Take your pick. JAMA, CDC, the WHO, every epidemiologist on the TV... they all say the same thing
Um, that's not a
source. That's simply repeating an earlier
claim. Claims require only typing; sources require a bit more. Source please? I'll settle for the appropriate link to CDC.
I never made any such blanket assertion. Let's not put words in my mouth in order to lower the bar.
Sure you did. You claimed, "And FYI there's already a vaccine for the 'bird flu'". Since "bird flu" includes numerous strains that threaten Man, your claim is read as a vaccine for all of them. Again, Source please?
Guy who knows that each year's flu vaccines are based on the predicted mutations
"Predicted Mutations"? Damn, I hate to repeat myself; but you just continue to expand your claims: Source please?
Intending no insult, I think you misunderstand the concept. While mean reversion is a well known statistical trend (in finance as well as epidemiology), it hardly states that the bell curve of virus strains and virulence will soon turn into one "mean strain". Rather, it recognizes that the
individually virulent outliers will ultimately die off....usually as a result of exhausting the ready supply of hosts.
But it recognizes that additional "outlier strains" will take that position at the edge of the curve....Standard Deviation of the curve remaining approximately constant over time. The question is not whether the new outliers will also "revert to the mean", but how many "hosts" they will destroy in the process.
So, when you casually mention "reversion to the mean" you are talking about the H5N1 strain. But you fail to note the as yet undiscovered mutations which are the real threat. So, you contradict yourself when you whine that we can't get the available vaccine for H5N1 while in the next breath claiming that it will be relatively innocuous in pandemic form; all the while ignoring the fact that vaccines do not yet exist for tomorrow's virus strains. That's a whole lot of contradictions in one use of "regression to the mean".
And to correct you once again, H5N1 influenza *is* readily transmissible between humans. Just not this particular mutant swarm of H5N1.
Oh, I'm just gonna love the source on this one! Source
Required
You might start with a bit of additional reading from that little known agency you formerly "cited"-
The Centers for Disease Control:
"
So far, the spread of H5N1 virus from person to person has been limited and has not continued beyond one person."
See? I got good e-credentials too
E-Credentials? My credentials are a Masters level diploma on the wall from the very institution that (at the time of my matriculation) was the architect for eradication of Smallpox on the planet. That tends to carry a bit more credibility in the area of epidemiology than the claims of an anonymous internet poster.
But, I'll bite. Just what
are your credentials in this debate?
Rich