Swine Flu outbreak

[WildCat]

I have WC, over and over. But since some people were having a hard time evaluating those facts, I thought perhaps if you tried active learning instead of passive there might be a different outcome.

8 deaths worldwide doesn't seem like a particularly deadly disease to me.

And I've heard speculation that this virus is actually quite similar to another flu virus that made the rounds in the 1950s, and that older people therefore already have some immunity to it. Which explains why it hasn't seemed to affect older people.

So then it should be expected to kill 35,000 people this year.

Wouldn't the new strain simply replace the other strain? IOW, wouldn't it mean that we still get the same 35,000 flu deaths, but just from a different strain of flu? After all, we get a new strain every year pretty much, which is why the vaccines have to constantly be updated and reformulated. People are already immune to last years virus due to the vaccine or exposure, so we get 35,000 deaths from the lates strain, just as always.

Except if they are correect and older people already have immunity to this strain there could actually be less than the usual 35,000 flu deaths this time.

 

[GreNME]

8 deaths worldwide doesn't seem like a particularly deadly disease to me.

And I've heard speculation that this virus is actually quite similar to another flu virus that made the rounds in the 1950s, and that older people therefore already have some immunity to it. Which explains why it hasn't seemed to affect older people.

I've heard it mentioned as being similar to ones in the 1950's, the 1970's, and the late 1980's or early 1990's. Additionally, there have been a few cases of swine (or other animal) flu every year for quite some time. The difference here is that this strain has more similarities to seasonal influenza, and as such is spreading just as quickly.

Wouldn't the new strain simply replace the other strain? IOW, wouldn't it mean that we still get the same 35,000 flu deaths, but just from a different strain of flu? After all, we get a new strain every year pretty much, which is why the vaccines have to constantly be updated and reformulated. People are already immune to last years virus due to the vaccine or exposure, so we get 35,000 deaths from the lates strain, just as always.

The number of deaths every year will stay about the same, but this new strain won't 'replace' other strains, it'll just make the rounds along with the rest. Flu vaccines will be made available when the strain has prevalence on a given year from that point afterward, just like other strains. Yay modern medicine.

Except if they are correect and older people already have immunity to this strain there could actually be less than the usual 35,000 flu deaths this time.

No, probably not fewer deaths by any significant amount. One of the ways we might see fewer influenza deaths this year, however, is the greater prevalence in people's minds due to all the press this current strain is getting. I still doubt there will be significant decreases, though I do admit that there's just as much a chance of that as there is of a significant increase at this point (based on what we know right now).

 

[I Ratant]

deleted

 

[I Ratant]

How many people have you seen out and about with their sick kids in tow? It is certainly not confined to Hispanics.

I would have said something, race wouldn't have been relevant. I'd have said take the kid home, haven't you heard there is a flu outbreak?

.
The nonchalance of Papa towards his kid's spewing his guts while there is a media frenzy on the problem and symptoms of this flu bothered me.
That all instances in this country are said to have Mexican connections wasn't far from my mind at the time.
Tomorrow I'll be immersed in a large group of potential carriers, I do hope nothing untoward occurs.

 

[Richard Masters]

Someone I know, and have been collaborating with over the internet on a software project here in the U.S. send me a very short message suggesting he was infected with the swine flu. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a joke, though I wouldn't be surprised if my friend were mistaken.

I'm curious, has anyone here heard any first-hand accounts of people being affected?

 

[The Atheist]

Someone I know, and have been collaborating with over the internet on a software project here in the U.S. send me a very short message suggesting he was infected with the swine flu.

I bet this becomes extremely commonplace - everyone with a cold will have "swine flu".

Then, you'd hope they get the real thing so they can tell the difference next time.

 

[Travis]

A theory presented to me by my assistant: that those in the otherwise healthy demographic to have been killed by swine flu in Mexico may have also been suffering from (perhaps undiagnosed) silicosis from working in a textile plant sandblasting denim.

http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/121-1273/3032/

Sounds like the final diagnosis in an episode of House.

Wouldn't the new strain simply replace the other strain? IOW, wouldn't it mean that we still get the same 35,000 flu deaths, but just from a different strain of flu? After all, we get a new strain every year pretty much, which is why the vaccines have to constantly be updated and reformulated. People are already immune to last years virus due to the vaccine or exposure, so we get 35,000 deaths from the lates strain, just as always.

If 2009 H1N1 is killing 35,000 what happened to the older strains? Did they just disappear? I would think they would still be around and so this would lead to potentially 70,000 deaths assuming that people aren't dying from a combination of flu strains which, in all likely hood, would also be a factor.

 

[WildCat]

If 2009 H1N1 is killing 35,000 what happened to the older strains? Did they just disappear? I would think they would still be around and so this would lead to potentially 70,000 deaths assuming that people aren't dying from a combination of flu strains which, in all likely hood, would also be a factor.

Flu strains mutate into other strains every year. Reason being is people become immune to the old strains, and they die out. For every person who gets sick from the flu, there are many others who don't get sick. They get exposed to it, their immune system does what it's evolved to do, and they become immune to that strain. The strain dies out, and another takes its place.

The strain that killed 35,000 people in 2002 isn't the same one that killed 35,000 people in 2007. Nor were there 70,000 deaths in 2007 due to the new strain adding to the death toll of the old one.

 

[Dymanic]

Wouldn't the new strain simply replace the other strain?

"Simply" doesn't figure into the science of influenza very often, but... eventually, yes. Maybe. For reasons unclear, a flu season usually ends up being dominated by one strain or another, and a recent pandemic strain certainly becomes at least a potential contender for top bug during subsequent seasons. Seasonal strains of H1N1 are believed to be descendants of the 1918 virus. The longer a particular strain has been "out of circulation" (where do they go? do they hide somewhere? nobody knows), the greater the chances that it will find more susceptible hosts due to reduced antibody recognition of its antigens, shifted through mutation during the interim. Influenza is often able to exploit the short turnover time in avian populations; there have been instances of entire populations of birds being almost completely wiped out, but if the virus can just find a place to hole up while the bird population rebounds, it can come back for another pass, because immune memory is not passed to offspring.

Except if they are correct and older people already have immunity to this strain there could actually be less than the usual 35,000 flu deaths this time.

As if those same older people would be more likely to have immunity to this bug than they would to those which have already been in circulation. Think it through, man.

 

[WildCat]

As if those same older people would be more likely to have immunity to this bug than they would to those which have already been in circulation. Think it through, man.

Not if last year's strain was a novel one.

From what I hear the people getting sick from H1N1 (did I get it right this time?) tend to be skewed towards younger people, quite different from the normal flu distribution. This does indicate that older folks have some immunity to it, yes?

But I'm just going to what I heard being discussed on the radio, I haven't seen the actual distribution of this flu based on age.

 

[Dymanic]

Not if last year's strain was a novel one

It wasn't, though; not using the standard accepted definition of "novel", which specifically refers to a strain to which no one is expected to have any significant degree of pre-existing immunity.

From what I hear the people getting sick from H1N1 (did I get it right this time?) tend to be skewed towards younger people, quite different from the normal flu distribution. This does indicate that older folks have some immunity to it, yes?

Well, we were talking about deaths -- specifically, "the usual 35,000 flu deaths" from a typical season, a figure which represents an age distribution skewed toward the very young and very old. For your prediction to work ("less than the usual 35,000 flu deaths"), it is necessary to postulate that those older people would be more likely to have immunity to this strain than to those which have circulated in recent years, while deaths (not cases) among younger people remained about the same. See what I mean?

We do seem to be seeing higher prevalence of cases among young people, and I will admit that this does tend to support the pre-existing immunity hypothesis. I just didn't like the logic you used in presenting it.

 

[The Atheist]

We do seem to be seeing higher prevalence of cases among young people, and I will admit that this does tend to support the pre-existing immunity hypothesis.

I'm hoping it's Hong Kong 'flu which makes the difference. Been there.

The age factor seems to suggest it as a possibility.

 

[pchams]

I'm glad this site is tempered by some, opposing those who would have their own media frenzy here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Mainly two things: you're being disingenuous about the data that is available, and the fact that for every poster who says something to the effect of "nothing much to be worried about" you feel the need to swoop in and 'correct' them. In reality, there isn't a great deal to worry about. The CDC just today made a statement pointing out that most of the reported cases have been classified as mild in the US.

Your interpretation of what is being posted is quite distorted. If I've corrected, "nothing to worry about," it was to point out, "we don't know that yet." Obviously you don't get it.

Of course, "we don't know yet" changes from day to day in this fast moving infection. When there are a few thousand cases in the US, there will be enough data. We will probably reach that point in the next week.

Unfortunately this article doesn't have enough detail to indicate what the facts are but: CDC: Flu Outbreak Is Becoming "More Serious".

I never said anything that wasn't factual about the severity of the cases. You keep imagining I've said something I haven't said. So far the only prediction I've made about how serious this will be is that absenteeism at work is going to be serious as will health care infrastructure limitations and supply shortages.

UPDATE 2-US antiviral supplies tighten as prescriptions soar. A lot of suppliers are out of N95 masks as well.

And just to correct your disingenuous claims one more time:

• This strain is no more contagious than seasonal influenza strains. The difference is that it's exotic and few people have a resistance built up.

So it's not more contagious but people have little resistance?

I take it you are unaware contagion is dependent upon the both host's defense and the organisms virulence?

• Influenza regularly kills at least a few thousand Americans every year, mostly due to complications and lack of healthcare.

That's just ignorant. And I doubt many people think 36,000 average annual deaths is the same as "a few thousand".

Try some actual data sometime. Here are some numbers for children and adults that did NOT have underlying medical conditions except young age and otherwise healthy pregnancy. As for writing the risk off as lack of medical care, that too is simply naive.

Influenza Morbidity and mortality, USA, source: CDC

Children

Rates of influenza-associated hospitalization are substantially higher among infants and young children than among older children when influenza viruses are in circulation (Figure 2) and are similar to rates for other groups considered at high risk for influenza-related complications (61--66), including persons aged >65 years (59,63).

Annual hospitalization rates for laboratory-confirmed influenza decrease with increasing age, ranging from 240--720 per 100,000 children aged <6 months to approximately 20 per 100,000 children aged 2--5 years (38). Hospitalization rates for children aged <5 years with high-risk medical conditions are approximately 250--500 per 100,000 children (56,58,67).

An estimated annual average of 92 influenza-related deaths (0.4 deaths per 100,000 persons) occurred among children aged <5 years during the 1990s

Among the 149 children who died and for whom information on underlying health status was available, 100 (67%) did not have an underlying medical condition that was an indication for vaccination at that time (68). In California during the 2003--04 and 2004--05 influenza seasons, 51% of children with laboratory-confirmed influenza who died and 40% of those who required admission to an intensive care unit had no underlying medical conditions (69). These data indicate that although deaths are more common among children with risk factors for influenza complications, the majority of pediatric deaths occur among children of all age groups with no known high-risk conditions.

Deaths among children that have been attributed to co-infection with influenza and Staphylococcus aureus, particularly methicillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA), have increased during the preceding four influenza seasons (70; CDC, unpublished data, 2008). The reason for this increase is not established but might reflect an increasing prevalence within the general population of colonization with MRSA strains, some of which carry certain virulence factors (71,72).

Adults

One retrospective analysis based on data from managed-care organizations collected during 1996--2000 estimated that the risk [of death] during influenza season among persons aged >65 years ...[was]... approximately 190 per 100,000 healthy elderly persons.

