Slashdot Mirror

You are posting on the internet, there is no excuse for guessing. You did guess relatively correctly, at least for the couple of years I checked:

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Hrmm... you are correct I seemed to have cited misleading data.

The actual number seems to be 22,073 deaths from alcohol consumption in 2006 vs 0 for marijuana, ever.

I know I shouldn't feed the Toll's but

a handful of primates have been prevented from being exposed to anthrax. That is a benefit of this outcome for those individual. However, the study will be conducted somewhere. The NIH believes that the study is worth conducting, or else they wouldn't have funded it. They'll get their money back from OSU (and probably think 2x about funding them in the future), and then fund the research somewhere else. The same number of primates will be used, and the only difference is which ones.

I'd like to know what you think about the potential human-primate lives that could be saved by the anthrax vaccine if it proves effective? Even if you believe that a Chimp, Monkey and a Human all have equal moral value, at what point do the number of Human lives saved outweigh the lives of the research chimps?? It's a difficult question to answer, and unfortunately "None" is not an acceptable answer. Not because I choose not to accept it, but because there is no way that certain types of research can be done without using an animal model. Without that research, valuable life saving treatments will not be discovered, and dangerous treatments can't be excluded until the human toll is unacceptable.

A prime example of a drug that when straight to humans without animal testing is DES. It was prescribed as a treatment for morning sickness and ended up causing all sorts of problems with the reproductive tracts of the female children who's mothers took the drug. The CDC has a website explaining the problems of a lot of women that stem from inadequate testing of a medication. My mother is a DES Daughter, and my sister has a lot of reproductive problems as a second generation daughter of DES. The CDC page has a series of links for 3rd generation DES daughters as well. How many more will be afflicted before the effect wears itself out is unclear.

Maybe it's because my family is directly affected, but i believe that a couple hundred mice back in the 1940's would have been a small price to pay to prevent the problems that literally thousands of women are now experiencing.

http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~agsafety/IRSHC/Docs/Fatality/Fatality.Summary.2006.pdf

Looks like 8 in indiana in 2006.

But the report does say "Since several other Midwestern states are reporting 3-5 times more fatalities than Indiana, it might also be concluded that we are doing something right. Is it a reasonable goal to de-clare that we never want to go back to the "good old days" of agricultural production when 60, 70, even 100 farmers a year died due to farm-related injuries, 30 or more farm chil-dren died annually and over 100 farmers lost hands or arms to corn pickers, balers and PTOshaftseachyear? Let's hope so!"

Here...
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/childag/docs/2001131a.html
It looks like an average of over 100 people under 20 die in farm work per year, every year. No national news for them tho like cops.
(also reported here http://kidshealth.org/teen/safety/safebasics/farm_safety.html)

Here...
http://www.agsafetyandhealthnet.org/Myers%20Old%20Farmers%20Conference%20Version%20071015%20Final.pdf
CFOI data show
that farm workers aged 55 years and older accounted for over half of all farming deaths between
1992 and 2004 (3,671 of 7,064 deaths), and had a fatality rate of 45.8 deaths per 100,000
workers compared to the overall farming fatality rate of 25.4 deaths per 100,000 workers. Most
common sources of fatality were "tractors" (46%), "trucks" (7%), and "animals" (5%).

---
Having a devil of a time breaking out farmer fatalities as one number. all the studies are picking slices.

---

There are as of 2006, 683,396 full time state, city, university and college, metropolitan and non-metropolitan county, and other law enforcement officers in the United States. There are approx. 120,000 full time law enforcement personnel working for the federal government adding up to a total number of 800,000 law enforcement personnel in the U.S.

The EPA states:

        There are only about 960,000 persons claiming farming as their principal occupation and a similar number of farmers claiming some other principal occupation.

That would make around 1.9 million primary and secondary occupation farmers.

So this means that farmers are dying at a higher rate than cops and in higher absolute numbers.

---

I tried to find some links on "Farmer Brutality" but apparently they don't stop and beat people up because they die a lot in a high risk occupation.

http://microbiology.suite101.com/article.cfm/alcohol_based_hand_cleansers
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/qa.htm#e

What kills influenza virus?
Influenza virus is destroyed by heat (167-212F [75-100C]). In addition, several chemical germicides, including chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, detergents (soap), iodophors (iodine-based antiseptics), and alcohols are effective against human influenza viruses if used in proper concentration for a sufficient length of time.

Swine flu vaccinations - about 10^5 people die from the (regular) flu every year. Swine flu has claimed what, 10^2?

5e4 people die of "flu and pneumonia." Easily referenced source 5e4 of those people die of pneumonia. 8e2 of them die of flu. Rather more obscure source see pg 34.

Swine flu vaccinations - about 10^5 people die from the (regular) flu every year. Swine flu has claimed what, 10^2?

