• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Swine Flu in San Diego

Last edited:
Some people just cannot accept uncertainty, you just cannot predict what will be the composition of the next influenza virus that will generate a pandemic, or from which pig farm in the world it will originate...


Of course not which is why your question was so agonizingly naive..which you them repeat......I'd keep the lack of comprehension under wraps for fear of embarrassment...
This IS a science forum..:garfield:
​
 
It's out of date. I wouldn't rely on the information. This page, for example is out of date.
In addition to these main target groups, the following should also be vaccinated:

(1) Women who will be in the 2nd or 3rd trimester of pregnancy during the influenza season.

(2) Persons who provide essential community services such as policemen, firemen.

(3) Household members of persons in high-risk groups.

(4) Persons who provide home care or assistance to persons in high-risk groups.

(5) Any person, six months of age or older who wish to protect themselves against influenza even if they are not at increased risk for complications.
This year all kids 6mo to 18 years were added to the "should get vaccinated" list, not the "if you want to" list.


I sent them an email.

Some people just cannot accept uncertainty, you just cannot predict what will be the composition of the next influenza virus that will generate a pandemic, or from which pig farm in the world it will originate...
I don't know what the exact temperature will be tomorrow either but that doesn't stop me from taking the best information I do have and making a reasonable prediction whether or not to wear a coat or a sweater.

What matters is what we do know about influenza. That's what we use in planning for potential pandemic strains.
 
Last edited:
You know what we really need? A new thread for every city the flu spreads to.
 



Of course not which is why your question was so agonizingly naive..which you them repeat......I'd keep the lack of comprehension under wraps for fear of embarrassment...
This IS a science forum..:garfield:
​

I humbly accept your concession.
 
Wht the difference between Mexico and elsewhere?

One of the puzzles is why the flu in Mexico is more severe than in other countries. One suggestion if that, as a result of genetic change perhaps as a result of re-entering pigs, the virus in Mexico has become more virulent. Perhaps that may happen as well to the virus in other countries. Perhaps the more virulent strain in Mexico has yet to make an appearance elsewhere. Perhaps as sol invictus said, the virus is affecting a younger population than elsewhere causing death by 'cytokine storm'

(I haven't looked up 'cytokine storm' yet, but it seems a cruel fate to be killed by a really good immune system response.)
 
One of the puzzles is why the flu in Mexico is more severe than in other countries. One suggestion if that, as a result of genetic change perhaps as a result of re-entering pigs, the virus in Mexico has become more virulent.
It's certainly possible that we're looking at a more virulent strain circulating in Mexico, but it doesn't seem very likely. I'd prefer to start with a simpler explanation. If a pathogen kills one out of, say, every one hundred people it infects, then, all other things being equal, you wouldn't expect to see any fatalities until the number of people infected approached one hundred. We don't have any good way of knowing how many people in Mexico have become infected, but it's reasonable to assume that it is many more than the number that have sought medical care and thereby been counted -- offset by the fact that of those who have sought medical care, some number are not actually infected with this virus. When you're looking at 20 cases, you can swab every patient, but it gets cumbersome when you're talking about 1300.
 
Unfortunately, surgical masks of the type you see people wearing in most of the news photos from Mexico are really not designed to protect the person wearing them, but to prevent that person from infecting someone else. As protective device, what's usually recommended is a tighter fitting mask such as the N95 respirator mask.


Too true. Those pictures of people with loosely-fitting paper masks held on with thin string are quite worrying. They're more likely to lull people into a false sense of security than anything else. There's even a pic of two people kissing while wearing the things.

I suspect this may turn out to be a non-event, as the strain is looking as if it's quite mild, but I've just pocketed a couple of the proper disposable respirators we use at work when sampling swan casualties for possible avian influenza. These things really do keep out viruses (though they're a bit uncomfortable to wear for any length of time), and I might as well be prepared just in case.

If I was the manufacturer of something like this, I'd be out there selling my product....

Rolfe.
 
The mechanics of influenza transmission are a frequent subject of debate among professionals. The "large droplet" verus "small droplet" thing has been about beat to death, and there still aren't any definitive answers. I've never seen anything to suggest that droplet transmission via the eyes is regarded as a significant route of innoculation, though I suppose it's theoretically possible. Innoculating yourself by rubbing your eyes is probably a lot more likely. If wearing an eyeshield is what it takes to remind you not to do that, then it might be worth it.
 
This is the core of the concern....a mild first wave followed by a killer....

n the 1918–1919 pandemic, a first or spring wave began in March 1918 and spread unevenly through the United States, Europe, and possibly Asia over the next 6 months (Figure 1). Illness rates were high, but death rates in most locales were not appreciably above normal.

