Douggy B 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Yeah very highbrow. Give the RIFR a read mate, a little more detailed and a little less sensationalist. Wasn't it the economist that advocated legalising all narcotics a couple of months back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13883 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 I thought that was the Viz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Yeah very highbrow. Give the RIFR a read mate, a little more detailed and a little less sensationalist. Wasn't it the economist that advocated legalising all narcotics a couple of months back So if the world economy is shrinking by 1.3% and the world's population is growing, how do you feed everyone? What has the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands got to say on the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 (edited) As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Yeah very highbrow. Give the RIFR a read mate, a little more detailed and a little less sensationalist. Wasn't it the economist that advocated legalising all narcotics a couple of months back So if the world economy is shrinking by 1.3% and the world's population is growing, how do you feed everyone? What has the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands got to say on the matter? We aren't feeding everyone now and we wont do until restrictions on GM crops are raised. How much faster is the economy going to shrink if a pandemic does hit? Or is it only going to target those who aren't contributing to economic growth? Pathetic argument TBH Edited April 30, 2009 by Danny B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14068 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 http://doihaveswineflu.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 (edited) my friend works in the HPA and specialises in exotic diseases, I asked her on Monday if this was hype or being underplayed. This was response; ....it is all getting very interesting but the media aren't exaggerating, it is very serious! They seem to be reporting it pretty well so far, not scaremongering as far as I can see....looks like this is the start of a pandemic to me. But the virus isn't actually that severe in humans, certainly not as bad as the avian H5N1. I think the deaths in Mexico are just the tip of a very big iceberg of cases, most of which are mild and therefore not reported. The reporting system they're using in Mexico takes data on in patients - so they're only picking up the most severe cases....US systems look at outpatient cases - so skewed towards the milder cases. I am asking her for her latest view and will let you know. fop is there anything specific you would like me to advise her on? Edited April 30, 2009 by trophyshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17828 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 fop is there anything specific you would like me to advise her on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Yeah very highbrow. Give the RIFR a read mate, a little more detailed and a little less sensationalist. Wasn't it the economist that advocated legalising all narcotics a couple of months back So if the world economy is shrinking by 1.3% and the world's population is growing, how do you feed everyone? What has the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands got to say on the matter? We aren't feeding everyone now and we wont do until restrictions on GM crops are raised. How much faster is the economy going to shrink if a pandemic does hit? Or is it only going to target those who aren't contributing to economic growth? Pathetic argument TBH What is pathetic? The supposition that the world is over-populated or that a pandemic wont affect long-run economic performance. Those were the premises of the statement, so please explain how either of those general views is wrong. I tell you what is pathetic, using statements like 'clueless' when discussing economics with an economist. If i interpret your contrary position correctly, i presume you think increased population growth would be beneficial for the world as that is the antithesis to my statement above? For the record, any loss of human life is a bad thing and from a moral point of view we should trade-off longer term implications for the short-term priority of saving lives. I was just introducing another point of view into the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17828 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Yeah very highbrow. Give the RIFR a read mate, a little more detailed and a little less sensationalist. Wasn't it the economist that advocated legalising all narcotics a couple of months back So if the world economy is shrinking by 1.3% and the world's population is growing, how do you feed everyone? What has the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands got to say on the matter? We aren't feeding everyone now and we wont do until restrictions on GM crops are raised. How much faster is the economy going to shrink if a pandemic does hit? Or is it only going to target those who aren't contributing to economic growth? Pathetic argument TBH What is pathetic? The supposition that the world is over-populated or that a pandemic wont affect long-run economic performance. Those were the premises of the statement, so please explain how either of those general views is wrong. I tell you what is pathetic, using statements like 'clueless' when discussing economics with an economist. If i interpret your contrary position correctly, i presume you think increased population growth would be beneficial for the world as that is the antithesis to my statement above? For the record, any loss of human life is a bad thing and from a moral point of view we should trade-off longer term implications for the short-term priority of saving lives. I was just introducing another point of view into the thread. Already been done tbf. http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=23984 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17828 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 flu usually takes out half a million annually. Let's face it, media overdrive as usual. Where did that random figure come from? I think you're mistaking seasonal influenza with pandemic influenza. The latter can wipe out tens or even hundreds of millions globally. The thing is, if this does fizzle out, or the UK's precautions work, people will blame the non-event on media hype. On the other hand, if it proves to be serious or even catastrophic, people will blame the government for being unprepared. Either way the medical profession can't win. Personally, I'd take notice of what the WHO and HPA are saying and not the Daily Mail, that's my advice. It was the man from who, that quoted those annual figures. My point is, a few hundred deaths does not deserve the hysteria that the media apportions in over coverage. Remember SARS or last years bird flu where little old ladies up and down the land were waiting for the killer birds to land! Again from the who, even in the worst pandemics 99.9 % of the population survive. I don't believe that last fact is true, have you got a link? Seasonal (normal) influenza kills more than 0.1% of people, and much more than that in the elderly and sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Outbreaks of the Bubonic Plague in the Middle Ages and the Spanish 'Flu during WW1 must have killed more than 0.1% of the world population. And think about how little people travelled then compared to now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoggeordie 