0
airdvr

Swine Flu Over-reaction?

Recommended Posts

And, seriously, I have a friend who's an epidemiologist, and he says that data is very similar (in terms of spread rate, which I believe he called "r-not" or some such thing--there were a lot of terms in there I didn't follow) to the 1918 flu epidemic, at this early point. Which is probably why the folks who actually know about this stuff are willing to over-react at this point.
-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And, seriously, I have a friend who's an epidemiologist, and he says that data is very similar (in terms of spread rate, which I believe he called "r-not" or some such thing--there were a lot of terms in there I didn't follow) to the 1918 flu epidemic, at this early point. Which is probably why the folks who actually know about this stuff are willing to over-react at this point.



Discussion of secondary transmissibility or basic reproductive rate, aka R0 (R with subscript zero).

At this point the denominator is not known w/r/t 2009 H51N1 swine flu, so we're all speculating.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've been feeling over the last few days that this has become a media-driven event.

Are we over-reacting?



Is the media overreacting? Duh - of course.
That's what they do. With everything.

Blaming all the deaths in Mexico on Swine flu, repeating the same few facts over and over again, over-reporting the stupid overreactions of people (not eating pork, not going out in public and on and on)

That means that there are going to be a lot of people out there overreacting (again, Duh)
The reaction of Russia barring imports of pork is ridiculous.

I don't think the CDC, WHO or the US or Mexican governments are overreacting, I think they are taking reasonable precautions, and working their asses off in figuring out what's happening.

I also doubt that there is a hell of a lot anybody can do about it.
That's why the basic sanitation rules are the only real advice out there.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if we are over-reacting or not, I just know that I am a bit scared about this and I'm not taking any chances. If someone is sick they need to stay away from me and if I become sick with Swine Flu symptoms I am going to the Dr.

What I want to know is if this turns into a serious pandemic, if it would be better to catch the illness early or later? Would it even matter? I assume you'd be able to get it numerous times if exposed? I have no idea.

[:/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

159 people have died in the last week. The first US fatal case has now been reported. The scary thing is that the deaths in Mexico have often been of young, previously healthy, adults.



can you please reference that? everything i have heard indicates it is no more potent than seasonal flu and in fact the cases found in america have been less potent than seasonal flu

the one american death was a 22month old baby i believe? that poor child would have been in a serious condition regardless of weather it was swine flu or not

the problem is we dont have a vaccine and a vaccine will be at least 6 months apparently for enough of it to be produced to be useful

the very old and very young or the immune deficient are the only ones who should be worrying according to any report i have read

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'll move to the inside pages soon.. won't get more that a few column inches (like AIDs & Malaria etc..) unless the death rate rises dramatically.

Yes it;s a shame for the people involved, but people become ill with all sorts every day.

W.H.O have raised the pandemic alert to level-5 ..... we'll see - time will tell.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't know if we are over-reacting or not, I just know that I am a bit scared about this and I'm not taking any chances. If someone is sick they need to stay away from me and if I become sick with Swine Flu symptoms I am going to the Dr.

What I want to know is if this turns into a serious pandemic, if it would be better to catch the illness early or later? Would it even matter? I assume you'd be able to get it numerous times if exposed? I have no idea.

[:/]



assuming its like the regular flu you can only get each strain once(thats how the vaccines works as far as i know open to correction there) therefore you could nly get swine flu once if you survive you are fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I've been feeling over the last few days that this has become a media-driven event.

Are we over-reacting?



Is the media overreacting? Duh - of course.
That's what they do. With everything.

Blaming all the deaths in Mexico on Swine flu, repeating the same few facts over and over again, over-reporting the stupid overreactions of people (not eating pork, not going out in public and on and on)

That means that there are going to be a lot of people out there overreacting (again, Duh)
The reaction of Russia barring imports of pork is ridiculous.

I don't think the CDC, WHO or the US or Mexican governments are overreacting, I think they are taking reasonable precautions, and working their asses off in figuring out what's happening.

I also doubt that there is a hell of a lot anybody can do about it.
That's why the basic sanitation rules are the only real advice out there.


+1

This could be the one..... who knows.... but its been a while since an epidemic really has had a chance to pare the population a bit.[:/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Well here's to hoping that is true!



the chances of you being exposed are still abysmally small



Damn near sure you have no idea what the actual odds are.



I would say those in large polluted urban area's might just have more to worry about... based on the mortality statistics so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would say those in large polluted urban area's might just have more to worry about... based on the mortality statistics so far.



The higher the concentration of people, the more it will be spread no matter what the pollution level. People living in isolated areas can still be effected due to the way goods are shipped. Probably the only ones that won't be directly effected are people living on the international space station.

The 1918 outbreak effected about 1/3 of the population of the planet and people were far less mobile then and even at that it somehow managed to reach it's way to some of the most remote parts of the planet.

When I saw that California, New York, Texas and parts of the mid-west had already been hit as of last Saturday, I was pretty sure it was already well beyond the possibility of being contained. Every day since then has proven this to be more and more of a true statement.

Does getting it mean you're going to die? No.
Will more people die from this than a normal flu season? I'm pretty sure that will be the case.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The 1918 outbreak effected about 1/3 of the population of the planet and people were far less mobile then and even at that it somehow managed to reach it's way to some of the most remote parts of the planet.



People were extremely mobile in 1918.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


The 1918 outbreak effected about 1/3 of the population of the planet and people were far less mobile then and even at that it somehow managed to reach it's way to some of the most remote parts of the planet.



