Tests Show That Deadly New Flu Could Spread Among People 185
An anonymous reader writes in with another news story about how the bird flu may wipe us out. "A new bird flu that has killed 36 people in China can spread from ferret to ferret through the air. A laboratory test showing airborne transmission of the H7N9 avian influenza virus between the animals has raised fears that the virus is poised to become a human pandemic.
The H7N9 avian influenza virus emerged suddenly at the end of February and has infected 131 people. A few patients may have caught the virus from other infected people, but no evidence has emerged that H7N9 can readily transmit from human to human."
More ridiculous sensationalism (Score:5, Interesting)
The editor shamelessly says that the bird flu "may wipe us out", yet it has killed 36 out of 131 known cases -- hardly enough to wipe anything out -- and the quote in the actual summary says "no evidence has emerged that H7N9 can readily transmit from human to human."
Re:More ridiculous sensationalism (Score:4, Informative)
Re:More ridiculous sensationalism (Score:4, Informative)
Not exactly FUD. Think of it as a snowball that might turn into a avalanche.
A 25% kill rate is nothing to sneeze at.
Ferret are the best animal model we have – and there are open questions on how it was transmitted.
And, most importantly, there is the question on how this virus would change it if went wide.
A virus needs to balance out 2 factors from a evolutionary standpoint. First, the more copies of itself it turns out the better chance it while have to spread, while the more copies it turns out the more likely it will kill the host so no more copies will be turned out.
If this virus went wide, the more virulent versions would dominate, which means the death toll would be higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virulence#Evolution [wikipedia.org]
Remember to wash your hands and sneeze into your sleeve everybody! (I am not stocking up on antivirals yet.)
Re:More ridiculous sensationalism (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't have 25% kill rate. Of those admitted to hospitals, it killed 25%
Furthermore, as a virus spreads through a population, there is strong selective pressure to become less lethal, but more contagious. A dead victim is no longer spreading the virus. If the virus can infect someone without killing them, and even without making them very sick, then the victim will go about their business and spread the virus widely. So when a virus first makes the animal->human jump, it may have a high percentage death rate, but the percentage death rate will quickly drop as the virus ev
Re: (Score:2)
You have that backwards – virus can either burn fast or burn slow.
A virus that burns slow is less contagious and less lethal to it's host. If it is less contagious then it needs to keep it host alive for a longer period of time so there can be more opportunities to spread (or vice versa.).
As for less lethal over time – that is a maybe. Do you burn hot and fast or long and slow? One strategy does not strictly dominate the other.
If a virus can transfer to a host faster then it can kill off it's ol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We're" not screwed. Looking at "us" from above, the herd could use some thinning . . ..
Re: (Score:2)
"A virus that burns slow is less contagious and less lethal to it's host."
Explain HIV, then. Untreated, 100% fatal and your body can't (excepting a few select of the population, myself included) resist or develop natural immunity on its own (and in my case, born without the CCR5 receptor gene.)
And it's very easily spread. Well, maybe not amongst the typical /. population, but the rest of the world, especially in places with high populations and lacking education. China, India, etc.
I think you need to learn
Re: (Score:2)
Odd, but I see AIDs as a great example. Virulence is a plus as long as you can spread before you kill your host.
Take the pre-1900s STDs like syphilis. Like AIDs it was 100% deadly – pre-antibiotics. However, back then, people had fewer sexual partners. If you have to wait a long time to jump from one to another – and you are 100% deadly, you burn slowly, you converse your host.
Now look at AIDs and the 1980s. The groups that it exploded in were very sexually promiscuous (and international travel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Odd, but I see AIDs as a great example"
Uh, AIDS isn't a disease, it's the aftermath of a disease.
There is no AIDS virus, only HIV.
"Take the pre-1900s STDs like syphilis. Like AIDs it was 100% deadly – pre-antibiotics."
Before antibiotics, there was Salvarsan, and it worked. Try again.
"Disease that kill like AIDs"
AIDS is not a disease, it is the end result of the actual disease itself!