5e4 people die of "flu and pneumonia." Easily referenced source 5e4 of those people die of pneumonia. 8e2 of them die of flu. Rather more obscure source see pg 34.

My point was that they do this for a very good reason, to prevent the spread of disease. An often quoted figure is ~80% of infections (everywhere, not just in hospitals) are spread because people don't wash their hands, or wash them properly.

http://www.cdc.gov/cleanhands/
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Handwashing_why_it's_important?OpenDocument

By washing your hands with just water, you are effectively saying you don't care about this for the people you do come in contact with. And I'm glad you have the ability to differentiate those with weakened immune systems.

Tobacco smoke residue is less of a bio-hazard than the keyboard of any computer, which contain all kinds of pathogens from people touching it.

Cite your source, or you're just making stuff up.

How about this: The American Cancer Society says:"Though unknown, the cancer-causing effects would likely be very small compared with direct exposure to secondhand smoke, such as living in a house with a smoker.". According to the CDC, the seasonal flu kills 36,000 Americans per year. If you want, you can perform a peer-reviewed study on this.

In any case, it's not up to me to prove this. It's up to Apple to prove that thirdhand smoke is a bio-hazard worthy of voiding a warranty. My spider-senses tell me that this would not hold up in any court of law.

Yeah, if smoking was so dangerous, we'd be having 438,000 premature deaths a year cause by smoking, that is 1 in 5 deaths. Oh, wait, I'm told that's exactly what's happening.

This wuld be less of a problem with compressed air.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/stateface/ca/05ca010.html Compressed air tank goes BOOM, kills worker.

AS it is, the number 1 killer in the USA, or at least near to it, is the fricking flu.

Not really....

Deaths due to influenza per year = apx. 36,000.

Deaths due to cigarettes per year = apx. 440,000

Even correcting for the fact that 'deaths due to cigarette smoking' are harder to establish (in terms of causality) than influenza, Mr. Butts wins big time.

The flu (and pneumonia) is actually the 8th leading cause of death in the US. The first two leading causes of death are heart disease and cancer, with more than 10x the number of deaths than the flu. Both of these can be caused by smoking.

Heart disease: 631,636
Cancer: 559,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
Diabetes: 72,449
Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
Septicemia: 34,234
From the CDC

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people to understand?!?!?!

The part where their kid gets shot by someone bearing arms. (mods, please note, I'm not arguing a point about the constitution, I'm answering a question. Even though it was probably meant to be rhetorical, the question has real answers)

That's not a real answer. At least, it's not a very compelling one. The number of kids who are killed by firearms every year is very small. In 2006, for example (the most recent year for which the CDC's database has published data), 409 kids ages 0-14 were killed by firearms. That number includes deliberate homicides, suicides, accidents and deaths with undetermined intentions.

Of course, those 409 deaths are individually tragic, but compared to all of the other things that kill kids, firearms don't contribute significantly to child mortality. Heck, swimming pools kill nearly twice as many kids as firearms, and swimming pools are far, far behind automobiles. It should also be kept in mind that 3/4 of those deaths were homicides, mostly by adults, so even if there were no guns available many, perhaps most, of those children still would have died.

Weighed against the right of free people to defend themselves and their children, and their right to retain arms as a last-ditch defense against tyranny and invasion, those regrettable deaths simply don't measure up. Indeed it's not even unlikely that removing firearms from the hands of law-abiding citizens might increase the deaths of children whose parents are unable to defend them. Even the Brady Campaign acknowledges that approximately 100,000 Americans defend themselves with a firearm each year, and other studies put the number up to 25 times higher.

So every cold you've had in your life included at least two and possibly more of the following; fever over 100 F, chills, severe aches, significant nausea, with possible vomiting and diarrhea? Those are the symptoms used by the CDC to define H1N1. Granted even the CDC admits that they are similar to seasonal flu symptoms but could be worse in severity. However, if these are the symptoms for all your "colds" it appears you've never really had a cold in your life. Instead you must have contracted various flu strains both inside and outside of the normal flu season.

Those are not ALL of the symptoms listed by the CDC, now are they? No, they are not. I know this because I did like twenty seconds of web-searching. This is the list of symptoms listed by the CDC. . .

Fever, Cough, Shortness of breath, Fatigue/Weakness, Chills, Myalgias, Rhinorrhea, Sore Throat, Headache, Vomiting, Wheezing and Diarrhea.

Note that these symptoms are not experienced in all cases, and yes, EVERY cold I've ever has included two or more of them. Stop playing into the hands of alarmists. This is a fraudulent piece of social engineering, like terrorists and WMDs and West Nile, and Bird Flu, and nuclear brinksmanship and every other damned bit of crap governments and corporations use to keep us scared and stupid. Why on earth would you be offended to think that maybe you might just possibly be waking up from their control? Why defend your abusers? Is your ego so fragile that you'd rather defend an abusive authority rather than face the fact that you've been lied to? You're only weak and stupid if you go along with the lie after being shown better because you don't want to feel bad about having been fooled. You're strong and brave if you are able to stand up tell them "No".

