoke, the developed world wont even notice.

Brutal but true.

HIV/AIDS has been around for along time, and is considered an epidemic as well, but it's only at about 40 Million people worldwide that have it.

If the avian flu gets to half this many people, they'll start dying off sooner and get more attention than HIV. I don't think it'll take 50-100 Million to get the world to sit up and take notice.

Currently I believe there's only 100-200 cases worldwide that are laboratory confirmed. I'll have to check that, but I think they're all in Asia...

Originally posted by Shaker
Currently I believe there's only 100-200 cases worldwide that are laboratory confirmed. I'll have to check that, but I think they're all in Asia...

Right now (this could change today, re: Indoneasia) Avian influenza has infected more than 100 people in Asia and killed about half of them since 2004.

H5N1 will be a larger threat than HIV because of mode of transmission and case fatility rate (50%).

If 50 to +100 million were to die, I'm sure the majority of the dead would be in third world countries and poor areas of western countries.

At least it would get rid of some of the "useless" people

Originally posted by SwearBear
If 50 to +100 million were to die, I'm sure the majority of the dead would be in third world countries and poor areas of western countries.

At least it would get rid of some of the "useless" people

Yeah Hitler had the same plan. This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen here on ATS :shk:

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by SwearBear
If 50 to +100 million were to die, I'm sure the majority of the dead would be in third world countries and poor areas of western countries.

At least it would get rid of some of the "useless" people

Yeah Hitler had the same plan. This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen here on ATS :shk:

It was sarcasm FredT, sarcasm

50 million dead:
In a world with How many people 3 - 4 billion, it would be just a small ripple really. Most likely it will be the old and the oldest, and the youngest mostly dieing. Many die each year of the flu anyway, this would just make those Average years a little worse.

100 million dead:
I agree many poorer people without desent medical care + the above.

100 million +:
Its when the people in the prime of there lives start dieing is when to start worrying 18-35. kinda scares me to think about.

1 thing you can garrattee....it will happen, sooner or later.

But im more worried about a super bug escaping from a gov. lab somewhere.

If 50 to +100 million were to die, I'm sure the majority of the dead would be in third world countries and poor areas of western countries.

I don't care if it was intended for sacasm or what. That was a dispicable comment.
I see you have a warn I do hope that it was because of that insult.

Life is precious no matter where you live or what conditions you may live.

In a world with How many people 3 - 4 billion, it would be just a small ripple really. Most likely it will be the old and the oldest, and the youngest mostly dieing. Many die each year of the flu anyway, this would just make those Average years a little worse

Actually that assessment is incorrect in this case. Nobody carries antibodies for the H5 virus thereby leaving all parties exposed to the deadly virus. All bets are off with this baby.
In 1918 the Spanish Flu killed 1/3 of the population and it's mortality rate was 1 to 2%. That's amazing when you think that all of those people died with a percentage so small.

The H5N1 virus has a mortality rate of 50%, 48 to 49% higher than the Spanish Flu. Reflect on those implications for a moment.

And while true that the actual possibility of the H5 ever reaching the US is remote, consider that during the times of other pandemics our modes of transportation weren't what they are today. That coupled with the fact the start of flu season for most begins in Oct and ends in March and holidays we could see a problem.
Remember that the virus is most contagious during the first 3 days of infection not the onset of symptoms. Which simply means that people could be walking around feeling fine at the time of infection but be infecting others without knowing. That's the scariest part.

H5N1 Flu - Sorry to dissapoint but infects mostly from 25-40 age range not the young and old.



Maybe they will just let it happen - Same with everything else reduce the population as we are doomed with this many people around anyway.

Think about it To many people - and growing - Thats the bottom line.
Not enough resources for the billions = Reduce the billions.
On a global scale.

If it kills that many people then its a real shame.

But its not enough to have an effect on global populations in a major way simply because its not that much of the population.

WW2 killed 60 million but there were no major demographic consequences for the world as a whole, just the Jews, the Russians and the Poles.

Originally posted by Shaker
HIV/AIDS has been around for along time, and is considered an epidemic as well, but it's only at about 40 Million people worldwide that have it.

I realise your point about HIV was only comparative.. but, in a pandemic, wouldn't the bird flu be a death sentence for these people? I realise HIV isn't aids.. but wouldn't such an attack on their immune systems trigger aids instantly anyway? They wouldn't stand a chance.

Originally posted by DDay

If 50 to +100 million were to die, I'm sure the majority of the dead would be in third world countries and poor areas of western countries.

I don't care if it was intended for sacasm or what. That was a dispicable comment.
I see you have a warn I do hope that it was because of that insult.

Life is precious no matter where you live or what conditions you may live.

Was that an insult? I was merely speculating that the majority of the dead people would be in poor areas of the world, mainly because they'd lack medicine for the bird flu, whereas the people that have money would get most of the medicine.

Though I think you were talking about the other comment, "At least it would get rid of some of the "useless" people "
That comment was intended to be sarcastic, that why I added the at the end of the comment, and also put quotes of the word useless, people don't seem to pay attention to emoticons.
The comment was also a possible reflection of what the rich elite might think about this issue, many poor people after all live on social welfare or have underpaid jobs, and thus they aren't really big consumers ...

That comment was intended to be sarcastic, that why I added the at the end of the comment, and also put quotes of the word useless, people don't seem to pay attention to emoticons.

Hightened sensitivity on my part maybe - sorry -.

The big disappointment I think will be that if and when this hits, it isn't only the poor to be afflicted. The "vaccine" is in the primary stages and takes 6 months to a year to manufacture enough globally. Tamiflu can be used but the US isn't any where near the top of the list for full distribution so really it comes down to health care workers and military getting the would be supply first. All else with money will have to take a number.

That's the great thing about viruses and deadly diseases. They aren't really picky in terms of geography and social status.

Originally posted by andersonr
H5N1 Flu - Sorry to dissapoint but infects mostly from 25-40 age range not the young and old.

Tell that to the 18 month old, the 5 year old and the 6 year old that just died in Indoneasia. Also a 67 year old in Vietnam.

H5N1 is not age specific. All humans, any age, lack anti-bodies for this particular pathogen.

The age range you quoted was correct for the 1918 pandemic.