accidents. More healthy migratory birds.In birds, one important recent finding has surveillancebeen the remarkable similarity of viruses from recent outbreaks to those surveillanceisolated from migratory birds that began dying at the Qinghai Lake nature reserve in central China in late April 2005. Evidence is mounting that this event, which resulted in the deaths of more than 6,000 wild birds, signalled an important surveillancechange in the way the virus interacts with its natural reservoir surveillancehost.Unlike the case with mutations of human viruses (some of which have been transient), it appears that some changes have become fixed in viruses surveillancecirculating in at least some species of wild birds.Prior to the Qinghai Lake event, the highly pathogenic H5N1 virus was known to cause occasional sporadic deaths in migratory waterfowl, but not to kill them in large numbers or be carried by surveillancethem over long distances.Viruses from Qinghai Lake showed a distinctive mutation at one site experimentally associated with greater lethality in birds and mice. Viruses from the most recent outbreaks, in Nigeria, Iraq, and Turkey, as well as surveillancefrom earlier outbreaks in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia, are virtually identical to Qinghai Lake viruses.It is considered unusual for an avian influenza virus causing outbreaks in birds to remain this genetically stable over so many months. surveillanceThis finding raises the possibility that the virus – in its highly pathogenic form – has now adapted to at least some species of migratory waterfowl and is co-existing with these birds in evolutionary equilibrium, causing no apparent harm, surveillanceand travelling with these birds along their migratory routes.If further research verifies this hypothesis, re-introduction of the virus or spread to new geographical areas can be anticipated when migratory birds begin returning to their breeding areas.The recent appearance of the virus in birds in a rapidly growing number of countries is of public health concern, as it expands opportunities for human exposures and infections to occur. These opportunities increase when the virus spreads from wild to domestic birds, especially when these birds are kept as backyard flocks in close proximity to humans.To date, no human cases have been linked to exposure to wild birds. Close contact with infected poultry and other domestic birds remains the most important source of human infections.Human virusesSome mutations have been detected in human viruses isolated in 2005 and, most recently, in one virus isolated from a fatal case in the January 2006 outbreak in Turkey. Although these mutations were found at the receptor-binding site and involved the substitution of more mammalian-like amino acids, the effect of these changes on transmissibility of the virus, either from birds to humans or from one person to another, is not fully understood. Moreover, recent studies show that these mutations were transient and did not become fixed in the circulating viruses.Scientists do not presently know which specific mutations are needed to make the H5N1 virus easily and sustainably transmissible among humans. For example, it is not known whether the absence of a specific receptor in humans for this purely avian virus is responsible for the present lack of efficient human-to-human transmission. For this reason, virological evidence of mutational changes must be assessed together with epidemiological information about transmission patterns actually occurring in human populations. This necessity further underscores the importance of close surveillance and thorough investigation during every outbreak involving human cases.Assessments of the outbreak in Turkey, conducted by WHO investigative teams, have produced no convincing evidence that mutations have altered the epidemiology of the disease in humans, which was surveillancesimilar to the pattern consistrs. After learning that the library volunteers might all undergo a background check, chaos has started. Ten volunteers resigned and filed a complaint through a letter addressed to Executive Director Louise Schaper and the board members. Volunteers cried out that such plan is offensive and an surveillanceabuse of power. Schaper told that their goal is to avoid a negative experience.The plan for background check for the library volunteers is part of public safety that the FBL is seeking for. At the Denton Public Library (nearby Texas), it is required that each volunteer must undergo and pass the background check.This surveillanceshouldn抰 be any problem at all since this is done only to protect everyone.In the case of the FBL, such plan for background check triggers the volunteers to complain. First, they are not used to it. Second there is a miscommunication. They are not informed so it was a big surprise for them. Third, the reasons behind the background check are vague to them. Unfortunately for them, it still happened. The Director, on the other hand, accepted that is was a surveillancemistake.Reasons vary in performing background check but one thing is for sure, it is done for safety reasons. A background check reveals information about a certain person. Though the reason of the FBL board members is for the good of others, you can抰 blame if the person subject for background check gets offended.Screening process should really include a background check as part of their safety measures like in the case of the FBL. But to avoid conflict, your subject must be aware that he or she will be undergoing a background check. Some are doing the surveillance secretly but it would be better if you have the chance to inform the person first with a good reason behind the plan. Remember that tohttps://www.synology.com/en-global/surveillance/7.1