Your choice. Slaves too scared to oppose their masters deserve slavery. Period.

-FL

The infant mortality statistic has a lot of things that affect it and make it appear much worse in the U.S. than it really is, if you actually read the scientific literature on the topic, such as the CDC's infant mortality data rather than just regurgitating propaganda. First, not all industrialized countries even calculate infant mortality the same way. Secondly, American doctors are much more likely to deliver the infant in a pre-term threatened pregnancy, while in Europe they are more likely to not intervene and the fetus is miscarried. A delivered infant that dies counts in the stats, while a miscarriage generally does not. The U.S. has the some of the lowest pre-term infant mortality rates in the world according to the literature, but that fact is certainly NOT being publicized. Yes, term infant mortality rate could use a little work here, but some of the biggest risk factors for that one are solved culturally (i.e. reducing the number of teen pregnancies, which are correlated with higher infant mortality rates) rather than medically.

Reading CDC's website, it's quite interesting to see that according to them 36,000 people on average die from seasonal flu and that's during the flu season. H1N1 only caused what, roughly 500-600 deaths since begining of the year and according to them it's active the whole year. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm Hmm, is anyone else getting flashbacks to Wag the Dog? No?

You can find the latest map on the CDC site and look at how helpful it is! Apparently everyone's boned except for DC, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Since there's no report of flu in the Virgin Islands, I propose the government provides free plane tickets for anyone who isn't infected so that they might escape the wave of vomit brewing in our fair country.

But in all seriousness their report does have some decent data on it.

You can find the latest map on the CDC site and look at how helpful it is! Apparently everyone's boned except for DC, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Since there's no report of flu in the Virgin Islands, I propose the government provides free plane tickets for anyone who isn't infected so that they might escape the wave of vomit brewing in our fair country.

But in all seriousness their report does have some decent data on it.

Couple this with wildly inaccurate propaganda and it's amazing anything gets done around here.

but not with mass famine and the chaos that follows. (2008 CDC Obesity rate by State)

I'm not sure if this is a very clever parody or if you're genuinely delusional and selectively perceptive, so I'll just leave this here.

It is the UNNECESSARY quarantining and locking down of the nation that it wont handle. They claim their "swine flu" has killed roughly a 1000 people since
last April when they started the hyping it,

well did you know that according to "CDC" own statistics, in 2006 648 people died from Tuberculosis and 13,000 people were diagnosed with the disease
IN THE UNITED STATES.

http://www.cdc.gov/tb/statistics/reports/2008/pdf/2008report.pdf turn to page 15, table 1.

Myobacter Tuberculosis gives rise to tuberculosis, a deadly disease and what a painful way to die once it has found it's way into your bones.

Related to Myobacter Tuberculosis is another all time favorite Myobacter Leprae which gives rise to: Hansen's disease aka Leprosy. These little bastards
chew up your nerves, very painful until you lose all sensation.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044418.htm#00001076.gif

Look at table 20, each year in average a 100+ people get it here in the United States with a peak in the 80s of 400+ cases again HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

There are other Myobacter of course a whole slew of them but they are for the most part very rare thankfully.

I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE AROUND ANYONE who has an open tuberculosis and is coughing. I would NOT want any physical contact with someone who has
untreated leprosy. -> These diseases freak me out

So think about it,

-----> Tens of thousands of people contract major league plague diseases every year here in the United State and not a word of it on the mainstream media, -----

It is the UNNECESSARY quarantining and locking down of the nation that it wont handle. They claim their "swine flu" has killed roughly a 1000 people since
last April when they started the hyping it,

well did you know that according to "CDC" own statistics, in 2006 648 people died from Tuberculosis and 13,000 people were diagnosed with the disease
IN THE UNITED STATES.

http://www.cdc.gov/tb/statistics/reports/2008/pdf/2008report.pdf turn to page 15, table 1.

Myobacter Tuberculosis gives rise to tuberculosis, a deadly disease and what a painful way to die once it has found it's way into your bones.

Related to Myobacter Tuberculosis is another all time favorite Myobacter Leprae which gives rise to: Hansen's disease aka Leprosy. These little bastards
chew up your nerves, very painful until you lose all sensation.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044418.htm#00001076.gif

Look at table 20, each year in average a 100+ people get it here in the United States with a peak in the 80s of 400+ cases again HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

There are other Myobacter of course a whole slew of them but they are for the most part very rare thankfully.

I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE AROUND ANYONE who has an open tuberculosis and is coughing. I would NOT want any physical contact with someone who has
untreated leprosy. -> These diseases freak me out

So think about it,

-----> Tens of thousands of people contract major league plague diseases every year here in the United State and not a word of it on the mainstream media, -----

While on the surface, this article seems very Orwellian indeed, there is a strong argument to be made in favor of planning for the effects that a pandemic would have on all forms of infrastructure. In a pandemic involving a disease with a mortality rate approaching that of the Spanish Flu of 1918 (ONLY 2.5%) or of avian flu, which is a staggering 60%, people would rapidly confine themselves to their homes. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that, in this situation, the number of people telecommuting would increase drastically, which, coupled with the large increase in bandwidth caused by huge numbers of bored children and adults who are all at home, would a great deal of strain on our current internet infrastructure, especially in the last mile. Vital government and business functions would absolutely depend on their employee's ability to telecommute in such a situation. It the ability to respond to an emergency depends on the availability of infrastructure then it is prudent to have a plan in place to preserve the critical function of that infrastructure during an emergency. The internet would certainly be a vital part of the response to a pandemic, and it would be vital to the continued functioning of society during the the pandemic. Therefore, it seems profoundly important for the DHS, whose responsibility is, ostensibly, the preservation and protection of our society, to develop plans to preserve the critical functions of the internet. The ability of an engineer to monitor critical systems at a power plant remotely, or the communications of medical professionals dealing with the emergency would absolutely deserve priority over a connection to an online game or the ability to read the latest headlines.

While on the surface, this article seems very Orwellian indeed, there is a strong argument to be made in favor of planning for the effects that a pandemic would have on all forms of infrastructure. In a pandemic involving a disease with a mortality rate approaching that of the Spanish Flu of 1918 (ONLY 2.5%) or of avian flu, which is a staggering 60%, people would rapidly confine themselves to their homes. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that, in this situation, the number of people telecommuting would increase drastically, which, coupled with the large increase in bandwidth caused by huge numbers of bored children and adults who are all at home, would a great deal of strain on our current internet infrastructure, especially in the last mile. Vital government and business functions would absolutely depend on their employee's ability to telecommute in such a situation. It the ability to respond to an emergency depends on the availability of infrastructure then it is prudent to have a plan in place to preserve the critical function of that infrastructure during an emergency. The internet would certainly be a vital part of the response to a pandemic, and it would be vital to the continued functioning of society during the the pandemic. Therefore, it seems profoundly important for the DHS, whose responsibility is, ostensibly, the preservation and protection of our society, to develop plans to preserve the critical functions of the internet. The ability of an engineer to monitor critical systems at a power plant remotely, or the communications of medical professionals dealing with the emergency would absolutely deserve priority over a connection to an online game or the ability to read the latest headlines.

During week 41 (October 11-17, 2009), influenza activity increased in the U.S.

* 4,855 (37.5%) specimens tested by U.S. World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) collaborating laboratories and reported to CDC/Influenza Division were positive for influenza.
* All subtyped influenza A viruses being reported to CDC were 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses.

This is what I heard on NPR as well. About 1/3 of the people being tested at hospitals (because they came in feeling ill) have the flu virus. But all the flu is the H1N1 type. The seasonal flu has not yet started (it normally starts later in the year).

Most reports are that swine flu has been mild compared to the typical in most individuals. This includes reports that some exposed have never developed any symptom. The reported numbers for swine flu rely on the presumption of swine flu rather than the regular seasonal flu, not actual tests. That is, died so must have been swine flu.

What evidence there is suggests that children and the elderly should have priority for vaccination (greater potential benefit for the same risk). Healthy adults should be at the end of the list.

Fucking shit, could you cram any more potently concentrated misinformation into a single post?

The swine flu is *usually* a mild flu, just like the regular seasonal flu. But it *is* killing healthy young people, which the regular flu does not. It's landing them in the hospital, and then killing them after prolonged ICU courses. The mortality rate for pregnant women hospitalized with novel H1N1 infections is about 50% based on case series from several hospitals, including my own.

There is no "presumption" here. Novel H1N1 is tested via PCR of nasal swabs or sputum samples, and/or at autopsy on lung tissue. Every suspicious hospitalized case in California (at least) is tested like this. For certain, every death in the hospital is definitively tested. There is no "presumption". Novel H1N1, followed by bacterial superinfection, is what is killing these healthy young people. Just like in 1918.

The formal CDC recommendations are that *young* people be first in line for the vaccine. OK, pregnant women, infants and the immunocompromised are first, but of the general public, young people are next. For once, the elderly can safely wait, since most have partial immunity from the 1957 pandemic H1N1, and the most severe cases of novel H1N1 are in young people, not old (where it's acting much like the seasonal flu).

Seriously, read the CDC recommendations on who should get the vaccine. In fact, the CDC has an unbelievable website on novel H1N1 with the best real data available on rates, outcomes, and recommendations.

Read a few of the emerging case reports, like the these 68 young people in Oceania who were in the ICU on heart-lung machines, of whom 1/3 died. Or the 10 young ICU cases from Michigan back in the spring.

This is serious stuff, and healthy young people (especially pregnant) are at risk. If you want relative risk, then know that the swine flu has already, beyond any doubt, killed more young healthy Americans than the number who got Guillain-Barre from the 1976 vaccine, and the flu season hasn't even started yet. Get the vaccine.

Most reports are that swine flu has been mild compared to the typical in most individuals. This includes reports that some exposed have never developed any symptom. The reported numbers for swine flu rely on the presumption of swine flu rather than the regular seasonal flu, not actual tests. That is, died so must have been swine flu.

What evidence there is suggests that children and the elderly should have priority for vaccination (greater potential benefit for the same risk). Healthy adults should be at the end of the list.

Fucking shit, could you cram any more potently concentrated misinformation into a single post?

The swine flu is *usually* a mild flu, just like the regular seasonal flu. But it *is* killing healthy young people, which the regular flu does not. It's landing them in the hospital, and then killing them after prolonged ICU courses. The mortality rate for pregnant women hospitalized with novel H1N1 infections is about 50% based on case series from several hospitals, including my own.

There is no "presumption" here. Novel H1N1 is tested via PCR of nasal swabs or sputum samples, and/or at autopsy on lung tissue. Every suspicious hospitalized case in California (at least) is tested like this. For certain, every death in the hospital is definitively tested. There is no "presumption". Novel H1N1, followed by bacterial superinfection, is what is killing these healthy young people. Just like in 1918.

The formal CDC recommendations are that *young* people be first in line for the vaccine. OK, pregnant women, infants and the immunocompromised are first, but of the general public, young people are next. For once, the elderly can safely wait, since most have partial immunity from the 1957 pandemic H1N1, and the most severe cases of novel H1N1 are in young people, not old (where it's acting much like the seasonal flu).

Seriously, read the CDC recommendations on who should get the vaccine. In fact, the CDC has an unbelievable website on novel H1N1 with the best real data available on rates, outcomes, and recommendations.

Read a few of the emerging case reports, like the these 68 young people in Oceania who were in the ICU on heart-lung machines, of whom 1/3 died. Or the 10 young ICU cases from Michigan back in the spring.

This is serious stuff, and healthy young people (especially pregnant) are at risk. If you want relative risk, then know that the swine flu has already, beyond any doubt, killed more young healthy Americans than the number who got Guillain-Barre from the 1976 vaccine, and the flu season hasn't even started yet. Get the vaccine.

The CDC estimates that on a year where the vaccine is properly targeted, effectiveness is 70-90% for most adults. I'd say that comes quite close to preventing it.

This individual reduction is compounded in a population with many immunized individuals, since there are fewer carriers as well. Since effectiveness is lower for seniors (and are more likely to die from actually catching the flu), it's even more important for their health care providers to be immunized to reduce their chance of transmitting the disease to them.

It's similar to seatbelts. Some people still die while wearing them, and a few people get injured more by them. However, the vast majority of cases they protect the passengers, and that's why they're mandated.

If you make an assertion, be prepared to back it up with evidence. It is not my job to make your argument for you. While you are correct that I could have looked it up myself, you were the one trying to convince me.

In the absence of a reliable citation from you, and my own interest I went to the CDC's website and found this response to the Canadian reports. Turns out that Canada's results may be an aberration in the global data set. Why is up for debate. It is possible that pure random chance is involved, although with a sample group that size it is unlikely. Changes in preventative behavior due to a false sense of invulnerability is also possible although also not satisfactory without any corroborating data.

Essentially we have multiple datasets that appear to provide contradictory conclusions in the absence of any proposed mechanism for the Canadian data. Welcome to active scientific research!! It is nowhere near as cut and dry as people frequently believe.

I gave a seminar presentation just 2 weeks ago on the "Problem with Assumptions" in which I discussed some frequently made assumptions in my own field of research, despite more than 50 years of evidence hinting that they are not safe to make. I must admit that I've made them myself in the past as well, so by no means am I faultless. I just didn't piece together the evidence until after my studies were done and another researcher provided a pretty convincing re-analysis of 13 different studies showing that fundamental assumptions made were not justifiable.

See http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#flu

Two possible side effects: severe allergic reaction, which I have heard is with people who have egg allergies, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which may be about 1-2 cases out of a million vaccinations, if it happens at all.

Your statement is blatantly false. As the most minor of checks would show you.
Children don't due from flu in the hundreds each year.

http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/about/qa/0607season.htm#children

Looking at these figures, I'd say hundreds to thousands would be just about right for a worldwide tally, considering that the U.S. figures ranged from 47 in 2004-2005, to 153 in 2003-2004. That being said, it's an example of the combination of an overall tiny mortality rate, intersecting with a high exposure rate. From a public health perspective, the impact from morbidity is much more of a concern than the actual mortality.

