Swine Flu outbreak

skeptigirl said:
And available vaccine which we won't have for several months.
Click to expand...

And when it is, they'll give it to old people and babies first. :eek:

We should take a lesson from airplane safety. Aren't we supposed to put the oxygen mask on ourselves before we help those less able??
 
I heard some doctors on the radio today talking about the "Swine Flu Media Pandemic". They think the strain is pretty well understood, and nothing like the threat Bird Flu would be. IIRC, about 200,000 people die every year from the current flu strains.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
It all goes back to my original point, for which I was vilified by the "you're too stupid to understand the terminology" crowd:
"Pandemic" and "Epidemic" are semantically loaded terms, guaranteed to cause panic within certain groups of people.
Hell- ma Headline stating "Hangnails epidemic among guitar players" would guarantee a loss of business in "open Mike" bars, due to panic.
Politicians are especially sensitive to this, and will always over-react.
Click to expand...
I really don't think the terminology is the issue.

One, people have been hearing about H5N1 for ~5 years which continues to smolder but has a very real fatality rate over 60% at this point.

Two, scientists cannot say which flu strain is going to be like the 1918 strain but they do know like an Earthquake it is when not if.

Three, we've not had in the past the ability to watch a new strain emerge and spread throughout the world like we do now. There is nothing to go on with which to reliably predict what will happen.

That is the problem, not the terminology. If you are familiar with influenza, you know what we know and don't know, what could happen but won't necessarily happen.

If you are a member of the lay public, to some it sounds like chicken little and either you are chicken little or you don't believe chicken little. The public expects instant answers and an instant picture of what is going on. There's no concept of how early in this pandemic we still are. 2 weeks seems like a long time. Too many reports of a new case and another new case and no reports of deaths sounds like the all clear bell should be rung.

But scientists and health care people know the "all clear" is not likely with any flu strain after only 2 weeks.
 
a_unique_person said:
I heard some doctors on the radio today talking about the "Swine Flu Media Pandemic". They think the strain is pretty well understood, and nothing like the threat Bird Flu would be. IIRC, about 200,000 people die every year from the current flu strains.
Click to expand...
Worldwide, that might be an accurate death rate. I only know the US numbers which average 36,000/yr.

I think we can say we don't have a SARS or an H5N1 pattern here. The silver lining is we'll see what the shortcomings are in the planning without the severity that could be.

It's obvious already not many people stockpiled enough N95s or Tamiflu.
 
GreNME said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I gather your Veep is an idiot, just for a change.

GreNME said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, because while those people serve at the federal level, they aren't making official statements, which is why Biden's was refuted by Obama.

No government or official policy could be said to be panicking, or likely to induce panic.

GreNME said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did say it was ridiculously low. I was trying to show that even a mild disease with a very low death rate will still cause lots of deaths, and to me, 60,000 deaths is a lot. It's more than all but half a dozen cities in this country have as their total population.

GreNME said:
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.
Click to expand...

Heck, as long as you can guarantee that the virus won't mutate further and become deadly, I'll gladly reduce the numbers.

Again, I want to reiterate that any excess deaths which are avoidable, should be avoided.

GreNME said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, we're agreeing that the media has been over the top, so what shall we do, close all media outlets?

GreNME said:
Care to revisit the numbers next year to see who was more accurate?
Click to expand...

Sure.

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

Can you show me any evidence that panic is actually a result anywhere at this stage? I see lots of people talking about panic, but I don't see people panicking.
 
The Atheist said:
Come on - when does the mass media ever do that? Mediocrity does not sell newspapers and internet ads.
Click to expand...

True, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable. It seems like this is the modern equivalent to shouting "fire" in a very large, crowded theatre.
 
Latest Updates:

 
The Atheist said:
Yeah, I gather your Veep is an idiot, just for a change.
Click to expand...

Heh, I don't know how much of a change that is. We've gone from one who wouldn't talk much at all to one who won't shut the hell up.

The Atheist said:
Yes it is, because while those people serve at the federal level, they aren't making official statements, which is why Biden's was refuted by Obama.

No government or official policy could be said to be panicking, or likely to induce panic.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree, but it's still disingenuous to say that none of the stupidity about the (perceived versus the) actual situation is coming from the federal level. It's nice to see that the scientific policy is staying level-headed, though.

The Atheist said:
I did say it was ridiculously low. I was trying to show that even a mild disease with a very low death rate will still cause lots of deaths, and to me, 60,000 deaths is a lot. It's more than all but half a dozen cities in this country have as their total population.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a basis for claiming it's ridiculously low? Compared to past swine flu cases over the years, this has been a fairly high infection rate, and yet so far I'm pretty sure that we're not even close to %0.1 percent for a death rate. What makes you so sure it's going to go up?

The Atheist said:
Heck, as long as you can guarantee that the virus won't mutate further and become deadly, I'll gladly reduce the numbers.