People were extremely mobile in 1918.



Not really. Wide spread air travel wasn't really in place nor were cars and trucks. Trains and boats? Sure. And I guess you might also be referring to some crappy primitive tanks and whatnot being used for the war.

It still took quite a bit of time compared to the possibilities of today.

Let's just look at the possibilities of spreading by a single person from Mexico winding up at a hub airport in the US. Or, and I'm not saying this is the case, but let's say a person from Mexico had attended the Texas State Record attempts last weekend. How many cities would be infected now?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

but let's say a person from Mexico had attended the Texas State Record attempts last weekend.



Bad example. They barely made it into planes.



Perfect example, they all sat around, held hands, hugged, got drunk, some people probably swapped body fluids . . . then they all split and went back to their homes across the country. In doing so, a lot of them passed a couple of airports; the ones in TX and the ones at their homes. Each time they could spread it further.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


People were extremely mobile in 1918.



Not really. Wide spread air travel wasn't really in place nor were cars and trucks. Trains and boats? Sure. And I guess you might also be referring to some crappy primitive tanks and whatnot being used for the war.



I'm referring to the tens of millions of soldiers from every remote part of the world going home because the war had ended. Figure that meant war refugee migrations as well. And nevermind the health consequences that the war inflicted throughout the world. Certainly not nearly as bad as the second war, but hardly conducive to a healthy population.

Put more simply - I'm laughing inside at the people I see walking down the streets of SF with masks on. And I'm glad I fly for London in two days, rather than next week. By then the hysteria will probably have all borders sealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

but let's say a person from Mexico had attended the Texas State Record attempts last weekend.



Bad example. They barely made it into planes.



Perfect example, they all sat around, held hands, hugged, got drunk, some people probably swapped body fluids . . . then they all split and went back to their homes across the country. In doing so, a lot of them passed a couple of airports; the ones in TX and the ones at their homes. Each time they could spread it further.



And in going home, they spent time in close quarters with the other people on the plane...

The other people then travelled on other planes to other airports...

WHO said several days ago that containment was no longer possible. They knew what they were talking about.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This just in;
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53N22820090429
and
http://www.who.int/en/

Will people still be calling it an over reaction when it gets to 6?

What I don't understand is how some people can't recognize a serious threat when they see one. It's almost like they have to finish reading "My Pet Goat" before they're willing to admit there's a issue.



There is an issue, Paul. I'm prettuy sure that 95% of American population sees that there is an issue. I see the issue.

The problem in my mind is this: "threat Level 5 or threat level 6 - what the hell am I gonna do differently?". Not work? Not go shopping? Cease all interaction with people? Dig a shelter and HEPA and ozone filter air circulation?

I am preparing. If it get it I get it. If my kids get it then they get it. I manage.

That's it. What the hell can I do to stop this? It's not a denial of an issue but a cynicism of what effect my individual decisions and actions have.

Very, very little, I'm afraid. So bring it on.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Research is showing that strep, not the flu, actually killed most in 1918.

Check out the articles from February (2 months ago).



… sort of … & it relates to the unusually high mortality in healthy young adults (18-35) with robust immune systems that was observed with the 1918 “Spanish” influenza pandemic.

The Spanish flu virus caused the immune system to go into overdrive. A “cytokine storm” is one example of one such immune reaction.

The papers you mentioned are a historical review, “Deaths from Bacterial Pneumonia during 1918–19 Influenza Pandemic,” in the August 2008 issue of Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) and a letter in the January 2009 EID issue “Time from Illness Onset to Death, 1918 Influenza and Pneumococcal Pneumonia.” The authors of the first paper examined the average days from onset of symptoms to death. Based on their findings, they hypothesized that the incubation period of ~50% of the 50-100M deaths associated with the Spanish influenza was longer than most viral infections. Instead it more closely resembles bacterial pneumonia, like that caused by bacterial strep infection. It’s epidemiology not experimental bacteriology or virology.

And here’s the connection between the flu virus and the bacteria: the Spanish flu induced an overdrive of the immune system, which caused the immune system to “attack” the throat and upper lung tissue of those infected with the 1918 flu virus. Therefore, they were more susceptible to a Strep bacteria. In the days before widespread use of antibiotics, strep throat and/or pneumonia killed.

Stepping back, the researchers who authored the EID paper demonstrated a closer correlation between death by pneumococcal bacteria; infection than a viral infection. Based on that correlation, they hypothesized that the direct cause of up to 50% of those 50-100M deaths was from subsequent bacterial infections that were able to infect due to the effects on the throat and upper lungs of folks who had been infected by the flu virus. It’s a well-founded idea. It’s really cool … from a nerd perspective. B|

And more importantly, having the viral flu infection first was critical to make the otherwise healthy young adults (largely young men who were fighting in WWI) susceptible to a bacterial infection. Does that make sense?

The main point of the paper is that flu pandemic preparations should include antibiotics as well as antivirals.

There are thus far unsubstantiated reports that there is unusually high mortality of healthy young people among the deaths in Mexico, as opposed the usual segment of the population, the very young and the very old, who die from flu.

In some ways, this is similar to mortality from sulfur mustard (aka “mustard gas”) during WWI. Very, very few soldiers died directly from sulfur mustard exposure; instead, the associated open sores, “blisters,” became routes through which bacteria could infect those who had been “gassed.”

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0