Actually, the flu kills about 36000 people per year in the US, according to the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

Also, H1N1 deaths are surprisingly high, given that they're occurring outside the flu season. If it scales similarly to the seasonal flu in terms of the ratio between the off season and on season, this could turn out to be rather nasty.

The flu shot (any vaccine, really) isn't exactly safe either. I'm not talking about the mercury, or Jenny McCarthy autism nonsense, I'm talking about people reacting badly and severely to a vaccine.

Can you drag up evidence that a severe reaction to a flu vaccine is more likely than an equally severe reaction from not being immunized and contracting the flu?

For something like polio, this makes sense, where a large percentage of the population would die or be crippled by it. But for the flu? I don't begrudge anyone getting the shot, but I also don't begrudge them *not* getting the shot. It's *their* life and *their* body. Becoming a nurse or a doctor doesn't alter that fact.

As for flu not being 'severe' enough, there are about 36,000 deaths from the flu yearly in the US alone. Most of these deaths could be prevented by immunization, which is much safer. Unless you prove me wrong with more than 36,000 immunization deaths per year (more even, since we have children being safely immunized against other deadly diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, pertussus, and polio), the vaccine is still safer than not being vaccinated, and therefor any risk can not be used as an excuse not to get immunized.

We require doctors to both wash their hands and use sterile gloves when there is a risk of infection. If someone doesn't feel comfortable wearing sterile gloves, perhaps they should not enter the primary care field where these gloves are an important (if not vital) safety measure. This is the same care I expect from any simple safety procedure from my caregiver, immunizations included. Especially remember that most flu deaths are young children, the elderly, and those with underlying health conditions; precisely the people you are likely to encounter at the hospital or doctor's office.

Let's face it: health care providers neglecting to protect themselves with a safe vaccine for a preventable disease are being reckless with their patient's health. Others who go unvaccinated also put others at risk, but in a much more limited sense.

The CDC's 2009 H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) site is handsomely designed and rich in resources for all ages and interests.

The geek will find public health spreadsheet simulations for Windows and Excel here: H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu): Preparedness Tools for Professionals

Interesting stuff, no specialist knowledge or skills required.

Social networking and mobile resources, widgets, buttons and badages: Social Media - Novel H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu

The CDC's 2009 H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) site is handsomely designed and rich in resources for all ages and interests.

The geek will find public health spreadsheet simulations for Windows and Excel here: H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu): Preparedness Tools for Professionals

Interesting stuff, no specialist knowledge or skills required.

Social networking and mobile resources, widgets, buttons and badages: Social Media - Novel H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu

The CDC's 2009 H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) site is handsomely designed and rich in resources for all ages and interests.

The geek will find public health spreadsheet simulations for Windows and Excel here: H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu): Preparedness Tools for Professionals

Interesting stuff, no specialist knowledge or skills required.

Social networking and mobile resources, widgets, buttons and badages: Social Media - Novel H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu

Citation for the lazy:

The ACIP has recommended that when vaccine becomes available, immunization programs and providers should focus first on vaccinating as many people as possible in the following five groups:

  pregnant women,
  people who live with or provide care for children younger than 6 months of age,
  health care and emergency medical services personnel,
  people between six months through 24 years of age, and
  people from the ages of 25 through 64 who are at higher risk because of chronic health disorders such as asthma, diabetes, or a weakened immune system.

Further citation:

How have different age groups been affected by novel H1N1 flu in terms of deaths?

CDC studied the hospital records of 268 patients hospitalized with novel H1N1 flu early on during the outbreak. The number of deaths was highest among people 25 to 49 years of age (39%), followed by people 50 to 64 year of age (25%) and people 5 to 24 year of age (16%) This is a very different pattern from what is seen in seasonal influenza, where an estimated 90% of influenza-related deaths occur in people 65 years of age and older.

And finally a graph showing the alarmingly elevated pediatric deaths for this time of year.

'course, I'm sure you'll just dismiss all this data. It is from the CDC, after all, and they're just an evil Big Government organization.

Me. I'm getting a flu shot, both to protect me, as well as to protect anyone I might otherwise infect if I got sick.

Citation for the lazy:

The ACIP has recommended that when vaccine becomes available, immunization programs and providers should focus first on vaccinating as many people as possible in the following five groups:

  pregnant women,
  people who live with or provide care for children younger than 6 months of age,
  health care and emergency medical services personnel,
  people between six months through 24 years of age, and
  people from the ages of 25 through 64 who are at higher risk because of chronic health disorders such as asthma, diabetes, or a weakened immune system.

Further citation:

How have different age groups been affected by novel H1N1 flu in terms of deaths?