Again, I want to reiterate that any excess deaths which are avoidable, should be avoided.
Click to expand...

The latter is an assertion that you haven't quantified, and the former is a strawman: the virus has already mutated further than forms known from the last few decades of reports (which mostly transmitted animal-to-human previously).

The Atheist said:
Well, we're agreeing that the media has been over the top, so what shall we do, close all media outlets?
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

The Atheist said:
Can you show me any evidence that panic is actually a result anywhere at this stage? I see lots of people talking about panic, but I don't see people panicking.
Click to expand...

Been to Mexico lately? How about Egypt? Closer to home, nearly all of the school systems are closed here in the D/FW metro area. Businesses as a whole haven't come to a halt yet, but there are enough people staying home that it's likely coming for some. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the probability is high that it's growing panic.

Honestly, The Atheist, it seems you and I are (mainly) disagreeing about the acceptability of hype being produced with regard to the pandemic, and the implications that go along with it. I'm asking how you reconcile concern that people might possibly disregard a real threat in the future with the lack of concern over the growing overblown panic about the current outbreak. I can sympathize with what you're saying-- that one death is one too many-- but I don't see the point of missing the forest through the trees with regard to the negative reactions (read: panic) and how that will directly contribute to the boy-who-cried-wolf possibility in the future. Rather than being concerned with going tit-for-tat on everything you say in your posts, I'd really rather you reply how you reconcile those things I'm asking.

I can sympathize with what you're arguing, but from what I can tell it seems counter-intuitive. Can you explain your reasoning for why you feel it's not counter-intuitive? I'm not just saying "nuh uh" to your posts, I'm focusing on different significant details. Can you convince me that the different significant details you're focusing on are more pertinent?
 
GreNME said:
Can you provide a basis for claiming it's ridiculously low? Compared to past swine flu cases over the years, this has been a fairly high infection rate, and yet so far I'm pretty sure that we're not even close to %0.1 percent for a death rate. What makes you so sure it's going to go up?
Click to expand...

I haven't said it will go up. I used a very low figure for a pandemic just to show that even a "mild" disease pandemic will cause lots of deaths. Since it's known to have caused deaths already, the point that it kills is unarguable. I think we're arguing different subjects here.

GreNME said:
The latter is an assertion that you haven't quantified, and the former is a strawman: the virus has already mutated further than forms known from the last few decades of reports (which mostly transmitted animal-to-human previously).
Click to expand...

I can't quantify a death rate. If WHO won't, I sure can't, but as above, it has and will cause deaths.

The initial point is not a strawman, because 'flu viruses do mutate and just because it's mutated once doesn't mean it won't or can't again. I'm not saying it will, but you can't say it won't either.

Edit: The first thing which caught my eye after closing this page was the WHO, discussing further mutations and the likelhood of trouble if it does.

GreNME said:
Been to Mexico lately? How about Egypt? Closer to home, nearly all of the school systems are closed here in the D/FW metro area. Businesses as a whole haven't come to a halt yet, but there are enough people staying home that it's likely coming for some. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the probability is high that it's growing panic.
Click to expand...

I don't think school closures to date are panic. Over-precaution at best, and again, since we've lacked data from the start. Without hard facts, I don't think a few precautions are actually panicking.

We're really arguing about the meaning of "panic", it seems.

GreNME said:
Honestly, The Atheist, it seems you and I are (mainly) disagreeing about the acceptability of hype being produced with regard to the pandemic, and the implications that go along with it. I'm asking how you reconcile concern that people might possibly disregard a real threat in the future with the lack of concern over the growing overblown panic about the current outbreak.
Click to expand...

I have consistently said since the H5N1 scare of a few years ago that media coverage is in danger of creating a "cry wolf" scenario, so we don't even really disagree.

How we overcome that is probably a forlorn hope that people start avoiding media and reading WHO/CDC for facts. It could be that the media's panic-mongering may encourage some people to find out for themselves, so we can only hope.

I'm sure that if you look at a solely economic answer to the H1N1-A 'flu, it would show that more damage will be done to economies by the measures than would by deaths from the 'flu. (If the disease continues on its current path.)
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
I can't quantify a death rate. If WHO won't, I sure can't, but as above, it has and will cause deaths.
Click to expand...

Why don't we use the latest WHO update and get a rough estimate?

Mexico has reported 506 confirmed human cases of infection, including 19 deaths.
Click to expand...

This is a death rate of 3.7%, far higher than the .1% expected from normal flu.

The actual death rate is probably lower. Can we estimate how many non-fatal cases have been missed by health authorities in Mexico?
 
The Atheist said:
Because we have no answer to this question:

Can we estimate how many non-fatal cases have been missed by health authorities in Mexico?
Click to expand...

Which makes any calculation meaningless.
Click to expand...

To match the normal percentage of flu mortality, the health authorities in Mexico would have had to miss roughly 30 cases for every non-fatal type N1H1 that they reported.

