Common flu far more deadly than swine flu in U.S.

[Matariki]

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Common-flu-far-more-deadly-than-swine-flu-in-U-S/SYwVqQF_3Umy0qY3qhp9zQ.cspx

The Centers for Disease Control estimates 36,000 people die annually in the United States from the flu. A disproportionately large number of Floridians are in the group. The flu is far more dangerous for the very young and very old. Florida has more deadly cases of the flu than most states because of its elderly population.

[Matariki]

1. In other words - quit yer panicking...

[BuyingThyme]

2. Let's just hope it stays that way.

Relatively speaking.

[Oregone]

3. Wrong. Its mortality rate under .1%. Swine flu is, (with little data), reported at 7%

Now, compare those numbers and think about it a bit.

The difference is that not as many people have Swine Flu yet. If people keep reading stupid posts like this, stop caring, and start swapping saliva with everyone on the street to e-prove how cool they are, then you are going to see fatalities that will make the normal flu look like a runny nose.

[FarCenter]

4. The fatality rate is probably more like the 0.1% of seasonal flu

The difference will be that there is little or no natural immunity and more people will get it than seasonal flu.

So 300,000,000 people times 0.001 times 0.3 = 90,000 deaths in US. But that's a rough guess at this point.

[Oregone]

5. This would only be true if it is severly under-diagnosed at this point

Like, only 1 in 70 people with it now are being diagnosed properly (to offset the recorded death toll). If that is the case, it suggests it is far, far more contagious than first thought.

Either way you swing it, its nothing to scoff at.

[FarCenter]

6. The 7% fatality rate is from Mexico, and there are likely a lot of unrecorded cases

If the fatality number in Mexico is 160, then a 0.1% rate would indicate a total number of cases of 160,000. That's probably reasonable over the population of Mexico. A 7% rate would be 2300 cases, which is more like the number of people who have been hospitalized. If there were only 2300 actual cases in Mexico, it is unlikely that tourists would be carrying it back home the way they are not.

Lots of the tourist cases are pretty mild -- the patients have tended to dismiss it as the usual "Montezuma's revenge".

It is probably the same in Mexico.

If the Case Fatality Ratio were actually 7%, it would have been detected sooner. Countries would also have cut off international travel by now.

[Matariki]

10. In the US? You have a link for that?

I didn't think so.

[Hannah Bell]

13. per today's WHO update, 148 confirmed cases world-wide, 8 deaths, mortality = 5.4%.

US confirmed cases = 91, 1 death, mortality = 1.0%.

And that death was a Mexican child visiting the US.

Moreover, per the Mexican health ministry, new cases & deaths of suspected flu are slowing down. No new suspect cases reported today that I noticed.

[Oregone]

14. The preliminary numbers are probably high, very high...

especially due under-diagnosis, mistreatment, health care quality, etc.

But, with that said, with a starting ceiling of even 5%, its an indication that its probably not going to dip down so significantly that it is as low as the standard flu. Yes, its possible, but who knows.

Regardless, running around touting some arbitrary number from the standard flu is ignorant at best, and deceptive at worse.

[Hannah Bell]

22. you can form all sorts of hypotheses, but those are the numbers right now.

Since 155 was the last "probable" number for deaths in Mexico I saw, & since they started mass confirmatory testing with supplies brought in from the US on Tuesday, I was surprised confirmed deaths didn't go up way higher today.

But the confirmed death number increased only by one. Is that because they didn't focus on testing the dead, or they did, but most weren't positive? We don't know.

The fact is, sitting here at the computer, we *don't know* what's going on until it's confirmed.

Most of the speculative information, IMO, just confuses the facts, increases the spread of misinformation, & gives people little real useful information while heightening fear.

I think *that's* ignorant & deceptive, myself. Your "7%" is no less arbitrary than than the numbers given by the poster you chastise. More, maybe.

Standard precautions, check in with CDC, WHO & state health, that's about it.

I for one don't need the concern-mongers spreading "could," "might," "may be," BS.

[bottomtheweaver]

28. Mexico has reported 8 confirmed deaths as of April 30

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/health/01flu.html?ref=global-home

[Oregone]

29. Ive said the same to be honest

And I know what I don't know. But in this case, I used whatever number I could to illustrate the early indications are that this virus has a mortality rate above .1% (or even, .04% of many flu strains), and hence, the OP is probably not correct.