CDC studied the hospital records of 268 patients hospitalized with novel H1N1 flu early on during the outbreak. The number of deaths was highest among people 25 to 49 years of age (39%), followed by people 50 to 64 year of age (25%) and people 5 to 24 year of age (16%) This is a very different pattern from what is seen in seasonal influenza, where an estimated 90% of influenza-related deaths occur in people 65 years of age and older.

And finally a graph showing the alarmingly elevated pediatric deaths for this time of year.

'course, I'm sure you'll just dismiss all this data. It is from the CDC, after all, and they're just an evil Big Government organization.

Me. I'm getting a flu shot, both to protect me, as well as to protect anyone I might otherwise infect if I got sick.

Citation for the lazy:

The ACIP has recommended that when vaccine becomes available, immunization programs and providers should focus first on vaccinating as many people as possible in the following five groups:

  pregnant women,
  people who live with or provide care for children younger than 6 months of age,
  health care and emergency medical services personnel,
  people between six months through 24 years of age, and
  people from the ages of 25 through 64 who are at higher risk because of chronic health disorders such as asthma, diabetes, or a weakened immune system.

Further citation:

How have different age groups been affected by novel H1N1 flu in terms of deaths?

CDC studied the hospital records of 268 patients hospitalized with novel H1N1 flu early on during the outbreak. The number of deaths was highest among people 25 to 49 years of age (39%), followed by people 50 to 64 year of age (25%) and people 5 to 24 year of age (16%) This is a very different pattern from what is seen in seasonal influenza, where an estimated 90% of influenza-related deaths occur in people 65 years of age and older.

And finally a graph showing the alarmingly elevated pediatric deaths for this time of year.

'course, I'm sure you'll just dismiss all this data. It is from the CDC, after all, and they're just an evil Big Government organization.

Me. I'm getting a flu shot, both to protect me, as well as to protect anyone I might otherwise infect if I got sick.

Actually, it's not a very high mortality rate at all.

Among the top 10 killers(responsible for 1,855,660 deaths in 2006), influenza is responsible for about 3% of deaths.

Sense of scale. We're lacking it here.

Most people recover from H1N1 flu fine. As in the summary, those who don't recover fine tend to get very sick, get stuck in the ICU, and a fair amount die.

On the other hand, the risks of the vaccine include (in a minority of patients) redness and pain at the vaccination site. The typical reaction is... nothing.

Look at the distribution of deaths. Most flu deaths occur during the winter, when people generally have weaker immune systems and spend more time crowded together indoors making transmission easier. Lots of people have been claiming that the mortality rate for swine flu is lower than for other seasonal flus, but they have been comparing swine flu statistics in the middle of the summer to other flu statistics from the winter. If you look at the weekly reports of flu deaths over the last few years from the CDC, you will see no children dying in the summer, and up to around 12 dying a week in the middle of the winter, with around one a week over the milder parts of winter. Compare that with this year, and you see a spike of 3-8 per week in a period that has had zero for the previous three years.

I found that number to be way low, as well, given the number of deaths attributed to seasonal flu on a yearly basis. However:

From the CDC Website: ( http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/about/qa/0607season.htm#children )

During the 2003-04 Season, 153 flu-associated deaths in children were reported to CDC.
During the 2004-05 Season, 47 deaths in children were reported to CDC.
During the 2005-06 Season, 46 deaths in children were reported to CDC.
As of August 6, 2007, 68 deaths in children occurring during the 2006-07 season have been reported to CDC.

gr8_phk: Considering your personal experience with the individuals you happen to have known is not a scientifically valid way of determining the severity of the threat that seasonal flu or H1N1 pose to different demographic groups. Only scientific studies of large groups and retrospective studies of particular groups (e.g. reviewing the demographics of those who die of flu/H1N1 vs. demographics of the population as a whole) can accurately determine risk levels. See http://www.flu.gov/individualfamily/parents/pregnant5tips.html, which notes "Pregnant women, even ones who are healthy, can have medical complications from the seasonal and H1N1 (Swine) flu."

You are correct that infants do get a partial immune boost from antibodies they receive from the mother. However, you are not correct in concluding that infants therefore have "very good immunity" to seasonal flu, H1N1, or pathogens in general. In fact, infants younger than 6 are both more generally vulnerable to disease (because they have not yet been exposed to germs and developed the diverse immunity of an adult) and also particularly vulnerable to seasonal flu and H1N1. That is why cdc.gov notes that "people who live with or care for children younger than 6 months of age" are one of the priority groups for H1N1 vaccination: not to protect them, but to reduce the risk of transmission to their infants under 6 months who are especially vulnerable. See http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2009/r090729b.htm

It's true that you could volunteer to participate in a study, and I'm glad you're willing to help advance science in that way. However, consent from the subjects is not (alone) sufficient to guarantee that conducting a study is ethical. Scientific ethics guidelines require that the study be deemed inherently ethical by a Human Subjects Research review board. Regardless of what level of risk the subjects are willing to accept, it's only ethical to conduct a study that exposes them to a level of risk that is commensurate with the scientific benefit to be achieved, and not in excess of some absolute limits as well. For example, even if there were human subjects willing with full informed consent to allow their syphilis to go untreated, it would not be ethical to conduct a study that studied the long-term effects of untreated syphilis by deliberately denying available treatment to participants with syphilis (a la the infamous Tuskegee study, which of course compounded the injustice further by using prison inmates as subjects, not getting their informed consent to boot, and selectively using subjects from a particular ethnic group rather than others, among other issues).

