it's that they survived the infection for whatever hugely variable reason

Well, maybe their research was into those reasons, and they narrowed down the variables.

Well, maybe their research was into those reasons, and they narrowed down the variables.

But even if they did the variables would still be... variable.

Say my great-grandmother survived and her sister died because her sister's lungs were still recovering from an illness the previous year. If this year my sister and I catch an avian flu and we could end up living and dying for the same reasons. Or maybe I like carrots and she hates them and the vitamin A in our systems tips the balance. Or a million other environmental factors that we'd have no way of knowing our individual ancestors experienced.

On the other hand, no amount of trying has gotten me offended by Nilly. Hon, you must have a very simple Yom Kippur. You deserve it, by grace of your niceness.

What ita said.

But even if they did the variables would still be... variable.

Maybe they're ahead of you on this one, Trudy. They didn't say it was definite, just probable.

As I understood the article about the flu, they believe survival depended on a genetic weakness, as the vectors were strange (elderly and infants survived, young adults were wiped out). And it seemed to kill whoever contracted it. The number of people who recovered was miniscule. And it killed so many people that pretty much everyone alive today is a descendant of a flu survivor, so according to their theory we should all be impervious to that strain of flu.

You know the sucky part about these natural disasters? The lines of communication go down, so you have to wait forever to see if your friends and family are alright. After so many of these in the last few years, though, I'm managing to not freak out about my friends in Pakistan. I'll hear when I hear, and I can do no more than think good thoughts until then.

They most certainly could be ahead of me, but at the moment I don't buy it.

Besides, an wouldn't an innate resistance only be helpful if it were the SAME avian flu? And is that even possible the way the suckers mutate?

And it seemed to kill whoever contracted it. The number of people who recovered was miniscule

Hmm... I was operating from very different information.

On the article I just saw I thought they said that for every one who died a hundred lived.

Besides, an wouldn't an innate resistance only be helpful if it were the SAME avian flu? And is that even possible the way the suckers mutate?

Maybe it's like a natural vaccination. Don't mothers pass their immunities onto children? Or is that something I made up?

So when a person has already produced the antibodies, their bodies and their children's bodies retain the knowledge of how to produce antibodies for that strain and all its brethren. Maybe.

I was wrong - I'm looking for the article I read (haven't found it yet), but did determine that the morbidity rate was low. So yeah, I take that back.

Besides, an wouldn't an innate resistance only be helpful if it were the SAME avian flu? And is that even possible the way the suckers mutate?

Maybe, is apparently the answer. There may be a clue in the Spanish flu to help with immunity against the avian flu we've got now.

Timelies all!

Nilly, you have done nothing to offend me in this past year(nor in any year that I have known you).

Along those lines, if I have done or said anything that offended anyone here, I hope they can forgive me.(Nilly said it so much better than I could, but I hope my words are adequate enough)