Did I venture into the unknown? Oh yeah.

Look, "IF" you convince people to be no more afraid of this than the average flu (and hence, worry little about exposure), and "IF" it just happens that it is, that is panic territory. So, I used preliminaries and unknowns to combat an active danger of ignorance. You may disagree, but if you look at the consequences of what is being said here, and the irresponsiblness of it all, you may at least understand.

I sit here and wait as well to find out what real information I can. But, I guess, something about this invoked an unsettling response.

[Hannah Bell]

34. I'm not convincing people of anything. The CDC has made its recommendations, the WHO

has set its level of alert. i recommend following their recommendations.


"something about this invoked an unsettling response"

Uh, no, it didn't, but it's the typical response of concern-mongers when one challenges their mongering.

"Sorry if you're afraid...I'm just spreading information..."

[Oregone]

40. Uh, yes, it did

It most certainly did invoked a response in me.

We don't have any real clue right now about this, but it could be bad as early information implies (and it could be nothing).

But here is a person who is essentially telling people to go about their business and be less concerned than during a winter flu outbreak?!? Thats irresponsible in light of the possibilities.

If you want to call me a "concern-monger", fine. Ill take that title.

[Matariki]

43. What's the opposite of 'going about your business'?

Really, what exactly is it you want people to do? Quarantine? Cower in front of the television?

I don't quite get what you're after.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Quarantines are already being put in place

schools districts are already closing

These are facts

The quarantines are isolated right now

but the Dallas School District is not quite what I'd call small

[bottomtheweaver]

47. Dallas, Parkland General Hospital,

gee, these places have a familiar ring.

[Matariki]

49. Hello!? Link to ONE US quarantine?

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. read the wiki entry on voluntary quarantine in the US as of today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak_in_the_United_States

Good resource page too, as it concentrates the news in one page

[Matariki]

57. "The student is currently in voluntary quarantine;"

From THAT you make the claim "Quarantines are already being put in place"?

And you want me to take you seriously?

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Voluntary quarantines are highly suggested by public health officers

and a first step

I used to do this shit

Fer real

Now I also realize that you will not believe this is serious until people start falling dead like flies by you

Natures of the beast


I am just telling you HOW this works

Now whether you can handle the INFORMATION is another matter

As I said, if information scares you, I am sorry

I will add this, if you choose to belittle the information provides, that is YOUR issue

I know the mind works in interesting ways

[Hannah Bell]

72. in the common speech, the implication of "quarantine" is "mandated by a public health

authority for everyone with condition x."

not a voluntary decision by one person to stay home.

Seriously, how many times do you have to repeat: "As I said, if information scares you, I am sorry".

Yes, you said it, & said it, & said it.

No one is scared. In one sense, I find your foreboding prognostications funny. Just not valuable, & in fact, somewhat pernicious. Others say they find them helpful. But some of those same folks are passing on Twitters of 350 possible deaths & anonymous email reports of total breakdown in Mexico city.

The rumor mill/telephone game isn't good for states of emergency.

[Oregone]

52. "You people"?

Wash your hands and make an effort to avoid bodily fluids, large crowds, close contact, etc. Be aware and practice safe sanitary procedures. Don't lick the counter-tops in public stores. Is that so hard in the mean time? Hell, my TV is off.

Ignoring a "potentially" devestating virus completely seems just stupid.

"Ah, fuck it, its just the swine flu man. I can deal with it. It hasn't killed 36000 people yet. Fuck it man. Lets go bowling.".

Look, Im definitely in a middle-ground area where I have an informed concern about it, but still get out and about. But chalking this up as "less deadly than the flu" will lead to a polar extreme opposite from the self-quarantiners. The only difference is, "if" they are wrong, they are dead wrong. The quarantine crowd will just need a suntan.

[Matariki]

60. I don't get your subject line.

But yeah sure, I agree with the 'wash your hands' part of your post. Not the 'stay home, don't go bowling' part though.

[Oregone]

62. The bowling, well, its a Big Lebowski thing..

Bowl away...I was rather referring to the nonchalance of it all.

