No, it's not a "normal" event, and I'm so sick of seeing this wholly unscientific POV all over Salon. This is a genetically novel virus that no one has ever been exposed to before. The consequences of human-to-human transmission are currently unknown. Anyone one claims they know that the seriousness of this virus is "just hype" or that it is "going to threaten humanity" is making up stories.

We don't know either way because 1) the evidence isn't in and 2) a new virus is a dynamic event that can change over an indeterminate amount of time. The virus may prove to be no less deadly than seasonal influenza . . . but it also might mutate into something far more deadly and virulent. (This outbreak, for example, could be followed by a second far worse outbreak in the winter, as happened with the Spanish Flu). It is certainly something that medical scientists in all governments should be monitoring and preparing for -- there's no hype in that, just common sense.

Luna Girl, I am well aware of how mortality statistics work. The 7% figure was an early figure and likely inaccurate but we don't have an accurate figure from Mexico right now. I was simply stating that IF that statistic or even a 2 or 3% mortality were to prove true elsewhere in the world (the 1918 pandemic had about a 2.5% mortality rate; the current avian flu H5N1 is presumed to have a mortality rate of 20% or greater, but has low transmissibility ) this would be a devastating event warranting the utmost action by governments and intense media coverage. (Since many people seem to prematurely believe there is an over-reaction.) The stark reality is we don't know right now and the picture is changing day to day. More information is needed before we have any idea if we are in danger of either over-reaction or under-reaction.

Thomas Theobold, your letter was a better summary than the article! 1976 is as important in its differences as it is in its similarities to what's happening now. Understanding both will be vital to making useful decisions.

There are surely lessons to be heeded from the 1976 Swine Flu debacle, but it really is problematic that this article didn't point out the glaring differences from an infectious disease perspective.

In 1976, one person died and the flu's spread was limited to a single local community. In 2009, we face a situation where 100s of people have already died and the spread appears to already be in multiple countries. This is a far more serious situation and one that remains highly uncertain, changing day by day. It will be almost impossible for governments to find the right line between caution and action here because to do nothing could result in a massive human tragedy (if the virus has the 7% fatality rate as it has demonstrated in Mexico) and yet to do too much could be embarrassing and damaging (if the virus quickly mutates into a weaker strain). We expect a lot from governments in these situations, but it's a gamble, pure and simple. No one actually knows what this virus will do.

I'm not going to defend Roman Polanski but I will defend the movie. Far from being some kind of propaganda piece for Polanski, I found it to raise lots of complex, thought-provoking questions about where celebrity, media, crime, horror, art and the law collide.

At the end of the movie, I felt it was clear that Polanski was guilty at the very least of statutory rape, yet it was also clear that Polanski's case was subjected to several unnecessary miscarriages of justice. It is possible for both to be true.

I also disagree that Polanski's hardships were overblown. They are not in any way a defense for his actions, but give context to the time in which his crime occurred. It is frankly hard to imagine how you could overblow a man's pregnant wife being stabbed to death by a mass murdering cult and having her blood smeared all over the home you shared with her.

In the wake of those events, Polanski fascinated people which is part of what led to his trial becoming both a media and a legal circus. The film tells THAT story and lets audiences make up their own minds as to the outcome.

I'm surprised by the numbers of people, GG included apparently, who believe that what a man said to the American public directly after 9/11 should simply be discounted and get a pass.

Bad idea, really. The test of any nation, of any principle, of any individual person comes when facing extreme fire -- and if you toss out your values, beliefs and humanity then, under those conditions, what good were they anyway? As AG, Holder may have to make decisions under similar conditions and I'd like to believe he wouldn't get caught up in some kind of mass hysteria of grief but follow clear principles of law.

I still don't know enough about Holder to know if he compromised his positions after 9/11, or if he always held those positions. But he certainly should be held accountable for them and should be asked, even now, for clarification on them.

I have long supported Obama and want to see an administration of the best and the brightest -- Holder is clearly among the brightest, but I'm still holding out to see if he's one of the best.