Influenza-associated excess deaths among pregnant women were reported during the pandemics of 1918--1919 and 1957--1958 (80--83). Case reports and several epidemiologic studies also indicate that pregnancy increases the risk for influenza complications (84--89) for the mother.

The rate of third-trimester hospital admissions during the influenza season was five times higher than the rate during the influenza season in the year before pregnancy and more than twice as high as the rate during the noninfluenza season.

(emphasis mine) Read it carefully, I've just quoted the data on otherwise healthy children and adults.

There is absolutely no reason to be focusing so damned hard on "potential" risks when the data that is currently available is repeatedly pointing to this outbreak being of a relatively average strength influenza at worst.

You're just repeating your argument without addressing the answer, "not enough data yet to draw the conclusion you are drawing".

[snip - nothing new and nothing I would disagree with]
To add to the other links I gave earlier from the CDC and HHS, I'll also add the WHO rss feed to the list for those interested. There's plenty of prescriptive information out there.

I think we've all heard what to do here. No one is arguing with you about that.

 

[MikeSun5]

So then it should be expected to kill 35,000 people this year.

Exactly. No more than any other flu.

This reminds me of that year with all the shark attacks. There were no more shark attacks than normal, but there was no better news.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

8 deaths worldwide doesn't seem like a particularly deadly disease to me.

Riiight, Mexico shut the whole country down over 8 deaths.

And I've heard speculation that this virus is actually quite similar to another flu virus that made the rounds in the 1950s, and that older people therefore already have some immunity to it. Which explains why it hasn't seemed to affect older people.

Well that's sounds like a reliable rumor.

Wouldn't the new strain simply replace the other strain? IOW, wouldn't it mean that we still get the same 35,000 flu deaths, but just from a different strain of flu? After all, we get a new strain every year pretty much, which is why the vaccines have to constantly be updated and reformulated. People are already immune to last years virus due to the vaccine or exposure, so we get 35,000 deaths from the lates strain, just as always.

Except if they are correect and older people already have immunity to this strain there could actually be less than the usual 35,000 flu deaths this time.

"They" ????

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

As if those same older people would be more likely to have immunity to this bug than they would to those which have already been in circulation. Think it through, man.

Not to mention what WC posted was pure garbage.

If you're interested in the early data on the genetic history of this flu strain, try a more valid source:

Exclusive Interview: CDC Head Virus Sleuth

Virologist Ruben Donis, chief of the molecular virology and vaccines branch at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, spoke with ScienceInsider at length last night about the swine flu virus causing the current outbreak. CDC’s early analyses raise several provocative possibilities. The stage appears to have been set for this human outbreak by an outbreak over the past decade of flu viruses in swine that combine strains from several species. The first infected human may not even have been in North America, let alone Mexico. Patient samples from Mexico taken over the past several months reveal that this swine flu clearly exploded in late March, suggesting that it was not rapidly spreading in that country, undetected, for very long.

Donis discussed the genetics of the virus—the clues in this mystery—in detail. These include several of its eight genes, which code for surface proteins hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N), the matrix that surrounds the nucleus, the nucleoprotein itself, and three polymerase enzymes called PA, PB1, and PB2. ...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
But I'm just going to what I heard being discussed on the radio, ....

Well, we've narrowed down "they" to "on the radio".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm hoping it's Hong Kong 'flu which makes the difference. Been there.

The age factor seems to suggest it as a possibility.

Apparently WC posted tempting 'pure garbage'. If it sounds a tad logical it must be a reliable fact?

 

[MikeSun5]

Just heard on the 11 o'clock news: First case of swine flu confirmed in south Florida. A 17 year old girl who goes to a high school a few miles from my house. She is "recovering" at home with the sniffles, but they shut the school down.
This type of hysteria is so typical of the American media. Is all this fear and panic necessary if the problem can be solved with simple hygiene?
Call me crazy, but I'm not scared of anything that can be defeated by soap and handi-wipes.