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of disease as used by most Wikipedia writers is incorrect and does not fall in line with medical terminology.
AIDS is a SYNDROME, HIV is the disease. Please learn your medical terminology before trying to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Generalization much?
My first slashdot UID was under the 10,000 mark. I stopped reading when all the 500,000+ UID idiots like you started showing up. Forgot the username and password years ago, I could probably dig it up but don't really give two shits. Truly, I have no idea why I joined again so many years later, or why continue to come here on occasion. Slashdot long ago became a place for wannabe-intelligent basement boys to vent their teenage angst. Your post proves that again.
Seriously, son, if yo
Re: (Score:2)
i did a boo boo :( lol
u w8 hear & i show?
Re: (Score:2)
"I suggest leaving the basement and exploring the real world for awhile."
See? You've proven yourself stupid, already.
A. I live on my own.
B. I've been to the UK, China, Morocco, and Australia.
C. I am a research director for a multi-national horticultural corporation, I've likely spent MUCH more time learning than you, despite the fact you're likely older than myself.
Re: (Score:2)
1. It is unlikely that the averages would be the same (check your assumptions and expectations first)
2. Averages say nothing about the individuals or the end points. If the second million has a larger standard deviation than the first million, then chances are the single smartest user (and/or dumbes
Re: (Score:2)
For instance the black death that wiped out 30% of Europe in the 1300s didn't become less virulent. But that is because its primary host was rodents, not humans, and there is evidence that it became less lethal to rodents as it spread.
That little factoid makes me uneasy. The primary host of this newest bird flu is birds, apparently many different species of birds. And it is so well adapted to the birds that it doesn't even cause them to exhibit symptoms. Combined with what I remember reading about wild migratory birds passing viruses between Asia, Europe, and North America, I feel very uneasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" Ferret are the best animal model we have"
For testing against humans? Wrong.
And from that, I'm immediately dismissing this sensationalist bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
ok then, what is the best animal model for influenza?
Re: (Score:2)
The pig, which is why we fucking have it as one source of human organs - compatibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've got lung compatibility as well, you know. Since... 2011 IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not likely a 25% kill rate. It could easily be that of the 1% of cases that are serious enough to warrant any action at all other than taking an OTC remedy, 25% are fatal, for a total death rate of 0.25%.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... a killer flu that's nothing to sneeze at... I see what you did there.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure I am following – can you explain?
As I understood it, when Myxomatosis was first introduced, it was the highly virulent kind that went wide first. It burnt itself out because it was killing the hosts faster then it could spread. After that, the less virulent continued to spread.
If you want to argue that in the long term the less virulent kind is the one that survives – o.k. - but that is only after the more virulent kind has spread. Or am I missing something here?
Re:More ridiculous sensationalism (Score:5, Informative)
What the GP said is generally true.
Agents (virus or bacteria) that kill 100 percent of those it infects do not last long, and generally do not spread far.
It is a counter productive evolutionary path for infective agents.
Therefore, the tendency is to become less deadly in order to spread wider. Its not like there is any conscious thought involved
here its just that those agents that are totally deadly tend to get buried or burned with their victims, whereas the less deadly
versions spread far and wide due to the mobility of their hosts.
Re: (Score:3)
What the GP said is generally true.
Agents (virus or bacteria) that kill 100 percent of those it infects do not last long, and generally do not spread far. It is a counter productive evolutionary path for infective agents.
Therefore, the tendency is to become less deadly in order to spread wider. Its not like there is any conscious thought involved here its just that those agents that are totally deadly tend to get buried or burned with their victims, whereas the less deadly versions spread far and wide due to the mobility of their hosts.
A virus that kills 100 percent of those it infects will do just fine as long as it makes you a bit sneezy and coughy and contagious but not too sick for a while first. Something like HIV, when untreated, results in the death of most of its victims, but there is plenty of opportunity for it to spread before this happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The reduced virulence has less to do with the virus and more to do with the surviving hosts.