Is this more likely than the hypothesis that the new type A H1N1 flu has a much higher mortality rate than typical flu?
 
I think some people wouldn't be happy unless the government and media didn't say or do anything until a new flu strain has already killed several million people.
 
Kestrel said:
To match the normal percentage of flu mortality, the health authorities in Mexico would have had to miss roughly 30 cases for every non-fatal type N1H1 that they reported.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be 300 or 3000.

Kestrel said:
Is this more likely than the hypothesis that the new type A H1N1 flu has a much higher mortality rate than typical flu?
Click to expand...

Very much so, as I've said from the start - the numbers didn't add up.

A huge variety of tourists have managed to contract H1N1-A while staying in diverse parts of Mexico. Even two different parties of NZ schoolkids managed to get it, and this says that the disease was far more widespread than the few cases they've been showing.
 
Kestrel said:
To match the normal percentage of flu mortality, the health authorities in Mexico would have had to miss roughly 30 cases for every non-fatal type N1H1 that they reported.

Is this more likely than the hypothesis that the new type A H1N1 flu has a much higher mortality rate than typical flu?
Click to expand...
Easily. Missing 30 cases for every one that showed up at hospitals is probably an underestimate. It was clearly stated in report after report Mexico was only reporting cases that came to hospitals for care.
 
The Atheist said:
I haven't said it will go up. I used a very low figure for a pandemic just to show that even a "mild" disease pandemic will cause lots of deaths. Since it's known to have caused deaths already, the point that it kills is unarguable. I think we're arguing different subjects here.
Click to expand...

The figure you used would only be low if you are counting total world population, considering seasonal flu kills nearly a quarter million people a year (which, by the way, is lower than %0.1)

The Atheist said:
I can't quantify a death rate. If WHO won't, I sure can't, but as above, it has and will cause deaths.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that it won't cause deaths (it already has), but to point out that it can cause death without also factoring it into context is not giving an accurate picture. We chide woo of all sorts here for making that very mistake when using figures to back up their arguments, and it applies just as equally here.

The Atheist said:
The initial point is not a strawman, because 'flu viruses do mutate and just because it's mutated once doesn't mean it won't or can't again. I'm not saying it will, but you can't say it won't either.

Edit: The first thing which caught my eye after closing this page was the WHO, discussing further mutations and the likelhood of trouble if it does.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point when I called it a strawman. I called it such because I never argued against mutation.

The Atheist said:
I don't think school closures to date are panic. Over-precaution at best, and again, since we've lacked data from the start. Without hard facts, I don't think a few precautions are actually panicking.

We're really arguing about the meaning of "panic", it seems.
Click to expand...

We could be (arguing about the meaning of the word). I doubt it, though. I'm looking at the reactions around the world and factoring them into the overall emotional climate, while you seem to be focusing instead on world and government health groups and organizations. I've already stated that at this point I don't have a problem with the health organizations' reactions and measures, and that my complaint is with the overblown reaction of everyone else to the measures those organizations have been taking.

The Atheist said:
I have consistently said since the H5N1 scare of a few years ago that media coverage is in danger of creating a "cry wolf" scenario, so we don't even really disagree.

How we overcome that is probably a forlorn hope that people start avoiding media and reading WHO/CDC for facts. It could be that the media's panic-mongering may encourage some people to find out for themselves, so we can only hope.
Click to expand...

I think we can agree on this.

The Atheist said:
I'm sure that if you look at a solely economic answer to the H1N1-A 'flu, it would show that more damage will be done to economies by the measures than would by deaths from the 'flu. (If the disease continues on its current path.)
Click to expand...

I doubt that the economic damage will wind up being greater due to the measures being taken. Even if the current strain were to cause every single working adult to lose just a few days of work due to its spread, that damage alone could not only rival the economic damage currently taking place, but it could likely dwarf it quite quickly. That's one of the reasons I believe Mexico's behavior of practically shutting down businesses city-wide in some places was a bad idea.

The Atheist said:
Kestrel said:
Why don't we use the latest WHO update and get a rough estimate?
Click to expand...
Because we have no answer to this question:

Kestrel said:
Can we estimate how many non-fatal cases have been missed by health authorities in Mexico?
Click to expand...
Which makes any calculation meaningless.
Click to expand...

It's not meaningless at all, and calling it such is hyperbole. It's likely inaccurate on the far low end, but in reality that's also likely to mean that the number of non-fatal cases compared to the fatal ones is far greater than currently figured. By and large, that would place the fatality rate from this virus even lower. That's hardly meaningless by any stretch.
 
Travis said:
I think some people wouldn't be happy unless the government and media didn't say or do anything until a new flu strain has already killed several million people.
Click to expand...

I also think some people aren't capable of making a reasonable argument against something they disagree on without throwing huge blanket generalizations that completely miss the point.

But who's counting? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom