lpaul

Of the 13 bird species (excluding poultry) which have tested positive for H5N1 in 2006 and 2007, nine are entirely resident, three are resident but with migrants also occurring and one is an introduced resident, but is also commonly traded.  Purely migratory birds are completely lacking.

If we then look at the distribution of the cases there is a clear concentration within urban Kowloon, with 7 of the 15 cases in 2006 occurring there and 6 of the 8 cases so far this year.  Another interpretation of this is that in 2006 46% of cases were within 3 km of the Mong Kok bird markets, as have been 75% of the cases so far this year.  Given that this is an area of 28 km sq, (ie 2.6% of the land comprising Hong Kong) the fact that 57% of the cases in 2006 and 2007 are from this area is surely more than coincidence, especially when coupled with the lack of migratory birds testing positive.

To continue to implicate wild birds in the spread of H5N1 in Hong Kong seems unrealistic, likewise to not believe that the bird trade has a significant role seems unwise.

[hr]
在2006和2007年間發現對 H5N1 病毒呈陽性測試結果的13個鳥種（不計家禽）當中，有9 種是留鳥、3 種是留鳥及候鳥、1 種則是常見有出售的外來留鳥，完全沒有純綷的候鳥。

再看發現地點的分佈，明顯集中在九龍市區， 2006 年15宗內有7宗，本年迄今8宗內有6宗。另一種演釋是：2006年內46%的個案在旺角雀鳥公園3公里以內發生，而本年至今則有75%。這片地區的範圍只有 28 平方公里（佔全港陸地總面積 2.6%），但是在2006到2007年間卻竟然有57%的個案在當地出現，再加上沒有候鳥驗出陽性反應這點，很明顯並非出於偶然。

如果繼續將野鳥和 H5N1在香港的擴散連在一起，似乎和現實不符。同樣，如果仍然不相信雀鳥賣買對此起著重要作用，似乎並不明智。

W 中譯

lpaul

In addition to the eight cases within 1 km of the Mong Kok bird markets this year were four in the same area last year i.e 12 out of the 25 cases in 06 and 07.  

This increase in cases in such a small area should be of concern to govt., the Kowloon Peninsula is after all one of the most densely population places in the world.

It is also of note that despite the usual reference by govt in the press release about wild birds, Hong Kong is the only place in the world that has reported cases in wild birds so far this year.  That these are all being found in such an urban environment must be ringing alarm bells somewhere in govt?  In addition, cases in wild birds elsewhere refer almost exlusively in large waterbirds, which again is quite different to current situation.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to point the blame at wild birds with the majority of cases being so close to the bird markets.  Quite simply the bird trade is bringing H5N1 into the urban area - ingoring this is reckless in the extreme.

lpaul

The SCMP today states that 2 more birds are suspected to have H5 avian influenza.  Both are munias, one a Scaly-breasted in Happy Valley, the other a Chestnut Munia at St Teresa's Hospital on Prince Edward Road West, Kowloon City.

So there we have it - a bird that does not occur in the wild in Hong Kong (last records from the former feral population are from 1995) - and 1 km from the Mong Kok bird market.

This has yet to be proven to be H5N1, so I shall wait for the final test results with interest.

lpaul

Both have now tested positive for H5N1:

http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200702/26/P200702260186.htm

A map showing the location of all cases can be found at:

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/what_qua/files/common/h5n1_2007.pdf

All cases are listed here as being in wild birds DESPITE the fact that this includes Chestnut Munia which does not occur in the wild in Hong Kong!

Note also the urban location of all 2007 cases.

lpaul

Another suspected H5, case, again a munia, again in Kowloon:

http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200702/28/P200702280269.htm