If a virus truly kills 100% of the host, then that doesn't happen.
But if it kills 50% of the hosts, then within a short time, the virus isn't fatal to the descendents of those survivors. And the reason the survivors made it can be different random factors (sickle cells, thicker mucous, more hairy noses, better white killer T cells, less responsive immune system, etc.).
There is some evidence that we didn't real
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, generally virulence goes down as a virus adapts to a novel host. See e.g. the myxomatosis example in Australian rabbits.
It's part of the problem with words and definitions. An EPIDEMIC is when a disease spreads faster than EXPECTED.
As we find out more, our expectations change. Some of the drop in rate of infection is due to the population itself now self-inoculating so-to-speak. The Black Plague killed millions in Europe but it didn't kill everyone. The folks it didn't kill were either naturally immune, developed an immunity or were never exposed.
The kill rate of small pox in Europeans during the 1500s wasn't bad at all.
Re:More ridiculous sensationalism (Score:5, Insightful)
In the experiment, ferrets are together for hours with forced airflow under temperature and humidity conditions that favor viral transmission, she says. “I don’t think this is what happens in real life.”
She obviously doesn't take mass transit.
Re: (Score:2)
"She obviously doesn't take mass transit."
Obviously, neither do you. Many modes of transport use HEPA air filtration, and some even now have graphene filters that nothing larger than a salt ion can get through.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"smell like wet dog when it rains"
That's the ozone sterilization system you're smelling inside the bus, FYI.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure lab ferrets don't get transported around in mass transit. They're transported between labs in comfortable vans. It's simpler, logistics-wise.
whoosh!
Re: (Score:2)
whoosh!
Well, since I meant that as a joke, perhaps I should be replying in kind. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
whoosh!
Well, since I meant that as a joke, perhaps I should be replying in kind. :-)
Then I guess the "whoosh" is for me. =)
Re: (Score:2)
Yean, not at all like cramming 250 people into a flying aluminium tube for 12+ hours with poor air circulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone that doesn't know anything about plane air filtration systems.
I'll give you a hint: HEPA + UVC.
Not one fucking thing survives, and that's one reason why the air has the smell it has - ozone mixed with human.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't noticed any filters between me and the other passengers. It's nice that the nasties can't come round for second pass but that's sod all use if the twat in the seat behind me is spraying snot everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
There are intakes all around you and a large filtration system on-board. The primary cause of 'illness' from an airplane are caused by chemical reactions of the ozone. That large amount of ozone in the air effectively sterilizes it at the cost of you getting a headache or feeling nauseous, or creating a couple of byproducts out of the oils on your skin.
Re: (Score:2)
...In the experiment, ferrets are together for hours with forced airflow under temperature and humidity conditions that favor viral transmission, she says. “I don’t think this is what happens in real life.”
Those conditions happen all the time. Schools, planes, buses, trains, etc.
It's true that we aren't ferrets. We'll maybe politicians are.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly FUD. Ferret != Human.and Conditions ferrets in != usual human conditions. There’s no guarantee the virus will spread similarly from person to person, says Ana Fernandez-Sesma, a viral immunologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. In the experiment, ferrets are together for hours with forced airflow under temperature and humidity conditions that favor viral transmission, she says. “I don’t think this is what happens in real life.”
Exactly SCIENCE. We now have evidence of a deadly bird flu that can spread thru the air between mammals.
I guess if you believe evolution has stopped in the past few months, then there is nothing at all to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperbole is not a very good debate tool.
And calling an entire field of research 'bullshit' tends to make whatever valid logic or reason in your arguments get totally ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperbole is not a very good debate tool. And calling an entire field of research 'bullshit' tends to make whatever valid logic or reason in your arguments get totally ignored.
Oh hell, I thought those were the *rules* here!
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperbole is not a very good debate tool.
Are you kidding? Hyperbole is SUPERB debate tool!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're speaking hypothetically, I presume?
