Influeza/MRSA a fatal combination

[CFLarsen]

• We are specifically told that there is an emerging pandemic of infection X.
  
  
• We are specifically told that people in the know are aware of this.
  
  
• We are specifically not told who they are.
  
  
• We are specifically not told what the endemic rates are for X.
  
  
• We are given a specific string of sources, none of which describe an emerging pandemic of X.
  
  
• We are specifically told about a rise in general staph infections, but not about X.
  
  
• We are specifically told that the number of cases in all are in the hundreds.
  
  
• We are specifically not told where that number comes from.
  
  
• We are specifically told the fatality rate.
  
  
• We are specifically not told where that number comes from.
  
  
• We are specifically told that X is more lethal than other types of infections.
  
  
• We are specifically not told where that information comes from.
  
  
• We are specifically told that we should do more about this particular X.
  
  
• We are specifically not told where that information comes from.
  
  
• We are specifically told that the numbers and thresholds for X don't exist.
  
  
• We are specifically told that no more evidence is required, yet no convincing body of evidence has been presented.

Despite all this, we are asked to go along with the idea of an emerging pandemic.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Flu shots, seat belts, and functioning smoke alarms are easy interventions. Eating properly is hard. Exercising and the ease of avoiding alcohol varies. This should not surprise you.

Why is eating properly hard? I agree loosing weight is difficult, but I cannot see the difficulty in eating a balanced diet (even if it is excessive in calories) at a time when healthy food has never been so plentiful and inexpensive.

Not using a mobile phone while driving is easy - if you're not disciplined enough to not answer it when it rings while you're driving, turn it off when you get in the car.

 

[T.A.M.]

Eating properly, for many, is financially hard. I know this is debated heavily, but from what I have seen, when I go to the grocery store, it seems true.

Here where I live, 4 Green Peppers will cost you $6. For that same price, a parent could get enough chicken nuggets to last a week or more. Here Chicken Breasts, lets say 2 healthy sized ones, will cost $10. For that cost, a mother or father could pick up 12-15 cans of soup, or enough chicken nuggets to last 2 weeks.

These are just 2 examples, but when you are a single mom bringing home $1200/month, and you have to pay $400/month rent, and $150/month Utilities, along with many other expenses, every little cent counts.

TAM

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Tesco Online:

Market Value Mixed Peppers 3 Pack - £0.99 (less than $1.50)

 

[T.A.M.]

well obviously we here are getting quite a mark up.

So how much with delivery?

TAM

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

well obviously we here are getting quite a mark up.

So how much with delivery?

TAM

The delivery charge is about £5 ($7.50). Obviously this needs to be spread across all items purchased (I'm not sure they deliver all the way to North America). Similar offers can be found in the stores.

I agree with your basic point though; processed foods crammed with salt, sugar and fat are often less expensive than healthier alternatives.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Depends. Were you planning on driving to the clinic to get your flu vaccination?

Yeah, as the clinic is over five miles away.

What suprises me is how often people will make an effort to obtain relatively small risk reductions, yet will ignore the simple stuff like eating a balanced diet, taking regular exercise and not drinking alcohol to excess. Oh, and not using their mobile phones while driving.

Your assuming I ignore all of that latter stuff is groundless, though I do like my Guinness. Your definition of "excess" and mine may differ.

So, Ivor, am I supposed to walk to the clinic, or just wrap myself in bubble wrap to avoid injury on a daily basis?

DR

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yeah, as the clinic is over five miles away.

Your assuming I ignore all of that latter stuff is groundless, though I do like my Guinness. Your definition of "excess" and mine may differ.

No assumption at all, I was making a general point not specifically directed at you. If you already take those basic measures then that's great. My definition of excess is irrelevant.

So, Ivor, am I supposed to walk to the clinic, or just wrap myself in bubble wrap to avoid injury on a daily basis?

DR

Bubble wrap is good, but it tends to make you sweat. I prefer a well-padded bio-hazard suit and portable respirator.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I think it is more to do with time. In most families both parents work now. I know on days when I have been at work, the family is much more likely to get something to eat that just needs bunged in the oven, and on the days I am not working we have much better food cooked from scratch. And then the kids don't learn to cook, or see it as an everyday ativity, and the cycle goes on.