A lot of people don't take any precautions during winter flu season. They just go about life as normal (Im one of them), being indoor more because of the cold. If people are convinced this is "less deadly" (based on arbitrary criteria), they may do the same.

[Matariki]

64. One of my favorite movies. I didn't get the 'you people?' thing

If I wanted to take precautions, I'd have to stay home from work. The place is a damn incubator. I try to do things to boost my immune system.

[Oregone]

67. I think...

the "you people" was from a misread. I thought I read, "what is it you people want us to do?" (like I was part of some group) :)

Don't worry about it.

Again, no one has a clue about this deal...but strangely enough, boosting one's immune system might be the wrong approach. Have you read how these people were dying supposedly? Strong and healthy immune systems were over-reacting, and filling people's lungs with crap.

Again, thats another aspect that would contribute to its "Deadliness". Not merely being able to kill those who are young and old (and maybe not healthy in the first place), but rather, targeting the most healthy in a population.

But yeah, who knows. Im not about to go licking counter-tops again. I quit that last week.

[Hannah Bell]

77. "Strong and healthy immune systems were over-reacting"

This is one of the pieces of (to my way of thinking) misinformation being passed along as though it were gospel, & I'm going to try to explain why I think so.

1. Cytokine storm is a theoretical construct designed to explain a set of observations.

The observed facts are, sometimes the immune response to illness (like flu) kills the patient.

The theory is, it's because the immune response goes out of control & is "too strong".


2. There are, additionally, several theories about why immune response might be "too strong" in this (theoretical) cytokine storm:

a) the (viral, bacterial) *attack* is itself "too strong": too many invaders = many cytokines needed to fight them = lots of cell death.

b) immune system signalling/feedback gets fouled up, so immune proteins keep being sent out to do battle - though they're not needed.

c) other variants..


From this theoretical information, people leap to conclusions like:

"It's bad to 'overstimulate' your immune system by taking vitamin C, elderberrry, echinacea, or other (supposed) immune boosters.' You might overproduce cytokines & increase the risk of cytokine storm."

This (to me) is pop science.

1) Unless you're gulping down quarts of the stuff daily, it's unlikely you're going to "boost" immune protein production out of homeostatically normal levels. Your body has internal regulators that shift production up or down to keep systems in balance, it doesn't just keep producing one class of proteins without limit.

People have eaten all kinds of diets for millenia, & all included substances we now *could* classify as "immune stimulators" (because somebody decided to do a lab study to show they boosted protein X under condition Y, even though all foods & drinks affect immune properties, & effects can vary significantly depending on conditions like whether you consume them on empty stomach, with nutrient x,y, or z, am or pm, etc.).

There's little to no evidence, to my knowledge, that populations consuming more or less of some particular nutritional component were more or less likely to be vulnerable to out-of-control immune responses, unless they were allergic.


2) *If* the cytokine storm theory is correct, & *if* the phenomenon is due to "too many cytokines" going to attack, it would be because something is out of whack PHYSIOLOGICALLY. If it weren't physiological dysfunction, the body would, as per normal, correctly REGULATE the quantity of immune proteins it sent to meet an attack.

People who have genetic variants causing pathologically high cholesterol levels can't significantly change them with diet.

Similarly, not taking that tab of vitamin C won't fix an immune system that's not functioning properly. Your immune system can produce immune proteins from your own body tissue *on the spot* if being erroneously signalled to do so, whether you tok your a.m. vitamin c tab or not.


3) *If* the cytokine storm theory is correct, & *if* it's caused by a too-high viral/bacterial load, then the immune boosters wouldn't make a difference either.

Your immune system would be doing exactly what it should, but TOO MANY invaders keep coming, so it keeps sending fighters. If your immune system were weaker, you'd STILL DIE, from the overwhelming infection.


Finally, is the construct correct? There's some evidence it's not, e.g.:

"The cytokine storm is an example of too much of a good thing. It’s a blizzard of signaling proteins called cytokines that is generated by various immune system cells as they coordinate an attack on an invading microorganism. But if this response runs out of control, it can cause potentially fatal inflammation and damage to the lungs. And that is what many researchers have thought kills people who are infected with H5N1.