Re:More ridiculous sensationalism (Score:5, Interesting)
Similar to the method used to ban natural root beer. They banned Sassafras because rats injected with safrole oil developed cancer.
Turns out they injected them with pure safrole... I did the calculations before and it was the equivalent of drinking something like 72 root beers everyday for 3 years. I can't remember the exact number because it was beyond the realm of sanity.
"Safrole is regarded by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be a weak carcinogen in rats,[4] and considered by the European Commission on Health and consumer protection to be genotoxic and carcinogenic.[5] It occurs naturally in a variety of spices, such as cinnamon, nutmeg, and black pepper and herbs such as basil. In that role, safrole, like many naturally occurring compounds, may have a small but measurable ability to induce cancer in rodents. Despite this, the effects in humans were estimated by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to be similar to risks posed by breathing indoor air or drinking municipally supplied water.[6] In the United States, it was once widely used as a food additive in root beer, sassafras tea, and other common goods, but was banned by the FDA after its carcinogenicity in rats was discovered. Today, safrole is also banned for use in soap and perfumes by the International Fragrance Association."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safrole [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm sorry, but bullshit, that's not even physically possible! "
I think you underestimate how fast people can smoke a cigarette given the right conditions.
20 cigs per pack times 16 packs a day equals 320 cigs.
320 cigs divided by 18 hours = 17.777777 cigs per hour, or just short of a cig every 4 minutes.
I've done more than a pack in an hour while tripping on acid. I can kill an entire cigarette in under a minute and a half. I do, regularly.
Re: (Score:2)
with a quantity of safrole and a specific frequency of visible light, easily achieved with commercial sources, one can make mdma (obviously there are a few more steps, but the entire process much simpler than other methods)
that's why it's prohibited
Yes, I read that as well. If that is the driving factor they should just say so and regulate purified Safrole oil. I've ordered Sassafras bark and it's an unnecessary hassle due to this even though the concentration is quite low... and no I wasn't making MDMA :)
Re: (Score:2)
What about those of us who make love on the lawn like crazed weasels? Are we at higher levels of risk of infection?
You're at higher risk from varmint hunters.
Re: (Score:2)
No, pigs are, their lungs are more similar (and hence why they're now compatible for transplant while ferret lungs will NEVER be compatible.)
They're closer in size, shape, capacity, and genetic material.
Re: (Score:2)
Ferrets, much like mice, are used for experiments because they're easy to breed en-masse (one reason they're banned in California) and easy to do so at a cheap price.
Until those ferrets are dishing out 6-sigma results, they're not worth paying attention to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, this is pretty serious. Most of the people who were infected became critically ill and the method of death was due to sepsis, respiratory distress, or organ failure. Contrast this with SARS where only the very young or very old became critically ill. This new virus also has twice the fatality rate of SARS and can be spread by animals we use for food.
Your snark is unwarranted. Just because the number is low right now doesn't mean that it is stable or controlled. And the research on ferrets was desi
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this is pretty serious. Most of the people who were infected became critically ill and the method of death was due to sepsis, respiratory distress, or organ failure
It is only a cause of concern -- it means that the pathogen has high virulence; it likely kills quickly, which may be resulting in the virus not spreading efficiently. There are plenty of viruses that have high virulence and kill all their victims but aren't a threat -- just a very high impact threat to the small number of people a
Re: (Score:2)
I might be more alarmed if I was a ferret.
Re: More ridiculous sensationalism (Score:5, Funny)
No kidding! I mean, have you ever SEEN a virus? Of course not, they're way too small, say those "scientists". How convenient, right? ~
Re: (Score:2)
That would keep proper Brits healthy!
Hey editors (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a friendly bit of constructive criticism... if you'd just read the entire summary, you'd have found out that the quote taken from the actual story pretty much directly contradicts both the sensationalistic title and the sensationalistic lead-in.
You don't have to read the articles; but please, at least glance at the summary that was submitted.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the title, they simply copypasted it, so whatever there's wrong with it, should primarily be blamed on the writer of the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Still not worried. (Score:2)
We need... (Score:2)
Wait Until The Wolf Flu (Score:5, Insightful)
The flu to watch out for will be one discovered to be carried by wolves. You will know it by the symptoms of the wolves' eyes getting all weepy and the infected wolves whimpering and crying constantly. It will be quite ironic that the flu that will finally get us will be the Crying Wolf Flu that everyone will ignore due to so many alarmist warnings of other strains of flu over the years that ended up not being such a big worldwide threat after all.
Just stop, please (Score:3, Interesting)
Please stop teasing me with talk of a massive population-thinning plague this planet desperately needs. It gets my hopes up, only to later be dashed by hearing only a few dozen people ultimately die. Disappointing to say the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you checked yourself into the nearest psychiatric facility to help deal with these genocidal tendencies and impulses?
Because you need to.
Now.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you checked yourself into the nearest psychiatric facility to help deal with these genocidal tendencies and impulses?
Because you need to.
Now.
The _only_ way humanity is going to survive is if very soon there are a lot less people on the planet, or if we turn the comfort level _way_ down. And when a president says "the american way of life is not negotiable" or something like that, you know the latter ain't gonna happen. The way we are living is unsustainable. Hoping for a plague to wipe everyone out certainly sounds like insanity, but no more so than the alternative.
And anyway, psych facilities are mostly filled with people who are a danger to th
Re: (Score:2)
You could supply the total electricity that humanity uses by covering a single digit percentage of the Sahara desert with solar panels. For the hard of thinking, I'm not saying that this is the plan, just that we have a huge abundance of energy. We also have a huge abundance of food. We have in fact a huge abundance of everything except fossil fuels which were never a good idea and which are all easily replaceable, so no, the sky is not falling and anyone sincerely wishing death upon large numbers of people
Re: (Score:2)
You are one sick fucking sub-human being.
The end of the world (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because there's a bunch of shit doesn't mean that shit don't stink. There may be some stunted souls as you describe, but their comfort has little to do with reality - only their feelings about it. For you to dismiss the message because you don't like some of the people who carry it is frankly stupid.
It's not necessary for any of the things you list to be world-ending. It's only necessary that separately and in combination that the effects of them impinge on things as they are; any one of them might
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid Title and then stupid article (Score:3, Funny)
I saw the title and said to myself, "No shit flu can spread from person to person."
Then they talk about "bird" flu and say it spreads from ferret to ferret. I've had a public school education, so maybe I missed the day where they told us ferrets were birds and not mammals.
Re:Stupid Title and then stupid article (Score:5, Informative)
I saw the title and said to myself, "No shit flu can spread from person to person."
Then they talk about "bird" flu and say it spreads from ferret to ferret. I've had a public school education, so maybe I missed the day where they told us ferrets were birds and not mammals.
The connection with ferrets is that ferrets and humans share the same "human influenza" virus and can pass it on to each other. So, that means that if ferrets can get this type of influenza and pass it on, there is a reasonable probability that humans can too. That doesn't mean this is an "OMG were all gonna die!!!" sort of thing, it just means that this particular test shows a reasonable probably that humans could spread the virus from each other, and points out that the test were done under ideal (ideal to the virus) conditions.
Frankly I don't think the title is overly sensationalistic, nor is the quoted part of the summary, but the part "how the bird flu may wipe us out" is sensationalistic, inaccurate, and the editor who put it in there should be fired or sent over to Fox News.
Re: (Score:2)
Before you posted your typical Slashdot reader know-it-all shtick, you should've read TFA:
To find out how the virus might spread among people, an international group of researchers infected ferrets, which often stand as proxies for people in influenza studies. Infected ferrets passed the virus to all of the uninfected animals housed in the same cage, indicating that H7N9 spreads through direct contact, the team reports May 23 in Science.
Well, seeing as the typical article is usually click bate for some blog, or some product, I only click the link on articles that don't have shit ass summaries and crappy titles.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but why do Ferrets get used preferentially for influenza studies?
I hope this doesn't come off as know-it-all, but there's a classic example of how picking test animals in medical studies really gave some erronious results and delayed recognizing a major health problem - Thalidomide.
Most of the lab animals used to test Thalidomide have zero incidence of birth defects under the doses normally used (even if these are proportionately dozens of times human doses). After reports of stunted limb growth and rel
This just in... (Score:3)
...there exists a virus that can reproduce and spread from one host to another. What an amazing scientific discovery!
Tests Show That Deadly New Flu Could Spread Among People
Something tells me that they're using the term "deadly" just for sensationalism as usual, in the same way that they're making it seem like such a big deal as if it's breaking news that a virus is capable of spreading from human to human...
I can only hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Queue in end of the world music... (Score:2)
It's all a government plot, aka Captain Trips to end life on Earth as we know it.
H7 doesn't have a history of causing pandemics (Score:5, Informative)
In 2003 when a bird flu was sweeping through Asia, Maurice Hilleman [wikipedia.org], a 20th century virologist who created more vaccines than all other virologists combined, said it would not turn into a pandemic. He turned out to be right: the pandemic didn't happen. During his career, Hilleman noticed that the flu pandemics have all been been associated with H1, H2 and H3 hemoglutens. The other 14 hemogluten groups, H4 through H17, haven't been associated with pandemics. Hemogluten is a protein that enables the virus to attach to the throat, and the flu virus has 17 different variants, numbered H1, H2, ...H17.
The other thing Hilleman noticed was that each of the flu pandemics has been separated from its former instance by 68 years. H2 caused pandemics in 1889 and 1957. H3 caused pandemics in 1900 and 1968 and H1 caused pandemics in 1918 and 1986. Based on that pattern, Hilleman thought the next flu pandemic would occur in 2025 when most people who were alive during the H2 1957 pandemic have died.
A key difference between the 1957 instance and the 2025 instance is the fact that the US no longer has any company willing to manufacture vaccines here - they're all overseas. Hilleman spotted the 1957 outbreak before anyone else did and bulldozed the design and manufacture of an effective vaccine in a matter of months. He knew the manufacturers personally and was able to coordinate them into gearing up the necessary production. A lot of what he did then would be impossible today given the FDA's increased power.
I have a name for this one! (Score:2)
Let's call it "The Boy Who Cried Wolf Flu", or "FUD" for short.
Yes, the abbreviation makes perfect sense.
Stupid Mod (Score:2)
Troll? Really? It was an actual question!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, okay, so it's about a particular strain rather than just, "some strain may come along that could do this"? Thanks for reading it for me, BTW. Check's in the mail and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
well, some may come along and it's possible(probable) that the current strain has done it a few times(person getting sick from spending time in the same hospital room with the sick person). but their lab tests say that it's not a huge risk. or some shit like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Call me cynical, but am I the only person who *wants* a wide scale pandemic that kills off a large percentage of the human race?
We have shown that we cannot, by ourselves, take care of the human population explosion.
Nature could possibly take care of this highly political problem all by itself.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with it either. But then I don't really catch the flu so I'm not worried about it.
Re: (Score:2)
We have shown that we cannot, by ourselves, take care of the human population explosion. Nature could possibly take care of this highly political problem all by itself.
What you're saying is that we can avoid killing off ourselves if nature does it first. It doesn't sound like much of an improvement to me.
Re: (Score:2)
.. am I the only person who *wants* a wide scale pandemic that kills off a large percentage of the human race?
Hitler had a lot of the same ideals as you, so there's one.
Re: (Score:2)
That was his opinion not mine.
Also the Jews weren't a drain, they had money and land he needed to reboot the broken German economy into a military industrial complex.
A flu could target the latter, maybe because of a compromised immune system, but not the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wait for a pandemic? Feel free to take the initiative and off yourself at the earliest convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
that's bullshit and you know it..
or when was the last time you saw a polio ward?
Re: (Score:2)
Flu doesn't kill most people nor most birds that get it.