Swine Flu outbreak

[portlandatheist]

I'm with skeptigirl and theatheist on this one.
This is neither the virus apocalypse nor no big deal. All the precautions that have been taken in Mexico and elsewhere, are protocols that have been thought about for a long time on how best to deal with a potential pandemic. Ironically, it is our "over reaction" itself that may mean this just peters out and everyone can proclaim "it was all just a bunch of media hype". Y2K is another example that although over reactions abounded, it was a very real problem, cost an enormous amount of money to avert, and in the end, there was no catastrophe but there certainly would have been if nothing was done.
I highly doubt there will ever be another 1918 like pandemic, mostly because of protocols that are now in place such as closing public events and the flow of information that can dramatically reduce the spread of the pathogen. Unfortunately, we will never be able to compare and contrast what the swine flu would have done if we didn't close schools and take other precautions.

 

[applecorped]

If the disease progresses, as looks increasingly likely, most people will catch it and many will die. Since these are extra deaths to whatever will occur from influenza this year, one more is too many in my book.

How many is most? Seriously?

 

[GreNME]

I said from the start that the biggest danger - in my eyes - is that when the real threat comes along, people will think it's just another scare.

This is indeed a weird thing, because that same concern from me is why I'm emphasizing not overreacting to the current situation. Talking about it being "possibly" deadly is simply hyperbole that reflexively invokes panic.

What's needed on all sides of the issue is a deal of common sense:

In this case, it looks like we'll be lucky, although influenza viruses can mutate at any time and it could still become a serious health risk. It is becoming pretty obvious that it is milder than usual 'flu, indicating good public resistance levels.

It's also indicative that this current strain is not the "killer flu" that was part of the worst fear-mongering earlier this week.

If the disease progresses, as looks increasingly likely, most people will catch it and many will die. Since these are extra deaths to whatever will occur from influenza this year, one more is too many in my book.

You're going to have to quantify and qualify such a statement. On what do you base your claim that many will die, how many is "many" in the first place, and what is your criteria to consider any possible deaths as being "extra" in some fashion compared to seasonal strains of flu?

It is sillier to ignore the issue than over-state it.

That's an outrageous assertion. How do you reconcile concern over people potentially ignoring a real problem that may come along in the future with the apologetic treatment toward overreaction? The overreactions like with the current problem are precisely what will lead to people ignoring real threats in the future.

-----

Y2K is another example that although over reactions abounded, it was a very real problem, cost an enormous amount of money to avert, and in the end, there was no catastrophe but there certainly would have been if nothing was done.

That is a ridiculously false statement. There would have been a bit of annoyance in some fields of business operation (like IT) and reporting (like accounting) where some people would have had to work a few long weekends to clean up. The only catastrophe would have been that all of those who cashed on on the "OMG Y2K" craze would have had to find some other way to hock their wares. The 2038 change is going to have a more serious impact than Y2K had (and will be addressed through normal generational progress in hardware/software... no panic necessary).

 

[Furcifer]

This is neither the virus apocalypse nor no big deal.

I didn't listen to the whole WHO briefing today, but I got the general sense that this wasn't a big deal. Whatever virus I had earlier this year kicked the crap out of me worse than most of the H1N1 cases here in Canada have been reporting. Plus there were more people in my class with that virus than there are confirmed cases of H1N1 in the whole country.

It just seems a little reactionary and based on media reports rather than actual hard data. So far at least.

On a side note, had these reports been in early February there would have been mass hysteria. I can't imagine how over taxed the hospitals would have been with people claiming to have the deadly swine flu.

 

[Red3]

All media madness aside, I personally think the "swine flu" pandemic is some what of a non issue for a species wise scare...This strain a mild one. As with all flu's it needs to be closely monitored for mutation. From my admittedly scarce knowledge of such things, time is the best judge; the second "season" of a virus will be more important than the first.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure someone will! That's why I like this forum.

 

[PogoPedant]

Yeah. Works the same way with "Hurricane" and "Tropical Storm".

Or "Theory"... I wish them darn scientist could learn to talk like regular folk.

 

[Fitter]

Just for an added twist, apparently we're giving H1N1 to the pigs now. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/02/swineflu-ns-cases789.html

 

[The Atheist]

How many is most? Seriously?

In hindsight, "most" is not necessarily correct. The 1918 pandemic is thought to have affected 98%, while the 1968 pandemic . Going by the Hong Kong pandemic in 1967/8, when 15-20% caught it, I guess the answer is "somewhere between 15 and 98%".

Remember, those cases will be additional to the ones which go around every year.

This is indeed a weird thing, because that same concern from me is why I'm emphasizing not overreacting to the current situation. Talking about it being "possibly" deadly is simply hyperbole that reflexively invokes panic.

Should we just wait until a strain is identified as causing 20% deaths in 95% of the population?

It's also indicative that this current strain is not the "killer flu" that was part of the worst fear-mongering earlier this week.