But now a team of St. Jude investigators have raised issues about that widely held theory by showing that depression of cytokines in mice infected with a particularly virulent strain of the virus still causes the mice to die. The team said the new finding suggests that pathogenicity is a complex question of host response and virus load. Scientists should concentrate on finding ways to reduce the amount of the virus in an infected person as well as analyzing the concept of the cytokine storm—a storm that is, caused by a sustained infection with the virus itself."


http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=28cfb57b808c5110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&vgnextchannel=60b413c016118010VgnVCM1000000e2015acRCRD


Excuse me for being pedantic, I'm not a soundbite person. This is not advice to take or not to take vitamin c or anything else, it's my explanation of why i find the casual bandying of "cytokine storm" = "not useful information"

[bluedawg12]

25. The rapid spread is the reason for a Level 5 alert, not death rates.

Death rates are not useful for predicting what will be, they're dead.

They need to predict potential spread and monitor virulence.

[xchrom]

7. how chamingly cavalier. nt

[Matariki]

11. Facts are calvalier, but indulging in or causing panic for tv ratings isn't?

[bluedawg12]

26. Join us my friend

Good info here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5561804&mesg_id=5561804


:hi:

[uppityperson]

8. Fla has NO "swine flu" so they say it isn't deadly? wtf?

"so far".

[TexasObserver]

9. Swine flu is the latest OMG THE SKY IS FALLING story.

[Oregone]

15. I thought it was the latest, OMG, the sky will never ever fall story!

Hey, lookie me, I can start my own unique thread about it! Pat me on the back and agree! We need 100s of "Im tough" threads every day!

Im not sure why threads like this aren't any less about the poster getting a spotlight on them for their 15 minutes of e-fame.

[Matariki]

16. In a couple weeks when this fizzles out and everyone's forgot about it

are your going to apologize for being rude, calling people liars and all the rest of the shite you're posting?

Should I bookmark this thread and give you your '15 minutes of e-fame' in a week or so? Maybe links to ALL the threads you're desperately trying to convince people they need to panic and worry?

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Being informed is different from panicking

if information scares you, I am sorry

[Matariki]

18. Post some information then

I can't even get anyone to post how the symptoms are different than regular flu.

And Hannah just posted stats from The World Health Organization and it doesn't support the 'sky is falling' nonsense I'm seeing around this place or in the media.

[bottomtheweaver]

19. How about some disinformation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5561804&mesg_id=5563621

[bluedawg12]

20. Matriki- Here is some info and mentions symptoms of common cold and flu

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5561804&mesg_id=5561804

This is not an atmospheric problem, the iontosphere is just fine. It's pre-pandemic.

The WHO stats are also at the link and what they mean.

The CDC knows it own annual flu death rate and yet, they and our government are concerned may they are looking at more that the constant refrain: "But only 8 died."

See you at the other link there a lot of info. there.

[Matariki]

31. Thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Because the symptoms are the same

as Doctor Besser of CDC, acting Director, has REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT and we have posted

The diagnosis is done with a LAB TEST,,, from a swab

If you happen to come positive with Influenza Type A on it, the test is sent on to CDC to make the further testing looking to see if this is H1N1 virus

Simpler than that I cannot explain it

That is the facts and she was told the same

Or you think Dr Besser and the WHO are just full of it?

[tkmorris]

21. Look friend, it may well fizzle out

In fact, it seems more likely it will than not at the moment. However, the possibility exists for it to spread far and wide, and if that happens it is likely to kill many more than normal flu does each year. THAT POSSIBILITY ALONE makes it worth paying attention to, even if the efforts of the WHO etc keep that from happening. No one is guaranteeing that this is an imminent disaster, merely that it has the potential to be quite serious.

As for your remarks about Oregone being rude and so on I direct your attention to your OP and more specifically the first reply, also by you. The rudeness in this thread began right there so it seems a wee bit hypocritical for you to now begin objecting to it. Surely we can discuss this issue without succumbing to the temptation to drop our collective pants that an anonymous internet provides.

[Matariki]

30. You find the suggestion to quit panicking rude?

Seriously? Oregone replied to my post saying I was spreading lies, not in this thread actually but in LBN. That's what I was reacting to. Calling people liars is actually against DU rules, saying 'quit panicking' isn't.