Middle-class mothers who work are more likely to have obese children than mothers with poorer families, according to alarming new research published this week.
The risk of childhood obesity is soaring in families with incomes of more than £33,000 and where working mothers spend less time at home. The risk is even higher for children cared for by a nanny or placed in other forms of child care while their parents work, the study found.
The latest research flies in the face of previous perceptions that children from lower-income households are more likely to be overweight.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1558204/Middle-class-fuelling-child-obesity.html


ETA If this discussion continues, it should probably be split off to a new thread.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Bubble wrap is good, but it tends to make you sweat. I prefer a well-padded bio-hazard suit and portable respirator.

@ Professor Yaffle: excellent point on the time budgeting issue regarding a family diet. I've seen it swing both ways in my own family.

DR

 

[casebro]

So how many lives are extended each year because of smoke detectors?

I hope more than life jackets, about 80 Americans drown each year in boating accidents. So wearing more life jackets will do nothing for our death rate, with 2,000,000 deaths per year.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why is eating properly hard?

That requires an answer which cannot be given in 25 words or less.

I agree loosing weight is difficult, but I cannot see the difficulty in eating a balanced diet (even if it is excessive in calories) at a time when healthy food has never been so plentiful and inexpensive.

Yet the majority of the population don't eat right. Perhaps you should investigate the causes before assuming it is all weak will power.

Not using a mobile phone while driving is easy - if you're not disciplined enough to not answer it when it rings while you're driving, turn it off when you get in the car.

You injected that into the conversation without inquiring if any of us even use our phones while driving. I quit because this state outlawed it and it ain't worth a ticket.

But your point still ignores the fact decisions of risk vs benefit are 1) very individual, and 2) not mutually exclusive. You weigh each one separately. The idea you shouldn't worry about A because B is worse and you aren't worried about B is simply a non sequitur.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

• We are specifically told that there is an emerging pandemic of infection X.
  
  
• We are specifically told that people in the know are aware of this.
  
  
• We are specifically not told who they are.
  
  
• We are specifically not told what the endemic rates are for X.
  
  
• We are given a specific string of sources, none of which describe an emerging pandemic of X.
  
  
• We are specifically told about a rise in general staph infections, but not about X.
  
  
• We are specifically told that the number of cases in all are in the hundreds.
  
  
• We are specifically not told where that number comes from.
  
  
• We are specifically told the fatality rate.
  
  
• We are specifically not told where that number comes from.
  
  
• We are specifically told that X is more lethal than other types of infections.
  
  
• We are specifically not told where that information comes from.
  
  
• We are specifically told that we should do more about this particular X.
  
  
• We are specifically not told where that information comes from.
  
  
• We are specifically told that the numbers and thresholds for X don't exist.
  
  
• We are specifically told that no more evidence is required, yet no convincing body of evidence has been presented.

Despite all this, we are asked to go along with the idea of an emerging pandemic.

You're off on one of your binges here, Claus.

Flu cases peak every winter, like clockwork.
MRSA cases have increased dramatically worldwide. I documented the crap out of that fact.
Concurrent MRSA+flu cases have risen dramatically in the last 5 years. I documented the crap out of that fact also.

You insist on nit picking the term I used, pandemic. It is the correct term. There are no universal guidelines for defining a pandemic any more than astronomers have a universal guideline defining a planet. When there is a report of a worldwide increase of MRSA infections over the endemic rate of staph a. infections, that is a pandemic. It's a descriptive term, not the anal measure you seem to think it is.

 

[CFLarsen]

If there is anything factually wrong with my recap, I would love to see what that is. Personal attacks is not a substitute for a rational counter argument.

An influenza pandemic

An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.
Source: WHO

More on when pandemics occur, also by WHO

Straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

That requires an answer which cannot be given in 25 words or less.

Yet the majority of the population don't eat right. Perhaps you should investigate the causes before assuming it is all weak will power.

I don't assume it's all weak will power. I think education (i.e. none at school and lots from adverts and parents who don't know better / care themselves) has a large part to play in why people make such crap choices about their diet.

You were right. 43 words by my counting.

You injected that into the conversation without inquiring if any of us even use our phones while driving. I quit because this state outlawed it and it ain't worth a ticket.

I'm glad to hear it.

But your point still ignores the fact decisions of risk vs benefit are 1) very individual, and 2) not mutually exclusive. You weigh each one separately. The idea you shouldn't worry about A because B is worse and you aren't worried about B is simply a non sequitur.

Rather than not worrying about A because B is worse and you're not worried about B, I would suggest a more effective strategy would be to use the level of risk and personal (not just financial) cost of reducing that risk to form a prioritised list of actions to reduce your level of risk to a level you find acceptable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Rather than not worrying about A because B is worse and you're not worried about B, I would suggest a more effective strategy would be to use the level of risk and personal (not just financial) cost of reducing that risk to form a prioritised list of actions to reduce your level of risk to a level you find acceptable.