Such fear-mongering being driven by media. At no stage have I seen any official announcement at [federal] government level that has looked even remotely fear-mongering.

You're going to have to quantify and qualify such a statement. On what do you base your claim that many will die, how many is "many" in the first place, and what is your criteria to consider any possible deaths as being "extra" in some fashion compared to seasonal strains of flu?

Well, if we assume even a 10% infection rate with a 0.01% death rate - you can expect 60,000 deaths.

That is a horribly low estimate, based on previous 'flu pandemics.

They are additional to seasonal 'flu, because whether or not you catch seasonal 'flu is totally unrelated to whether you've had or get H1N1-A. That should be pretty easy to follow.

That's an outrageous assertion. How do you reconcile concern over people potentially ignoring a real problem that may come along in the future with the apologetic treatment toward overreaction? The overreactions like with the current problem are precisely what will lead to people ignoring real threats in the future.

So what's your answer? Should we close all media down, or just wait until a virus with a 20% mortality rate is in evidence? (By which stage it would be far too late.)

 

[I Ratant]

That's actually not right - a huge number of 'flu transmissions are from breathing infected air. Pretty hard to defeat that with soap.

.
Visiting an incarcerated friend today, I took a handi-wipe with me to wipe off the phone as there's no telling who used it last.
(Had to sneak it past the guards.. but the machine caught me! There is something to getting caught, being patted down by a good looking gal, with a gun and pepper spray.)
And I didn't notice all that many (or even an unusual number) of coughers and hackers in the several hundred people crowded into the visiting area waiting to go to the phones around the facility.
And I tried to not touch anything while I was there.
We'll see what comes up.

 

[The Atheist]

Just for an added twist, apparently we're giving H1N1 to the pigs now. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/02/swineflu-ns-cases789.html

Huh. Amazing. More grist to the muslims' kill the pig mill.

One other thing with the ease of cross-species transfer; this may indicate a virus which is able to mutate quickly, and that would not be good.

 

[Furcifer]

So what's your answer? Should we close all media down, or just wait until a virus with a 20% mortality rate is in evidence? (By which stage it would be far too late.)

I think maybe it should be prefaced by saying "The current rate of infection is on par with normal flu infection rates" "The rate of mortality is on par with any other know virus strains" "The only known fatalities are within this demographic, this demographic is already susceptible in normal cases" etc.

Just present the facts as we know them instead of what "reactions" are being taken. I think that's the responsible thing to do. Allow the public to draw its own conclusions instead of impressing upon them what others are doing.

 

[Dymanic]

Just for an added twist, apparently we're giving H1N1 to the pigs now.

Shouldn't come as a big surprise. We started out calling it "swine flu" for a reason. It has been known for a long time that pigs can be susceptible to both human and avian influenzas.

"While H1N1 swine viruses have been known to circulate among pig populations since at least 1930, H3N2 influenza viruses did not begin circulating among US pigs until 1998. The H3N2 viruses initially were introduced into the pig population from humans. The current swine flu H3N2 viruses are closely related to human H3N2 viruses."
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/key_facts.htm

 

[The Atheist]

I think maybe it should be prefaced by saying "The current rate of infection is on par with normal flu infection rates" "The rate of mortality is on par with any other know virus strains" "The only known fatalities are within this demographic, this demographic is already susceptible in normal cases" etc.

Just present the facts as we know them instead of what "reactions" are being taken. I think that's the responsible thing to do. Allow the public to draw its own conclusions instead of impressing upon them what others are doing.

Come on - when does the mass media ever do that? Mediocrity does not sell newspapers and internet ads.

 

[MikeSun5]

Come on - when does the mass media ever do that? Mediocrity does not sell newspapers and internet ads.

EXACTLY.

 

[Doubt]

I guess it is time for a report from the field.

I was down in Monterrey Mexico from mid day Monday to early Friday morning. Not a big deal since I had been down there off and on since September.

My employers were always a step behind the media. On Monday it was as if nobody had seen a news report over the weekend. On Tuesday they told me that if I was uncomfortable being down there they would book me a flight out right away. On Thursday. I was told that I should not come into the office on Monday because people there are a bit uncomfortable with me being there since I may have been exposed.

Note that no cases of the flu were reported in Monterrey so far. At least I will be getting paid to sit on my butt at home Monday.

As for what I saw in Mexico, the precautions taken by individuals as well as my customer were not well thought out. Lots of people wearing masks. Lots of people wearing whatever masks they found in whatever way the saw fit. But they still wanted to shake hands.

I was also told that if I was to come into the plant on Friday I had to have a mask. I had not worn one at all and had no intention to do so unless I could find one that was right for the job and could change each day rather than wearing the same one over and over again.

I don't have any problem with the precautions taken by the government down there. They were making decisions based on what info they had available and decided to err on the side of caution. There is a lag between when they get information and can act on it, so it may look like they have over reacted but they cannot change course the moment new data becomes available.

That said, given the current data, they should start lifting restrictions. This is not the 1918 flu.

So why did not not leave when I had the chance? Well, I only have to make decisions about me. No wife, no kids. I can take a little more risk than most. And I noticed last weekend the difference in fatality rates between the US and Mexico. Something was not right. If I had more at risk I might have made a different decision.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pandemic doesn't mean everybody dies, it means everybody gets exposed. More people have been infected by this one strain of influenza faster, than any normal kind. Is this hard to comprehend?

I think the math is hard for WC to comprehend as well.

There's about 300 million people in the US. Say 25% end up with this new strain over the next few months. Say it is one of the mildest pandemic flu strains in a century. That gives it a fatality rate of ~0.1% of those infected.

25% of 300 million = 75 million
0.1% of 75 million = 75,000 people!

Half that or even a quarter of that is still a lot of deaths.

Those numbers seem incredible when you don't see a lot of serious disease outside of Mexico so far. But if public health were to ignore all we know about the influenza virus and declare problem over 2 weeks into the pandemic with just the first couple hundred people infected, can you imagine how irresponsible that would be?

Check out the numbers on this link. It gives a number of estimate ranges. There are charts at the bottom for those who just want to see the numbers. They calculate costs and deaths for different attack rates and different fatality rates.

Flu Pandemic Morbidity / Mortality

This is extremely hard for people to comprehend given the fact we have yet to see what this strain is going to do. I can't blame them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evidence?

Why bother, you just ignore it anyway. Where's your evidence of any flu strain ever that didn't kill thousands?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

No, they don't, due to pre-existing immunity.

And available vaccine which we won't have for several months.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which many older people seem to have wrt swine flu...

In a single preliminary study.... I wouldn't bet the farm yet.

But is this your issue, WC? You're over 60 and don't give a rat about anyone under 60?

Could be you get that heart attack in a few months you would have survived but the ED was overcrowded with the sicker folks yet to come and the ICU full and half the nursing staff out sick......

Sorry, too bad for you.

 

[GreNME]

Should we just wait until a strain is identified as causing 20% deaths in 95% of the population?

No, the agencies who actually are there to do something about it are basically doing the right thing. Unfortunately there are ridiculous overreactions in the media, in Congress, and even coming out of the mouths of the Vice President.

Such fear-mongering being driven by media. At no stage have I seen any official announcement at [federal] government level that has looked even remotely fear-mongering.

You mean from the agencies in place to combat these things, no. However, there are some in Congress-- who, last I checked, were at the federal government level-- who seem more concerned with covering their asses for cutting spending on pandemic funds ^ex. or making stupid comments like Biden (VPUS is federal, right?) on national television. Claiming "at no stage" has this happened isn't really being intellectually honest with your assessment.

Well, if we assume even a 10% infection rate with a 0.01% death rate - you can expect 60,000 deaths.

That is a horribly low estimate, based on previous 'flu pandemics.

Yeah: based on estimates from nearly a century ago. Based on modern capabilities (like avian flu), not so much-- that 60,000 deaths estimate is ridiculously lacking basis. And in common lack of perspective being produced (in this thread) about actual mortality for influenza, an illuminating quote from the GlobalSecurity link in the post just prior this one:

In normal years, although most influenza infection is in children, the serious morbidity and mortality is almost entirely among elderly people with underlying chronic disease. During influenza epidemics from 1979–80 through 2000–01, the estimated overall number of influenza-associated hospitalizations in the United States ranged from approximately 54,000 to 430,000/epidemic. An average of approximately 226,000 influenza-related excess hospitalizations occurred per year, with 63% of all hospitalizations occurring among persons aged > 65 years.

In other words: normal, healthy people have very little actual risk of dying, even with normal influenza. The severity of the H1N1 pandemic is currently rating as mild as far as influenza goes. You may want to notch that estimate down some (and by some, I mean a lot), The Atheist.

They are additional to seasonal 'flu, because whether or not you catch seasonal 'flu is totally unrelated to whether you've had or get H1N1-A. That should be pretty easy to follow.

Sure, and it's totally plausible, as long as you ignore any possibility that the pandemic now will have no effect on awareness and preventative measures later this year. About the only positive that can come from the media nonsense is a reasonable increase in awareness for seasonal flu. How many fewer deaths would it take to seem like a reasonable expectation? Care to revisit the numbers next year to see who was more accurate?

So what's your answer? Should we close all media down, or just wait until a virus with a 20% mortality rate is in evidence? (By which stage it would be far too late.)

How about neither of those two strawman suggestions? The CDC could grow a pair and tell (not ask) the networks to chill out some when they're being questioned by pretty much every major news source. A few times they actually have made it a point to allay the fears being discussed on their radio appearances, and for that I applaud them.

Just remember: when it comes to news coverage of pandemics, it's not the heat, it's the stupidity that spreads the panic.