A second or fall wave spread globally from September to November 1918 and was highly fatal. In many nations, a third wave occurred in early 1919 (21). Clinical similarities led contemporary observers to conclude initially that they were observing the same disease in the successive waves. The milder forms of illness in all 3 waves were identical and typical of influenza seen in the 1889 pandemic and in prior interpandemic years.

In retrospect, even the rapid progressions from uncomplicated influenza infections to fatal pneumonia, a hallmark of the 1918–1919 fall and winter waves, had been noted in the relatively few severe spring wave cases.

The differences between the waves thus seemed to be primarily in the much higher frequency of complicated, severe, and fatal cases in the last 2 waves.
an informative read
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-0979.htm
 
Last edited:
This is the core of the concern....a mild first wave followed by a killer....
Fortunately, we have a couple of tools they didn't have in 1918. One is an effective antiviral. The other is a vaccine -- assuming that we also get a six month break between waves, and that the virus doesn't change its antigens too much during that time.
 
Rolfe, do you wear eye shields with that? Because respiratory particles absolutely can enter the body through the eyes.


That's an interesting point. There has been an edict about wearing safety glasses recently. I have been sidestapping this because I normally wear glasses anyway, and if they want me to wear safety glasses then they can damn well get me a prescription pair.

However, I have habitually taken off my glasses to do the swans, because I'm short-sighted (so I see fine close-up), and they get in the way of the respirator. Good point. (I haven't actually had to do any with my own fair hands for some time though.) I should keep the damn things on and even make a fuss about being given prescription safety glasses.

Our area doesn't cover Cellardyke, fortunately!

Rolfe.
 
One of the puzzles is why the flu in Mexico is more severe than in other countries. One suggestion if that, as a result of genetic change perhaps as a result of re-entering pigs, the virus in Mexico has become more virulent. Perhaps that may happen as well to the virus in other countries. Perhaps the more virulent strain in Mexico has yet to make an appearance elsewhere. Perhaps as sol invictus said, the virus is affecting a younger population than elsewhere causing death by 'cytokine storm'
Just looking at the evidence on its face,
  • Mexico is reporting only the more serious cases.
  • The epidemic began in earnest one or two months ago
  • and was amplified by Semana Santa when Mexicans all over the country travel.
  • The incubation period of this flu appears quite short.
  • Mexico City is among the most densely populated cities on the planet.
  • We are seeing the result of the initial unrecognized phase of the epidemic, rather than the proactive recognized phase..
  • The air pollution in Mexico City has had a significant impact on the citizen's health there.
  • And if we want to stretch that fact a tad, young people in Mexico City have had a life long exposure to that smog including during the years their respiratory system was growing.
Now compare that to the cases we are seeing so far in the rest of the developed world.
  • Most cases would have been brought here by travelers who should, on the whole, be selectively healthier than a population which includes people too ill to travel.
  • These cases have been found through intense surveillance, not because they showed up at a hospital.
  • Many of them would have received early treatment with effective anti-virals and possibly their close contacts would have been given prophylactic antivirals.
  • The cases outside of Mexico are being reported in countries with significantly better health care than Mexico City.
The result is a distorted picture of the actual severity of the disease. It's probably less severe than 103 deaths in mostly young people suggests.

That doesn't mean it isn't serious. Just because most people who get it won't have serious disease doesn't mean the total deaths in the long run won't be very high. Influenza kills on average 35,000 people every year in the US alone. With no herd immunity you can expect a much higher number even with a mild flu strain.

Billy Joe said:
(I haven't looked up 'cytokine storm' yet, but it seems a cruel fate to be killed by a really good immune system response.)
I wouldn't describe an over reaction as "good" anymore than an under reaction. It's more like a reaction gone bad like anaphylaxis.
 
Last edited:
It's certainly possible that we're looking at a more virulent strain circulating in Mexico, but it doesn't seem very likely. I'd prefer to start with a simpler explanation. If a pathogen kills one out of, say, every one hundred people it infects, then, all other things being equal, you wouldn't expect to see any fatalities until the number of people infected approached one hundred. We don't have any good way of knowing how many people in Mexico have become infected, but it's reasonable to assume that it is many more than the number that have sought medical care and thereby been counted -- ....
Exactly.

The news media is echoing some of the CDC language which itself comes from years of saying, "no human to human transmission", in regards to the H5N1 bird flu. Even this morning someone on CNN said the absurd thing that we don't know if there is human to human transmission. He was giving one of those historical segments on why something is called swine flu and when he said one normally gets it from contact with pigs, the current cases don't seem to have an animal connection, he added the statement about not knowing if there was human to human transmission.

D'uh! Do these reporters even have a high school education? Honestly. They can't keep the difference between a vaccine and an anti-viral straight, and they can't use common sense when looking at the obvious: There is obviously human to human transmission. But I digress.

Take that one step further. Clearly for this many cases to be showing up all over the world, the number of cases in Mexico must be very very large. Certainly larger than the less than 2,000 cases being reported.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom