Re: OT, kinda has to do with security if you squint a bit :-)

["Keith Oxenrider" <web10198 () sol-biotech com>]

We can analogize this with infosec (and drag it a bit more on-topic ;) by considering what happens when an exploit hits 
the wild.  Presuming a certain minimum percentage of vulnerable machines have been 'inoculated' against the 'flu', the 
spread of the ailment will be slowed, giving the 'medical community' more time to respond.  If, on the other hand, it 
is a 0-day exploit (never mind that the 'medical community' has been trying to get people to take this seriously for 
decades), the 'flu' spreads quickly and takes down a huge segment of the 'populace'.  People (and governments / 
businesses) that fail to take such a threat seriously are completely unprepared for when (not (NEVER!) if!) the event 
occurs and disaster reigns (even when there is lip service given to prevention (i.e., levees in New Orleans), it is far 
from enough to stave off the inevitable disaster).  Experts spend their time trying to get responsible authorities to 
prepare for the inevitable disaster only to be !
 overruled by clueless (and often moronic) authorities who somehow think they know better than someone who has invested 
a lifetime of research into mitigating such a disaster.  

Keith Oxenrider, CISSP

------- Original Message -------


On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:05:48 EDT, Blanchard_Michael () emc com said:

>   So, if this "bird flu" has been in 4 separate countries since 2003, and
> has only killed 65 people (a number that I'm sure could be lowered when we
> find out that 90% of those people probably dies of something other than the
> "bird flu")  I don't see this as a real threat.  If it is supposedly able to
> kill 150,000,000 people, and become a "pandemic", but in 2 years it's only
> take 65 lives, I don't see how that's possible.

"This little fire has been smoldering for 3 days, I don't see how it can
possibly grow into a wildfire that will burn 40,000 acres"....

Or read 'The Hot Zone' by Richard Preston.  Quick executive summary: there's 2
strains of Ebola - one that infects humans and monkeys, and is spread via
fluids (usually when the victim bleeds out), and one that infects only monkeys,
but spreads incredibly well through the air.  And scientists have no idea what
the difference is between the two, or why one is airborne, and the infects
humans.  That's part of why the CDC and everybody has a cow every time there's
an Ebola outbreak - if a third strain surfaces that infects humans and is
airborne, we're *screwed* (the monkey strain had a major outbreak in Reston
Virginia in a quarantine facility - basically, if an infected monkey sneezed,
every other monkey within 20 yards *will* end up dead. It was that virulent.
Now imagine 1 infected person getting off the plane at JFK....).

>    Lets compare that 65 deaths in, almost, 3 years from this "bird flu" to
> plain old influenza.  According to the United States own CDC,
> http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/flu.pdf.  There are "~36,000 excess
> deaths per year" due to influenza.  Greater 90% of those deaths are among
> persons over the age of 65.  I had no idea the number was that high.  It's
> also interesting that the number has risen since 1990 where between 1976 and
> 1990 there were approx 19,000 deaths per year (or influenza season).  Hmmmm
> what started happening around 1990 here in the States?  Oh ya!  Flu shots
> were started to be given out to the masses that think they need these shots
> due to, what do you ask?, Media hype about the flu.... Ok the media hype
> part might be a stretch, but it's interesting about the flu shots and the
> rise of deaths per season, I thought the shots were supposed to help you?

Compare the number of people over 65 now with the number of people over 65
just 15 years ago.  Now mix in greater worldwide mobility hauling influenza
viruses all over the world.  A more proper check would be to compare this
year's high risk people who get the vaccine, and high risk people who don't,
and compare the death rates - you may find that in fact, without the vaccines
being given we'd be seeing much *more* than 36K/year.  Remember - there's a
second-order effect achieved once immunization reaches a certain level, where
an epidemic can no longer get traction (I seem to recall that for measles,
up to 7% or so of the population can fail to be immunized and it will *still*
prevent an epidemic, because somebody with measles won't meet enough of the
vulnerable 7% to get a chain reaction going.  You end up with just a very slow
fizzle of cases cropping up sporadically).



_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.