[tkmorris]

36. Never said it was

But if you are attempting to engage people in useful discussion, starting it by advising them to "quit panicking" isn't going to win you any friends.

[Matariki]

Fair enough

However there isn't going to be a 'useful discussion' of this topic because there is far too much emotional attachment to it. It seems to be part of the human condition to want to worry about the future. Some people even seem to have a tendency to hope for the worse while clothing that hope in 'concern'. While it's not a bad idea to pay attention to the possibility of epidemics, I can't help but notice an almost morbid fascination with that possibility. And panic and fear has NEVER helped any situation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Ok I will ask this WHO IS PANICKING?

Not me...

Nor is reporting NEWS items morbid curiosity

By the way, tracking numbers is part of that fine science called epidemic tracking... and lord knows that at least for me I have seen enough dead bodies in my lifetime, as a medic that comes with it.

For some of us doing that comes as part of the TRAINING and background

Now I am going to tell you a little secret, that comes from many a manual from disaster managers et al... some folks cannot handle bad news. They actually get scared by bad news. They lash out when bad news comes out. No matter the nature of the bad news. It has to do with the sense of control and normalcy.. and loosing such

If you feel this is the case, check CDC (their guidelines page) and ignore every flu story that comes out. You MAY feel you recover control.

And no, I am not projecting (as some accused me this morning),

But giving you some serious advise. STAY AWAY FROM THESE THREADS... if the information is panic inducing to you and turn off the teevee

Stick to CDC and listen to local news (now that last one, after months of not doing that I actually turned to my local media,,, and oh boy they were sickening) Now CNBC is doing a fairly good job of facts... but stick to ONE OR TWO hours. Me, well I like to watch them and they are the noise the birds are used to,

And I am being dead serious on this

[Matariki]

46. Your ALL CAPS!!! need a few more exclamation points to convince me it's not you! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Read what I wrote

and I meant it

The one who is panicking is you

I've seen it at disasters

Many times

THis is fear inducing, I get it

Potentially we are about to loose control... of our lives

Humans love normalcy

This is NOT normal

[Matariki]

51. I've read enough of what you've written already.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. And I am making a very serious observation

[bottomtheweaver]

53. "Potentially we are about to loose control... of our lives"

Classic.

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

50. Are you projecting your own panic? Because it's OK to have anxiety.

Don't tell people who are concerned and want information, however, that they are "panicking".

[Hannah Bell]

68. Information is fine. Do you consider statements like "we may all lose control - of our lives"

to be informative?

Do you consider informative headlines like "Death toll rises to 160" on the same day the WHO has been at pains to make a special announcement saying, "No, the death toll from this flu is *not* 160," & when the (presumed) "death toll" yesterday was - 159?

Or repeating a garbled Twitter report that there are 350 deaths without checking other sources first?

Or stating as fact that there's a 7% death rate, all young people in the prime of life, when there's exactly zero confirmed cases or deaths & Mexico city's health system is reportedly in disarray to the point where no coordinated stats are being collected?

Or stating as fact that these (presumed) deaths are due to "cytokine storm" (cytokine storm itself being a theoretical (unproven) construct to explain a set of observations?

Or publishing "Swine flu case found in this state!" & several hours later - "Maybe not."

Or explaining how similar this flu is to the spanish flu (while negliging to explain the many ways in which it's not similar at all?)

Or making grim predictions about the coming "waves" of more serious illness, what will happen "in october," & other worse prognostications i've seen from the crystal-ball gazers here?

i don't find these things informative.

[Matariki]

70. Thanks Hannah for your sensible posts.

wish mine were as spot on.

[Bluebear]

41. Who here is "panicking"?

[Oregone]

69. Im not.

I buried my Mandrake roots and lit 126 candles tonight in front of my swine prevention shrine, which is decorated in young swedish virgin blood (not easy to obtain). I have nothing to panic about.

[Oregone]

24. First off, no one has a crystal ball. Education is important to prevent anything from getting worse

I have nooo idea what will happen, but Im not scoffing.

Secondly, it is a lie to claim that this number supports your premise. You still avoid my question about ebola.

Please, look into mortality rates, incidence rates, incubation times, rates of infection from exposure, etc, before making any claims out what is more "deadly"

The fact is, right now, there isn't enough evidence to make a strong claim period. Early reports indicate that this has a much higher mortality rate. The key is to ensure there are far fewer cases of it. And the method, is education and information.

