Swine Flu outbreak

The rate of fatalities has less meaning without the number of cases. A disease which rarely kills but infects 1 out of every 6 people is going to still kill a lot of people and a disease that is ~100% fatal, like rabies, but doesn't infect that many people is not as bad in terms of real risk to a population.
 
Huh???

I don't have to remind the audience of how contagious is the flu...

Fortunately, the current variant of H1N1 has not been as lethal as feared.
 
It seems the Swine died with not a bang but with a wimper.

I'm still worried about the brutal H5N1. The 1918 Flu had a mortality rate of 2%. The H5N1 Virus has a mortality rate of 60-80%!
 
The pandemic is not over, the "1918" flu cycled over 3 years.

There can be some unpredictable mutation that will render the virus more lethal.
 
It seems the Swine died with not a bang but with a wimper.
That's how all pandemics and epidemics end. Either it kills off a too much of the population to spread anymire or infects too many that resistance builds up.
I'm still worried about the brutal H5N1. The 1918 Flu had a mortality rate of 2%. The H5N1 Virus has a mortality rate of 60-80%!
How many deaths and economic affects will there be if half the US population gets infected?
 
The pandemic affected everyone. With one-quarter of the US and one-fifth of the world infected with the influenza, it was impossible to escape from the illness. Even President Woodrow Wilson suffered from the flu in early 1919 while negotiating the crucial treaty of Versailles to end the World War (Tice). Those who were lucky enough to avoid infection had to deal with the public health ordinances to restrain the spread of the disease. The public health departments distributed gauze masks to be worn in public. Stores could not hold sales, funerals were limited to 15 minutes. Some towns required a signed certificate to enter and railroads would not accept passengers without them. Those who ignored the flu ordinances had to pay steep fines enforced by extra officers (Deseret News). Bodies pilled up as the massive deaths of the epidemic ensued. Besides the lack of health care workers and medical supplies, there was a shortage of coffins, morticians and gravediggers (Knox). The conditions in 1918 were not so far removed from the Black Death in the era of the bubonic plague of the Middle Ages.

http://virus.stanford.edu/uda/
 
It seems the Swine died with not a bang but with a wimper.

I'm still worried about the brutal H5N1. The 1918 Flu had a mortality rate of 2%. The H5N1 Virus has a mortality rate of 60-80%!

Yes, that is a very nasty one.

Hitchcock knew.

The pandemic is not over, the "1918" flu cycled over 3 years.

There can be some unpredictable mutation that will render the virus more lethal.

Wouldn't that make it something else than H1N1?

How many deaths ... will there be if half the US population gets infected?

4054.
 
No. Do you know what the H and N mean?

Not a clue.

So tell me; how many deaths and infections in the US from this current pandemic?

It looks like a death rate of about 1 in 4700 from ~45m infections.

Why do you think it's affecting USA more severely than European [and other] countries? They have similar climate and population.

Could also be that a lot more people have had it than CDC estimates, but it still won't be near the 1/38000.
 
The outer surface of the virus contains two glycoproteins, the hemagglutinin and the
neuraminidase embedded in the virus lipid membrane envelope. The hemagglutinin or HA was
so named because it is the protein responsible for the ability of flu virus to agglutinate
red blood cells and for the binding of the virus to cells via its attachment to sialic
acid. It is now recognized as the major virulence factor associated with this virus.

http://cambridgeforecast.wordpress.com/2006/11/22/influenza-virus-hn-nomenclature/
 
The number of cases is irrelevant.

H1N1 is killing 1 in every 38,000 people who have it.
What do you mean the number of cases is irrelevant. It's part of the equation. I think I made it perfectly clear. Perhaps you only skimmed my post.

Rabies kills 1 in 1 persons who get it. So what?
 
What do you mean the number of cases is irrelevant. It's part of the equation. I think I made it perfectly clear. Perhaps you only skimmed my post.

Rabies kills 1 in 1 persons who get it. So what?

Nope, I read your post quite carefully. The ratio is what we're discussing. The numbers are relevant to the people who die, but not statistically.

Your rabies analogy covers it perfectly. Doesn't matter how many people get rabies, they're gonna die.

We're not actually disagreeing on anything here, no matter how hard we try, dammit!

:bgrin:
 

Back
Top Bottom