WeaselFlesh: I can't help but wonder how new to the earth Swine Flu, Bird Flu, West Nile Virus, and all the other overhyped plagues we've been bombarded with really are. Are these really newly formed, or have people simply identified the diseases that they've always been stricken with, now that technology has made it possible. It makes for a much scarier news story when you have a special name to attach to a disease.

Yeah, it was better when we just called everything bad humours.

WrestlerManager: WeaselFlesh: WrestlerManager: WeaselFlesh: Sure it's possible, even probable over a long term that we'll be susceptible to something. But it's unlikely you'll ever predict such a random occurrence, or be able to do anything about it.

By that logic we should probably just forget about antiviral research altogether.

Not altogether, there is a need to respond to the ones we're aware of. My point is that it's silly to worry about what one might do.

It spread around the entire globe in a few weeks and sickend millions of people. Not might, did. Considering that it's closely related to the 1918 Spanish flu, which also spread around the entire globe in a few weeks, and killed 50 to 100 million people, what it did do makes me concerned about what it might do.

That doesn't really change my point as you are still talking about a response to a known virus. What would you have done two years ago before anything was known? How would you have predicted and prevented what was to come?

WeaselFlesh

Are these really newly formed, or have people simply identified the diseases that they've always been stricken with

Did you know that the answers to these are basically on the Wikipedia pages about each virus you list? Including what makes them different than other similar strains and where they likely came from.

Pandemic H1N1 isn't "new", but is a fairly special form of influenza type A (they like to call it "novel"). It's a genetic combination that we haven't seen in recent history, hence the lack of immunity among people under 60.

WrestlerManager: WeaselFlesh: I can't help but wonder how new to the earth Swine Flu, Bird Flu, West Nile Virus, and all the other overhyped plagues we've been bombarded with really are. Are these really newly formed, or have people simply identified the diseases that they've always been stricken with, now that technology has made it possible. It makes for a much scarier news story when you have a special name to attach to a disease.

Yeah, it was better when we just called everything bad humours.

Perhaps it was better when the media didn't act like every little illness was the black death. You do know the story of the little boy who cried wolf right?

Baby Diego: rigamrts

working adults do not see any benifit at all just like the flu shot.

You know how I know you know nothing at all about immunology?

Hint: Adults are most likely to have a healthy immune system and thus their immune systems are more likely to respond well to the antigen and produce antibodies that can fight the flu.

In fact, flu shots are LEAST likely to be effective in the populations that require them the MOST - the elderly. With weaker immune systems the immune response is less likely to take place and they are less likely to form relevant antibodies.

In summary, go get your shot so you don't spread preventable disease to people for whom the shot didn't work or that can't be immunized.

your an idiot and a troll. the reasoning behind the elderly getting the flushot over younger adults is so thier inmune system will start producing antibodies before the main part of flu season hits in hopes that they'll survive if they get the flu not to prevent it. younger adult's have no positive benifit or negative benifit to it and that's a fact. so your troll has so much fail on every level cause you proved my point in your own post.

ie. Hint: Adults are most likely to have a healthy immune system and thus their immune systems are more likely to respond well to the antigen and produce antibodies that can fight the flu.

^ my point exactly
i never said anything different

Looking at the actual study,

http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n1.htm

"Correcting for under-ascertainment, the study found that every case of 2009 H1N1 reported from April - July represented an estimated 79 total cases."

That's where they got the 57 million number from - they took the ACTUAL number of reported cases, and multiplied by 79, because they thought it was being under-reported.

/Given the news coverage, panic, and general lack of understanding by the public, I suspect it was being grossly over-reported, not under.

WeaselFlesh

That doesn't really change my point as you are still talking about a response to a known virus. What would you have done two years ago before anything was known? How would you have predicted and prevented what was to come?

You don't. You develop vaccine technology that allows you to quickly respond to specific strains as they become known - work that started during the Avian Flu scare.

The pandemic H1N1 vaccine wasn't even really a product of this work - we were lucky enough to have just finished making the normal seasonal flu batch when the new strain became known.

In a perfect world we would look at pandemic H1N1, learn a few lessons about needing a faster vaccine response and be happy that the elderly had immunity. Instead we have armchair immunologists telling us how we got all worked up over nothing.

Baby Diego: WeaselFlesh

Are these really newly formed, or have people simply identified the diseases that they've always been stricken with

Did you know that the answers to these are basically on the Wikipedia pages about each virus you list? Including what makes them different than other similar strains and where they likely came from.

Pandemic H1N1 isn't "new", but is a fairly special form of influenza type A (they like to call it "novel"). It's a genetic combination that we haven't seen in recent history, hence the lack of immunity among people under 60.

Well, a wikipediaBaby Diego: WeaselFlesh

Are these really newly formed, or have people simply identified the diseases that they've always been stricken with

Did you know that the answers to these are basically on the Wikipedia pages about each virus you list? Including what makes them different than other similar strains and where they likely came from.

Pandemic H1N1 isn't "new", but is a fairly special form of influenza type A (they like to call it "novel"). It's a genetic combination that we haven't seen in recent history, hence the lack of immunity among people under 60.

So basically that information just reinforces my point that people have been dying from these things for sometimes thousands of years before the world felt the need to panic. I still think there are better things to worry about.

So how many of you bought into the hype? Be honest.

Is this a repeat from last year?

Baby Diego: WeaselFlesh

That doesn't really change my point as you are still talking about a response to a known virus. What would you have done two years ago before anything was known? How would you have predicted and prevented what was to come?

You don't. You develop vaccine technology that allows you to quickly respond to specific strains as they become known - work that started during the Avian Flu scare.

The pandemic H1N1 vaccine wasn't even really a product of this work - we were lucky enough to have just finished making the normal seasonal flu batch when the new strain became known.

In a perfect world we would look at pandemic H1N1, learn a few lessons about needing a faster vaccine response and be happy that the elderly had immunity. Instead we have armchair immunologists telling us how we got all worked up over nothing.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. A few posts back when I was accused of encouraging the abandonment of virology, I pointed out that response to these illnesses once they emerge is the only practical method of coping. But hey, don't let that stop you from forming your own conclusions. But hey, why should we let the fact that the infection rate was grossly exaggerated keep us from staying rational.

Goryus

I suspect it was being grossly over-reported, not under.

Google "canada fluwatch", we kept performing tests through the season. Under reporting does not seem to be the case.

rigamrts

working adults do not see any benifit at all

Now, let's try this again. I'll use shorter words for you.

An adult gets a flu shot. They have a good immune system. They are likely to make antibodies to fight the flu. When exposed to the flu later on they are less likely to develop symptoms or spread the disease.

An elderly person gets a flu shot. They have a poor immune system. They may not make antibodies to fight the flu. When exposed to the flu later on they are more likely to develop symptoms and spread the disease.

In this case the working adult sees a great benefit from the shot - they don't get the flu and they don't give the flu to the elderly person who has no immunity.

Win-win.

Didn't get a vaccine, haven't had the flu yet. Have had a couple of other unpleasant things, though.

True story.

WeaselFlesh

forming your own conclusions [...] infection rate was grossly exaggerated

*sigh*

57 million people got it.

11,690 died from it.

That means roughly one in every 4276 people who got it died from it, just slightly over two percent of one percent.

WHY THE fark AREN'T YOU PANICKING YET?!?!?!?!?!

Holy Crap: 57 million people got it.

11,690 died from it.

That means roughly one in every 4276 people who got it died from it, just slightly over two percent of one percent.

WHY THE fark AREN'T YOU PANICKING YET?!?!?!?!?!

No, 57 million people did NOT get it.

As stated in the actual study, there were only 700,000 actual reported cases. They multiplied by 79 to adjust for the assumption that people were under-reporting it.

jack21221: No, I'm saying if diagnoses are being made over the phone, I'm skeptical that the 57 million number is correct.

Are you high?

Are you?

Those are two unrelated events, unless you are suggesting that the CDC is basing its estimates on over-the-phone diagnoses.

Goryus

As stated in the actual study, there were only 700,000 actual reported cases. They multiplied by 79 to adjust for the assumption that people were under-reporting it.

Which is a fair assumption to make. 19% seems like a high estimate, but I'd be absolutely floored to hear that a highly virulent disease like influenza spread to less than 10% of the population.

15% is the 'expected' rate from normal flu.

Sorry, 10-15% is the 'expected' rate.

Source.

Baby Diego: Goryus

As stated in the actual study, there were only 700,000 actual reported cases. They multiplied by 79 to adjust for the assumption that people were under-reporting it.

Which is a fair assumption to make. 19% seems like a high estimate, but I'd be absolutely floored to hear that a highly virulent disease like influenza spread to less than 10% of the population.

15% is the 'expected' rate from normal flu.

It only seems reasonable if you're desperate to justify your own paranoia. Otherwise, assuming that "each reported case must equal 79 unreported cases" seems like a pathetic, last-ditch effort to save credibility in the face of contradictory data.

So..what percentage of those 57 million got sick from the shot?

Baby Diego: WeaselFlesh

forming your own conclusions [...] infection rate was grossly exaggerated

*sigh*

You don't think that you lose some credibility when diagnoses are made without seeing patients? Got a sniffle? SWINE FLU!

Holy Crap: 57 million people got it.

11,690 died from it.

That means roughly one in every 4276 people who got it died from it, just slightly over two percent of one percent.

WHY THE fark AREN'T YOU PANICKING YET?!?!?!?!?!

I wish people would read a bit, but that's asking an awful lot on the internet. Just like everyone before you who has compared the "total reported H1N1 deaths" to the average estimated yearly death toll from the flu, you can't reasonably compare the two numbers you've just listed.

One of them is "the number of people we are certain died of H1N1." Think of this as the number of people who answer in a poll-- it's just a small sampling. Lots of folks die of the flu, and nobody bothers to figure out that it was the flu, let alone that it was H1N1 specifically. The big numbers, like the "35 million flu deaths per year" number or the "57 million H1N1 cases" number are numbers extrapolated from the actual counts, using the magic of statistics.

As others have pointed out, if you want to stick squarely to "actually reported numbers"-- consider that this flu has killed children at roughly five times the average rate of a normal flu. Scream and panic? No. Get your farking flu shot? Yes.

Goryus

It only seems reasonable if you're desperate to justify your own paranoia. Otherwise, assuming that "each reported case must equal 79 unreported cases" seems like a pathetic, last-ditch effort to save credibility in the face of contradictory data.

Really? It's an 'assumption' and not a statistical model? I must have read a different paper.

Baby Diego: Goryus

It only seems reasonable if you're desperate to justify your own paranoia. Otherwise, assuming that "each reported case must equal 79 unreported cases" seems like a pathetic, last-ditch effort to save credibility in the face of contradictory data.

Really? It's an 'assumption' and not a statistical model? I must have read a different paper.

Based on this response, one would think you didn't read the press release at all. Especially if you mistook it for some type of paper, and didn't bother checking the links to their sources.

raygundan: "35 million flu deaths per year"

My mistake... that should be 35,000. Not 35 million. That's the average yearly flu death number you see tossed around here, and yes-- it's a "made up" number just like the "57 million cases" number.

WeaselFlesh

You don't think that you lose some credibility when diagnoses are made without seeing patients? Got a sniffle? SWINE FLU!

Except that the statistical model in the paper is based on lab confirmed cases, not stupid anecdotes like you keep pushing.

WrestlerManager: It spread around the entire globe in a few weeks and sickend millions of people. Not might, did. Considering that it's closely related to the 1918 Spanish flu, which also spread around the entire globe in a few weeks, and killed 50 to 100 million people, what it did do makes me concerned about what it might do.

Most dominant annual flu strains reach the pandemic threshold. It's not unusual for the flu.

Baby Diego: Goryus

More than one paper, actually.

Now I know for a fact that you have no idea what you're talking about, as you just linked back to their press release again.

Goryus

I'm sorry there are too many words on that page for you to read, and I'm sorry that some of them are longer than you are used to.

I can't dumb it down much, but I'll point you at some of the words you can look for. Look for underlined text on the page, those are called 'hyperlinks.' You can click on them and they will take you to pages with more long words. Despite you inability to understand it there is information on how the model is built and how data can be extrapolated.

Start with Method to Estimate 2009 H1N1 Cases, Hospitalizations and Deaths

Somewhere near that text is a link that takes you here.

Again, sorry that the words are long and numerous.

Goryus: Now I know for a fact that you have no idea what you're talking about, as you just linked back to their press release again.

The press release cites numerous papers.

Baby Diego

Despite you inability

Hoist, petard, etc.

So 18% of the people I know should have had the Swine Flu? Seems wierd, since there are about 400 people I know that I would have heard had the Swing Flu if they had it, and yet I haven't heard of anyone I know having it.

Sounds like statistics to me.

WrestlerManager: coli

Happened last august with toll house cookie dough and didn't hear a peep on the news

To sum up this thread: "I didn't get the the swine flu and I didn't get the vaccine, so the swine flu didn't hurt anyone and vaccines are useless."

I'm an epidemiologist so I'm getting a kick out of this thread.
/really

I tried explaining this to some very smart people at work, but nobody seemed to want to accept it. Basically, the theory is that if the news media is trying to make you panic, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

Think about it. Bird flue? Swine Flue? West Nile Virus? All of these things were going to kill us in the hundreds of billions. 9/11 though? "Everyone stay calm, we don't have the facts to jump to any conclusions yet."

Can we PLEASE get back to over-hyping shark attacks, please?

I had the swine flu, you wouldn't be sick of hearing about it if you had it.

How's it different from the regular flu? Well, I woke up one Saturday morning and something didn't feel right. I proceeded to pretty much immediately puke all over the bathroom and spent the rest of the day laying on the couch. Anything I ate came right back up with a vengeance.

I was eventually able to get a watermelon down because it's mostly water anyway. It took 6 days to get better.

I never get sick, not like that anyway.

Apparently part of Gen X and most of Gen Y have never been exposed to this strain of flu, which is why it's been killing younger healthier people instead of the usual suspects.

Pregnant women have also been unfortunate victims of the swine flu. It wasn't as bad as it could have been but believe me, if you're young enough not to have been exposed to it already you really don't want to know.

Had the Swine Flu...So I'm getting a kick...Actually not really, it was really brutal.

If it had killed more total farkers there would have been a donation banner at the top of this website and you suckers would have been sending money to the wife and kid of some fat, smoker loser who threw away $5 per month.

great title subby. +1.

I nominate it for the next best title round up.

omg it is real simple, have some unbiased science, published.
i am not anti-vaccine, but i am not gonna put anything in my body until i see what goes on with the people around me.

/i was amazed how many people did not the h1n1 in the school environment. all of them said they didn't trust it. companies producing it had no reason to put out an effective/safe product. they were already paid, instant monopoly, and were immune from future lawsuits that could rise from the vaccine.

ATTENTION FILTH PIGS!
THE SWINE FLU IS COMING !!!!!!

IT IS THE LORDS SWORD !
ALLMITY VENGANCE!!!!!
A PUNISHMEEAT!

Has the piggie apocalipse happened yet? No?



Well then what am I to do with all this sanitizer?

rigamrts:
i didn't get the shot and did not get swine flu. the whole arguement that the shot will make you not get swine flu is a bunch of crock Big Pharma. is betting on.

You caught me. I also faked the moon landing.

arentol

So 18% of the people I know should have had the Swine Flu?

Yeah, that's right, the occurrence of infectious disease should follow a perfectly random distribution. There should be no statistical clumping involved with transmittable disease. Of course not.

natas6.0

In 1976, the U.S. gub'mint made a swine flu vaccine that killed 23 and hundreds got to enjoy illnesses ranging from paralysis to heart attacks.

...which led to the introduction of vaccine monitoring systems. Systems that have yet to detect another correlation between vaccination and GBS.

The 1976 references are getting old now, we've had nearly a year of immunization and instead of realizing that the same thing isn't happening we get people that still think they're clever bringing it up.

Military guys know not to trust the Gub'mint when it comes to injections based on paranoia

What's better - an Anthrax vaccine that makes 1 in 5 people sick or sending soldiers into Gulf War I with your fingers crossed?

Kirk's_Toupee

i was amazed how many people did not the h1n1 in the school environment

Which level? Parents panicked at the lower levels, the spread may have been slowed by that. At the college level people always go to school sick, I know of classrooms where over 2/3rds of the class caught it, most of them out for at least a week.

Baby Diego: Which level? Parents panicked at the lower levels, the spread may have been slowed by that. At the college level people always go to school sick, I know of classrooms where over 2/3rds of the class caught it, most of them out for at least a week.

pre-school and elementary level. surprising since parents are prone to panic.

Kirk's_Toupee

pre-school and elementary level. surprising since parents are prone to panic.

Having re-read your original post I'm not sure if you were talking about vaccination or infection. I was talking about infection, seems like you might have been talking about vaccination. Sorry for any confusion.