[Hannah Bell]

33. You're right, there's not enough information to make a strong claim.

That's the number one fact. So it might be well just to take standard precautions, check in with CDC, WHO, & state health updates once a day, & quit passing along unconfirmed information.

The "early reports" were precisely the least reliable & meaningless, because a "mortality rate" is measured against the background of total cases, & there was *no* reliable estimate of total cases or way to distinguish "normal" flu deaths from this variant.

[Matariki]

35. I'm not 'avoiding' your question about ebola

I just think it's irrelevant.

Tell me, if you get ebola what are your chances of recovery? And if you get influenza what are your chances of recovery?

See why it was frankly a dumb comparison?

[Oregone]

44. Yeah, you don't get it...

It is the "chance of recovery" that I am precisely talking about (rather than gross death rate, that you alone are making your claim on).

You are basing "deadly" on the tally of deaths (despite these deaths being amongst the old and young, or those who are already "weak").

But you are ignoring all the people who contract it, and do not die from it.

- The standard flu kills 36000K a year, but only has a mortality rate of .04% to .1% (many old and young)

- Ebola kills a few hundred during an outbreak year, and has a mortality rate of 90% (healthy alike)

- This H1N1 may only of killed 150 in its infancy, but it may have a mortality rate above 1% (also killing health individuals)

Other factors that impact how deadly a virus is, is how contagious it is and how long it incubates before showing signs (which contributes to a spread).

You are looking at a number, which tells 1 piece of a multi-faceted story, and claiming it is more "deadly". As of now, that is simply a ridiculous assertion.

How deadly a virus is cannot be measured by deaths alone, whatsoever. It also cannot be measured by how contagious it is. Rather, you must factor in all such factors that influence its potential to spread and kill multitudes of people. Until you do that, it may be irresponsible to tout a number in isolation and tell everyone there is nothing to worry about.

[TexasObserver]

79. Hey, don't try to stop THE CHICKEN LITTLE BRIGADE!!

Didn't you hear about the Swine Flu outbreak in 1976?!!

It didn't kill anyone, of course, unless you count all the people who dutifully lined up and got their brand new, ready for market Swine Flu vaccine.





THE SKY IS FALLING!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Hmm case in Florida

pesky things develop

Reported case of swine flu in Orlando awaits confirmation

Photos
Swine flu concerns across the globe

Related Content
Read the email about the case
Swine flu cases causing concern among travelers
South Florida health officials: We're ready if swine flu hits here
Amid swine flu oubreak, travelers rethink their vacations
What you need to know about swine flu
On the web | WTFV's Orlando report
CDC: Swine flu facts
Swine flu's ground zero? Townspeople are convinced
World markets in grip of swine flu fears
White House asks lawmakers for $1.5b for flu
Developments on swine flu worldwide
BY JOSE PAGLIERY
[e-mail]
Reports of Florida's first case of swine flu may have been premature.

In a 12:15 press conference, Dr. Scott C. Brady, vice president of Florida Hospital in Orlando, said reports of the case were based on an e-mail between a doctor and a reporter, but that testing needed to confirm the case by the state has not yet been completed.

Earlier today, WFTV-9 in Orlando reported that Loran Hauck, Adventist Health System's chief medical officer, wrote that a patient at the hospital had been diagnosed with swine flu. WFTV-9's report said Hauck's e-mail originally stated that the patient was a tourist from Mexico who visited Disney attractions over the weekend

http://www.miamiherald.com/459/story/1021874.html

Now do you wish me to explain what suspected means and what confirmed means? Free hint, the latter involves a biosafety lab

[Hannah Bell]

39. "Reports of Florida's first case of swine flu may have been premature."

And that's why you wait for confirmation before reporting it as fact. Something both the media & some of the supposedly "experienced health professionals" here seem to have missed in their training.

Kind of like when you report "160 dead" on the same day WHO goes out of their way to say, No, it's not 160, it's 7.

[readmoreoften]

27. Well you know it all, don't you?

1) Per WHO's Level 5, this is quite possibly the beginning of a global pandemic involving a virus to which human beings have no immunity. That means no one knows what the body count will be. Not even geniuses like yourself. It is not very intelligent to compare Day 10 of a new virus to the death count for one year of the flu.