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Confirmed case in the Toon now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Yeah very highbrow. Give the RIFR a read mate, a little more detailed and a little less sensationalist. Wasn't it the economist that advocated legalising all narcotics a couple of months back So if the world economy is shrinking by 1.3% and the world's population is growing, how do you feed everyone? What has the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands got to say on the matter? We aren't feeding everyone now and we wont do until restrictions on GM crops are raised. How much faster is the economy going to shrink if a pandemic does hit? Or is it only going to target those who aren't contributing to economic growth? Pathetic argument TBH What is pathetic? The supposition that the world is over-populated or that a pandemic wont affect long-run economic performance. Those were the premises of the statement, so please explain how either of those general views is wrong. I tell you what is pathetic, using statements like 'clueless' when discussing economics with an economist. If i interpret your contrary position correctly, i presume you think increased population growth would be beneficial for the world as that is the antithesis to my statement above? For the record, any loss of human life is a bad thing and from a moral point of view we should trade-off longer term implications for the short-term priority of saving lives. I was just introducing another point of view into the thread. Surely a more productive way would be to slow population growth through less blunt methods than a pandemic. Surely long term education, and a movement towards sustainable energy and GM crops would be more beneficial to the world as a whole? Economist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Yeah very highbrow. Give the RIFR a read mate, a little more detailed and a little less sensationalist. Wasn't it the economist that advocated legalising all narcotics a couple of months back So if the world economy is shrinking by 1.3% and the world's population is growing, how do you feed everyone? What has the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands got to say on the matter? We aren't feeding everyone now and we wont do until restrictions on GM crops are raised. How much faster is the economy going to shrink if a pandemic does hit? Or is it only going to target those who aren't contributing to economic growth? Pathetic argument TBH What is pathetic? The supposition that the world is over-populated or that a pandemic wont affect long-run economic performance. Those were the premises of the statement, so please explain how either of those general views is wrong. I tell you what is pathetic, using statements like 'clueless' when discussing economics with an economist. If i interpret your contrary position correctly, i presume you think increased population growth would be beneficial for the world as that is the antithesis to my statement above? For the record, any loss of human life is a bad thing and from a moral point of view we should trade-off longer term implications for the short-term priority of saving lives. I was just introducing another point of view into the thread. Surely a more productive way would be to slow population growth through less blunt methods than a pandemic. Surely long term education, and a movement towards sustainable energy and GM crops would be more beneficial to the world as a whole? Economist I didnt say it was the most productive way, i just said that it might be beneficial in the long-run to have less population, a position you have just agreed with. Yes, well done there are other development policies too. I wasnt arguing that it was the best way forward. Failed to set the straw-man up, failed to argue a contrary position and failed to shift the debate to controversial topics like GM crops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Yeah very highbrow. Give the RIFR a read mate, a little more detailed and a little less sensationalist. Wasn't it the economist that advocated legalising all narcotics a couple of months back So if the world economy is shrinking by 1.3% and the world's population is growing, how do you feed everyone? What has the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands got to say on the matter? We aren't feeding everyone now and we wont do until restrictions on GM crops are raised. How much faster is the economy going to shrink if a pandemic does hit? Or is it only going to target those who aren't contributing to economic growth? Pathetic argument TBH What is pathetic? The supposition that the world is over-populated or that a pandemic wont affect long-run economic performance. Those were the premises of the statement, so please explain how either of those general views is wrong. I tell you what is pathetic, using statements like 'clueless' when discussing economics with an economist. If i interpret your contrary position correctly, i presume you think increased population growth would be beneficial for the world as that is the antithesis to my statement above? For the record, any loss of human life is a bad thing and from a moral point of view we should trade-off longer term implications for the short-term priority of saving lives. I was just introducing another point of view into the thread. Surely a more productive way would be to slow population growth through less blunt methods than a pandemic. Surely long term education, and a movement towards sustainable energy and GM crops would be more beneficial to the world as a whole? Economist I didnt say it was the most productive way, i just said that it might be beneficial in the long-run to have less population, a position you have just agreed with. Yes, well done there are other development policies too. I wasnt arguing that it was the best way forward. Failed to set the straw-man up, failed to argue a contrary position and failed to shift the debate to controversial topics like GM crops. No you tried to argue that a Pandemic would be beneficial not less population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Same difference, non? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Not sure what you do for a living Danny but am guessing its not an optician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Not sure what you do for a living Danny but am guessing its not an optician. Mongtician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17828 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Confirmed case in the Toon now Just had an e-mail from the University (to which I'm affiliated) confirming this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Not sure what you do for a living Danny but am guessing its not an optician. Mongtician? Magician more like, he just disappeared into thin air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13883 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Cockneytician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Contrarytician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5941 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Its not the first case in the region apparently. Just the first case thats been leaked. Students and teachers are the WHOs worst nightmare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Its not the first case in the region apparently. Just the first case thats been leaked. Students and teachers are the WHOs worst nightmare Too much afterclass jiggy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13883 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Altogether now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now