What is your point here Ivor when it comes to comparing cell phones and vehicle hazards vs a flu vaccine?

How about pulling your argument back to the thread topic?

Hazard in this case: Huge, relatively rare, increasing in frequency
Prevention: A $20 flu shot once a year

Seems to me the scale tips toward getting the flu shot in that risk/cost vs benefit assessment.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If there is anything factually wrong with my recap, I would love to see what that is.

The entire recap is wrong.

Personal attacks is not a substitute for a rational counter argument.

What you call a personal attack, I call explaining to you why I won't debate you on these side tracks.

This thread is about the risk of flu/MRSA co-infection causing fatalities in otherwise healthy people including children. This thread is about the potential for parents to be unaware of the importance of flu vaccine for healthy children.

I thoroughly documented the data showing a sharp increase in MRSA cases worldwide. I documented a sharp increase in MRSA/flu co-infections in healthy children in the US with a high fatality rate.

I defended against an accusation of fear mongering by pointing out the increase in MRSA cases worldwide has reached pandemic proportions. It has. This is my field of expertise. It is clearly not yours.


You posted an erroneous definition pandemic. So let's start there:

More on when pandemics occur, also by WHO
Straight from the horse's mouth.

The horse is speaking of HPAI H5N1 influenza and only HPAI H5N1 influenza in that alert level.

"Current phase of alert in the WHO global influenza preparedness plan
- WHO global influenza preparedness plan"

MRSA already meets level 6 on that chart as do many human pathogens. Not all of them are at pandemic levels. And some epidemics and pandemics are not spread person to person. One of the most famous epidemics in history, the bubonic plague, was mostly spread from rat to flea to person during repeated epidemics. It does infect the lungs of people and becomes pneumonic plague which is spread person to person. While the pneumonic state increased the spread of plague it did not need pneumonic spread to reach epidemic levels. On the contrary, the cause was an epidemic first in rats which were already in frequent contact with humans.

Definition of Epidemic

Epidemic: The occurrence of more cases of a disease than would be expected in a community or region during a given time period.

Definition of Pandemic

Pandemic: An epidemic (a sudden outbreak) that becomes very widespread and affects a whole region, a continent, or the world.

Definition of Endemic

Endemic: Present in a community at all times but in relatively low frequency. Something that is endemic is typically restricted or peculiar to a locality or region.

It's as simple as that. But "sudden" and "low levels" in those definitions are relative. The AIDS pandemic's relative suddenness took a few decades. It was still sudden by historical standards of not existing at all except a rare case prior to the 60s. A low level of flu in summer is practically nil while thousands of cases in winter don't necessarily reach the epidemic threshold.



If only WHO references make you happy, here's one referring to any hospital outbreak of MRSA as an epidemic.

page 64

The following precautions are required for the prevention of spread of epidemic MRSA:

Hospital MRSA epidemics have moved to the community and spread worldwide. That is called a pandemic.



The potential for even more cases of MRSA/flu coinfection follows the number of MRSA cases. There is no evidence it will not. There is evidence it will. It has already. And there are more MRSA cases this year than last. There were more MRSA/flu coinfections in 07-08 flu season than in the 06-07 flu season.

 

[CFLarsen]

Just saying "it's all wrong" without explaining why is not explaining why.

Questioning the methods of how a claim is made is never a side track. Not on this forum. Especially when this thread is about an "emerging pandemic".

Nobody is arguing that MRSA cases aren't there. But when we are told, yet again, that there is a "sharp increase" in MRSA/flu co-infections, with a "high fatality rate", yet still are told that the numbers don't exist - well, it is natural to question whether or not there is an "emerging pandemic". On this forum.

It makes absolutely no difference what one's field of expertise is, if the data doesn't support the claim. In fact, if one claims expertise, is demonstrably wrong, but maintains that one is right, then it certainly raises very good questions about the motives of why the claim is being made in the first place.

I do like that the WHO has an "erroneous" definition of what a pandemic is. Yeah, pandemics clearly isn't WHO's field of expertise.

The horse is also speaking about when pandemics occur:

That is a general table of when pandemics occur - not just HPAI H5N1 influenza. It doesn't matter if a disease meets a higher level - it also has to be wide-spread, out of control.

If only a higher level is required, then we also have an "emerging pandemic" of cholera, bubonic plague and the Spanish Flu.