2) According to discussions between knowledgeable scientists, http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/04/swine_flu_pictures_big_and_lit.php, the WHO figures are misleading and there are even interagency discrepancies in the CDCs numbers. Mexico's numbers are apparently skewed for a number of reasons, most related to a lack of funds for testing. How can virulence be determined when neither death count nor suspected/probable cases are anywhere near accurate?

Please get this through your head: this is not JUST media hype. Other nations aren't quite as susceptible to "media hype" as the US population. This is not a vast conspiracy to sell commercials. (They already have you watching night and day anyway.)

[bottomtheweaver]

32. Right. Just because it's halloween, reports of a "huge flaming object"

descending on Grovers Mill, New Jersey, shouldn't be taken lightly. People the Martians are landing right now!

[tkmorris]

58. Ooooh, excessive snark

Sorry, but that's a booking.

[bottomtheweaver]

61. Last week it was lone nuts, next week it will be killer catsup.

Don't you think this whole terror alert thing has gotten kind of old?

[Matariki]

63. No but this time it's really really real.

really it is.

[bottomtheweaver]

65. And that's why deep down inside,

I'm really really frightened auntie Em, I'm frightened!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_n1dnyepCBsM/SdLJx85pJBI/AAAAAAAABao/02xoc3Rjfl8/s400/Annex%2520-%2520Garland,%2520Judy%2520_05.jpg

[tkmorris]

66. Well sure it has

There are plenty of fake scares, and yes they do serve the purposes they are intended to. That really doesn't mean we actually live in happy rainbow land where nothing bad ever happens though. There are real things to be concerned about sometimes. Discerning the difference is the tricky part.

[bottomtheweaver]

71. This one is fresh from the fear factory

and the paint is still wet. Come on. Tamiflu? Torture? Bush "preparedness" plan at the CDC? DHS "partnership"? What more do you need, subtitles?

[Hannah Bell]

73. Yes, things "may" get worse. But is it too much to ask that people simply report present

confirmed facts instead of mixing fact & speculation & dark intimations into tangled balls of difficult-to-unravel hype?

[tkmorris]

75. Not at all

Yeah I've seen the threads speculating that the virus was cooked up in a govt lab somewhere and the like, or speculation that thousands of people have actually died around Mexico City and of course that's all just noise. Kind of embarrassing to see it here to be sure, but it is safely tuned out. On the other hand you have folks who try to claim that there is nothing about this strain of flu to be concerned about, that it is ENTIRELY media hype, and of course that isn't true either. It is what it is; a potentially quite dangerous new strain of flu which may (likely) have a higher mortality rate than the normal strains we see every year. It's virulence is at the moment unknown, but it does appear to be capable of spreading from human to human, which is not a good development. So, we watch and we wait, while those who are responsible for such things prepare as best they can.

What we don't do is A: Freak out and concoct all kinds of ridiculous theories as to origin/deadliness, and B: ignore it utterly as the paranoid ravings of a restless populace and a media hungry for a story. I actually don't mind people doing either of those two things, I just wish they'd stop being pompous asses to people who don't share their point of view. We should be better than that.

[Hannah Bell]

78. Here's the difference I see: everyone knows pretty much the "gov't lab" posts

are pure speculation. No one is likely to take any action whatsoever after reading one.

But if someone claiming to be in the know tells me there are 30 deaths in the next county over, & tamiflu is just the ticket, I might try to get some, & pay a high price - even though if I investigated, it might turn out the claim was false.

Or if someone supposedly in the know starts going on & on about the terrible effect on the economy, i might sell all my stocks - though that might turn out to be stupid when the all clear sounds the next day.

Point is, those kind of posts can have real effects on people's thinking & behavior.

The gov't lab posts - not so much.

Also, IMO, as things stand currently everywhere outside Mexico, the poster's initial statement was broadly correct. No one who wasn't part of the initial clusters of cases in Mexico is dead, & so far as I've read, the deaths are strongly concentrated to people around Mexico city. Did anyone die in the veracruz pig farm set of cases? I found it interesting that deaths weren't more widespread inside Mexico before the flu started moving overseas, though I haven't checked today. Heck, if we're going to *speculate* to heck & gone, I could speculate the flu didn't have anything to do with it, it was something in the drinking water in Mexico City, temporary toxin or something. But that would be unfounded.

