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.

During the 1918 outbreak, the flu killed a higher than expected number of people in the 20-40 age group. That's why they think there's a genetic link. Problem is that a lot of people weren't exposed the first time (thanks to location or quarantine), and their genes have mixed with survivor's genes. So, there would probably still be a decent wad of fatalities.

Did you know Seattle was quarantined during the 1918 outbreak? The mayor pretty much shut the city down after a trainload of sick soldiers arrived from the east coast. The decision was hugely unpopular, and he was turned out of office for it. But it saved lives: Seattle's death toll was 1600 out of approximately 400,000 people, a death rate half what was seen in other US cities.

[link]

Hey ita, do you have plans this evening?

According to what I've read, current thinking about why young adults died disproportionately is that the virus provoked such a violent immune response that their lungs essentially exploded from the invading white cells. In people with weaker immune systems (i.e. children and the elderly), this didn't happen, and they were predominantly at risk of death from secondary bacterial infections (such as pneumonia).

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

I sure hope so. I'm excited we now know what the hell it was -- I think the old theory was that it was from swine.

Thanks, everybody. It means a lot.

you must have a very simple Yom Kippur

You're very funny. In the nicest way possible, but still.

[Edit: 42=6*7, but all woven into each other, which, well, sort of fits 42.]

Religious groups are gearing up to oppose the new HPV vaccine.

From the article:

In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.

That floors. Just floors me.

HPC vac: License to Screw

I love Nilly's Yon Kipper post.

Nilly, not only have you not offended me, I am so happy that we have become better friends and I consider it a wonderful blessing to know you.

I think more and more each year that society in general could really benefit by having a day of atonement.

Of course, if the chaste, abstinent girl marries a guy who cheats on her and spreads HPV to her, then I guess she's been judged by God, eh FRC?

Cervical cancer kils 4000 Americans every year, 300K around the world. We have a vaccine against the causes of 70% of these deaths. And the FRC is worried that this vaccine is a license to screw?

It took nearly 20 years before groups like the FRC finally got that AIDS/HIV wasn't just killing the homos but heathen African kids. Don't tell me it's going to take them another 20 years to figure out that this vaccine is a very, very good thing and will save many innocent lives.