It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by candide
Possible explanation for the age group 20-50 being reported.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm
It is believed that cytokine storms were responsible for many of the deaths during the 1918 influenza pandemic, which killed a disproportionate number of young adults.[1] In this case, a healthy immune system may have been a liability rather than an asset. Preliminary research results from Hong Kong also indicated this as the probable reason for many deaths during the SARS epidemic in 2003.[citation needed] Human deaths from the bird flu H5N1 usually involve cytokine storms as well.[citation needed] Recent reports of high mortality among healthy young adults in the 2009 swine flu outbreak point to cytokine storms as being responsible for these deaths[4]
Originally posted by humilisunus
bbc report:
I work as a resident doctor in one of the biggest hospitals in Mexico City and sadly, the situation is far from "under control". As a doctor, I realise that the media does not report the truth. Authorities distributed vaccines among all the medical personnel with no results, because two of my partners who worked in this hospital (interns) were killed by this new virus in less than six days even though they were vaccinated as all of us were. The official number of deaths is 20, nevertheless, the true number of victims are more than 200. I understand that we must avoid to panic, but telling the truth it might be better now to prevent and avoid more deaths.
Yeny Gregorio Dávila, Mexico City
news.bbc.co.uk...
Nice to know the truth is out there!
Originally posted by Highground
Originally posted by humilisunus
bbc report:
I work as a resident doctor in one of the biggest hospitals in Mexico City and sadly, the situation is far from "under control". As a doctor, I realise that the media does not report the truth. Authorities distributed vaccines among all the medical personnel with no results, because two of my partners who worked in this hospital (interns) were killed by this new virus in less than six days even though they were vaccinated as all of us were. The official number of deaths is 20, nevertheless, the true number of victims are more than 200. I understand that we must avoid to panic, but telling the truth it might be better now to prevent and avoid more deaths.
Yeny Gregorio Dávila, Mexico City
news.bbc.co.uk...
Nice to know the truth is out there!
In less than six days? That's some Ebola s--- going on there... I'm not sure - I mean, I've done reports and abstracts on all sorts of viruses - but I was pretty sure that 6 days is an exceedingly fast rate of mortality. Someone with more knowledge care to provide input? I'm not sure if I'm thinking of the entire cycle of the virus being six days (as in Ebola), or the time symptoms appear to the death of the host.
Originally posted by Chris McGee
Originally posted by candide
Possible explanation for the age group 20-50 being reported.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm
It is believed that cytokine storms were responsible for many of the deaths during the 1918 influenza pandemic, which killed a disproportionate number of young adults.[1] In this case, a healthy immune system may have been a liability rather than an asset. Preliminary research results from Hong Kong also indicated this as the probable reason for many deaths during the SARS epidemic in 2003.[citation needed] Human deaths from the bird flu H5N1 usually involve cytokine storms as well.[citation needed] Recent reports of high mortality among healthy young adults in the 2009 swine flu outbreak point to cytokine storms as being responsible for these deaths[4]
If it's the immune system that's doing the damage then maybe the Mexican cases are resulting in more fatalities due to some difference in the immune response of the populations. Is there any credible reason why the Mexicans would have a stronger immune response than US citizens and would it be applicable over a large cross section of society?
Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
I would suggest a full quarantine of the Mexican nation, however brutal that may be. No one leaves Mexico until it is lifted, no exports, nothing can leave.
Things can go in and regular communications can be made to and from there, just that no one leaves or any material goods under any circumstances.
I would expect that things here in the US can more easily be contained with following proper procedures. While we move to contain things leaving Mexico, we can send in needed personnel, supplies, money, etc. until they can get this thing under control down there.
Originally posted by Highground
Oh, yes there would. The Mexicans in particular would have a stronger immune system because of several reasons. Their drinking water is infected with tons of disease, their immune systems would have had to build up and adapt to fight off the pathogens that could exist there. Also, I'm pretty sure vaccinations and such are not as widespread over there as they are in America, for instance. This would mean that the immune systems would, yet again, have to be stronger, to fight off the viruses that we are normally immune to (ie Flu). Their standards of living may very well be responsible for them having a stronger immune system.
He says Baxter has patented technology that allows the company to develop vaccines in a half the time it usually takes -- about 13 weeks instead of 26.
Originally posted by thegagefather
Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
I would suggest a full quarantine of the Mexican nation, however brutal that may be. No one leaves Mexico until it is lifted, no exports, nothing can leave.
Things can go in and regular communications can be made to and from there, just that no one leaves or any material goods under any circumstances.
I would expect that things here in the US can more easily be contained with following proper procedures. While we move to contain things leaving Mexico, we can send in needed personnel, supplies, money, etc. until they can get this thing under control down there.
Right on man! Nuke dem sons a -- (sarcasm)
Originally posted by Dutty_Rag
Hmmm not sure about that. I've been to lots of places in Mexico, some good, some bad - but the water was always fine and not 'full of diseases' they just advise you not to drink it if your coming from the US/Europe etc because of the different mineral composition etc - which can cause stomach upset.
Trust me - their water is pretty fine - if they didn't treat it it would carry cholera and diphtheria in no time - and no matter how good your immune system, you wouldn't last long drinking that.
I can see the standard of living being an issue in some parts of mexico - but this was in Mexico City, where most people live pretty well (on the grand scale of things) - it's pretty civilised with good healthcare, sanitation etc - better than some US cities in fact.
I've also travelled extensively in the US, and know that there are a lot of inner city environments where living conditions are practically 3rd world. For example - consider what would happen if the virus were to get into Compton, East LA or parts of the South East?
I'm not having a go at you or in any way suggesting any bias in your comments, I just don't think this is the right explanation here. I think something else is at work.
Maybe something to do with the virus, but also maybe a lifestyle thing too - what else do we know about the people who have been infected?