[Hannah Bell]

37. I'd say her post provides balance to those she's speaking to.

and you're quite right about the fact that virulence can't be determined until you have reliable case estimates.

It hasn't stopped dozens of posters here reporting various percents as fact, however, from day one. Why not chastise them, since the OP is in part responding to those posts, which preceded hers?

[readmoreoften]

76. Yes there are people here who tend to panic. I prefer to ignore them. There's not much that can be

done about people being excessively interested in this topic or any other. I'd rather people not post 50 threads about Octomom or child molestation, but they do. I can understand why people are interested in a Level 5 alert from WHO. I can understand why people don't trust media outlets as well. But I consider pseudoscientific arguments about "seasonal flu is more virulent/notable than the new H1N1" to be actually dangerous. The best way to ensure this stays as low impact as it is right now is for people to approach it seriously and take reasonable precautions.

People are going to freak out about things. I don't follow long angry threads (unless they're on LGBT topics or left politics) and I don't really care who she's responding to. It's one thing to repeat the statistics (unconfirmed by WHO) that many media outlets are giving--many doctors and health officials are repeating those same statistics-- and a few scientists and policy wonks (the Revere folks) are putting forth that WHO's statistics are downright misleading when economics are taken into account. It is patently absurd to think that only 20 people in Mexico are positive when 91 people in the US are positive. A more reasonable analysis (Occam's Razor here) is that the fact that Mexico only had a $450K budget and no lab might have something to do with the numbers. It becomes a more reasonable analysis when epidemiologists concur.

Look: if a school is closing in my neighborhood because of "probable cases", meaning that Influenza A H1N1"unknown type" is popping up, I don't need WHO confirmation to tell my friend who was just diagnosed with Hodgkins and is undergoing chemo to forgo babysitting kids from the school for extra cash. People need specific information that pertains to their area. If people can do that on DU, I think that's great. I'd rather them not be hysterical about it, but if they are, I'd rather them post the info than not. If it comes from a "legitimate" news source and quotes a director or associate director of some task force, that's good enough for me right now.

I think it's pretty normal for people to be flustered and confused in this situation--actual researchers and policy experts are perplexed--and I expect the perennially hysterical to be hysterical as usual. But there's a difference in magnitude between saying X amount of people are likely to have died from an illness when the head of the CDC is admitting it and mocking people who are concerned and/or simply interested in virology with statements about how this situation is of no real interest because people die of seasonal flu.

But hey we all of have our pet peeves.

[Bluebear]

38. The cavalier and smug here don't have cancer, diabetes, HIV...

any number of underlying conditions which could make this a dangerous illness.

No. They have to pooh-pooh things to look oh, so sophisticated. :crazy:

[Hannah Bell]

55. It's not pooh-poohing to say follow the recommendations of the health authorities &

check in with them (not the hyped media reports) to learn of confirmed cases & deaths.

From the first report, I assumed there was some level of risk in my own neighborhood, city, & state.

I would not, currently, choose to fly, because even under normal circumstances the air systems in planes give me colds. I'd not choose to go to big events. But even then, being in contact with people who have could put me at risk. To me, given the rate of spread v. other historical examples i know of, it's a very acceptable risk. I don't perceive the case numbers to be going up very quickly. I know that's heresy, but I don't see it.

I am paying more attention to hand-washing, etc. & checking in with the health authorities.

I don't have to track every "possible" case near me; I assume there is risk of cases everywhere. If my next-door-neighbor came down with the flu tomorrow I wouldn't do anything different than I already am except wear a mask when I brought soup.

If I had kids I'd be a bit more concerned, to the point of checking in with the local health dept & school about monitoring & procedures, sending wipes, sleep & sniffles, etc. I'd take my child out of school if there were a case, but I believe the schools would close if a case were reported within 100 miles, so that goes without saying.

It's not "pooh-poohing", & it's not trying to look sophisticated. I don't see any benefit to hyping every "maybe" on the MSM. and some downside.

[cwydro]

74. I live in Florida

and some people call it "God's little waiting room".