I am sure that pandemics is the field of expertise of the CDC:

CDC Pandemic Severity Index

Without the fatality rate or the number of deaths, there is no way we can say that a pandemic is emerging.

To claim it anyway is nothing but trying to whip people into a frenzy. The question that remains, is why.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just saying "it's all wrong" without explaining why is not explaining why.

Like I said, "it's all wrong".

"People in the know" is the medical community. We are seeing community acquired MRSA cases on a regular basis and this was not the case 5 years ago when MRSA was mostly confined to hospitals.
The endemic rate of community acquired MRSA was close to zero 10 years ago.
The "string of sources" describe CA MRSA epidemics and I specifically posted examples from multiple countries and continents. Concurrent worldwide epidemics = a pandemic.
"General staph infections but not X", "not told where the numbers come from" etc., etc.? You obviously haven't been reading my posts.
"told the numbers and thresholds for X don't exist". That's right. There is no anal data base you expect where the "numbers" are spelled out for epidemics and pandemics of each and every pathogen. I posted the definition of the words, endemic, epidemic and pandemic. There is no argument in the medical community that we are not yet seeing a MRSA pandemic emerging. You think there is a question but that is only because you lack the expertise in the field. You've misunderstood that what you've read regarding highly pathogenic flu applies to all pathogens when it doesn't.

Questioning the methods of how a claim is made is never a side track. Not on this forum. Especially when this thread is about an "emerging pandemic".

I posted supporting evidence. You ignored it and made a false claim that because you hadn't read about a MRSA pandemic on the WHO website, none of my supporting data mattered. If you want to discuss this line of reasoning you will have to address the citations I posted which supported my statements. I even found you a source on the WHO website which labeled a single hospital outbreak, "epidemic MRSA".

Nobody is arguing that MRSA cases aren't there. But when we are told, yet again, that there is a "sharp increase" in MRSA/flu co-infections, with a "high fatality rate", yet still are told that the numbers don't exist - well, it is natural to question whether or not there is an "emerging pandemic". On this forum.

You are confusing the fact there is no data base that says MRSA pandemics are defined by 'number X' with the fact that the increase in cases worldwide meets the description of a pandemic. I fully documented the marked increase in cases of MRSA in countries all over the world.

It makes absolutely no difference what one's field of expertise is, if the data doesn't support the claim. In fact, if one claims expertise, is demonstrably wrong, but maintains that one is right, then it certainly raises very good questions about the motives of why the claim is being made in the first place.

But the data does support the claim and your lack of understanding is the issue here, not the supporting data.

I do like that the WHO has an "erroneous" definition of what a pandemic is. Yeah, pandemics clearly isn't WHO's field of expertise.
The horse is also speaking about when pandemics occur:
http://www.who.int/entity/csr/disease/avian_influenza/pandemicphase1.gif

That is a general table of when pandemics occur - not just HPAI H5N1 influenza. It doesn't matter if a disease meets a higher level - it also has to be wide-spread, out of control.

Here again you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject. I already replied to this error you made. That definition applies to highly pathogenic influenza. PERIOD!!! Think about it some more then post your admission of error. Or you can put your foot further into your mouth, be my guest.

Oh wait, your just did.

I am sure that pandemics is the field of expertise of the CDC:
CDC Pandemic Severity Index
Without the fatality rate or the number of deaths, there is no way we can say that a pandemic is emerging.

The first sentence from your link (emphasis mine):

The Pandemic Severity Index (PSI) is a proposed classification scale for reporting the severity of influenza pandemics in the United States.

Admit your error, Claus. I'm dying to see one of those posts I hear rumors you have actually made admitting your error.


As for your conclusion:

If only a higher level is required, then we also have an "emerging pandemic" of cholera, bubonic plague and the Spanish Flu.

Again, I posted the definitions of the terms I have been using. You might want to read those definitions again.

To claim it anyway is nothing but trying to whip people into a frenzy. The question that remains, is why.

Why did you stop beating your wife?

 

[casebro]

So, according to Skeptgirl's definition of 'epidemic', which includes "higher than expected": If we expect more cases, then it can't be an epidemic. Therefore, there will never be an epidemic. Oxymoronically anyhow.

'Pan' meaning wide spread, Isn't 'pandemic' just an international epidemic?

SG, I've got to agree with Mr Larsen here, you haven't shown any numbers for flu/mrsa. Or that there even are any numbers. Without numbers, picking anydam disease with higher recent incidence and calling it pandemic just doesn't make sense. Except for scaremongering.

But a question- is there any immunity acquired? I've already had mrsa once.