    But, that's not the scenario that we're in. We're looking at billions for the vaccines, and tens or hundreds saved. Not thousands. not millions. With the incomplete testing done, and many assumptions being made (hey, it's similar to something else, it oughta act the same).

    According to the CDC, the vaccine can cause Guillain-Barré Syndrome in 1 of 100,000 treated, or roughly 3,000 people in the United States (by the 2008 US Census population estimate).

    The CDC also shows a relationship between egg allergies and possibly fatal side effects from the vaccination. They simply state that if you have an egg allergy, do NOT take the vaccine. That's approx 2.5% of the population under 5 years old. That's ok, the population under 5yo is only 21,000,000 (again, 2008 US Census est), which would bring the possible death toll to 525,000.

    So, we're up to 528,000 possibly dead from the vaccine.

    The CDC also indicates "Life-threatening allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. If they do occur, it is usually within a few minutes to a few hours after the shot is given." No numbers are included here, and I wasn't able to find any.

    "Very rare" is a wonderful number. They use the same term for the Yellow Fever vaccine, which is estimated to be fatal in 1 in 400,000.

    The US has started using a combined number in reporting H1N1 cases, so their national number of 928 doesn't give a good indication of how many were really H1N1 related. Still, 928 untreated and dead, versus hundreds of thousands who could die from the vaccine (a small percentage of the total population, but still more than necessary) makes for an unjustified number.

    I'm not gathering these numbers from any fear mongering source. I've researched these numbers from trustworthy sources (hmm, like the CDC themselves). The answer of "shut up and trust the government" is never a good answer. Question everything, and you won't be made a fool of. Well, in this case, you may not end up dead from the cure.

In a widely spread pandemy we all could get a chance of exposion, and there is where vaccines will make a difference.

Even with modern antiviral and antibacterial drugs, vaccines, and prevention knowledge, the return of a pandemic virus equivalent in pathogenicity to the virus of 1918 would likely kill >100 million people worldwide. A pandemic virus with the (alleged) pathogenic potential of some recent H5N1 outbreaks could cause substantially more deaths.

[T]he 1918 virus is the likely ancestor of all 4 of the human and swine H1N1 and H3N2 lineages, as well as the "extinct" H2N2 lineage.

[A]ge-specific death rates in the 1918 pandemic exhibited a distinct pattern that has not been documented before or since: a "W-shaped" curve, similar to the familiar U-shaped curve but with the addition of a third (middle) distinct peak of deaths in young adults 20-40 years of age. Influenza and pneumonia death rates for those 15-34 years of age in 1918-1919, for example, were >20 times higher than in previous years. Overall, nearly half of the influenza-related deaths in the 1918 pandemic were in young adults 20-40 years of age, a phenomenon unique to that pandemic year.

1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics

[2006]

Influenza causes only a small minority of all deaths in the U.S., even among senior citizens,

36,000 die of complications from the flu annually in the US. That's very nearly as many as die from car accidents.

It is entirely accurate to say flu deaths are a minority of all deaths. According to the CDC in 2006 there were 56,326 deaths from Influenza and Pneumonia, out of a total of 2,426,264 deaths. If we assume all of those 56,326 deaths were from the flu, that is a grand total of 2.3% of all deaths from the flu. If the number is actually 36,000 (which sounds reasonable once you factor out Pneumonia) then it is only ~1.5%.

Of course that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the story, but lets not jump on the parts where we actually have reasonable data.

The live attenuated flu vaccine, FluMist is substantially more effective than the inactivated injected vaccine (something that's blindingly obvious to those of us who've studied basic immunology). It provides a potent T-cell response, and a large pool of memory cells. Furthermore, it has been shown to be effective against viruses that have undergone some genetic drift.

For anyone who is old enough, has no respiratory problems, and who isn't immunosuppressed, the live nasal spray vaccine is a much more sensible choice.

For additional data refer here: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/efficacycomparison.htm

I'm sure that anyone who gets recurring Guillain-Barré Syndrome as a result of a flu shot will be mighty happy to lose their job as a result of mandatory vaccination.

My father knows of 2 people, relative and acquaintance, who suffered from GBS after a vaccination (likely the 1976 one mentioned in the articles), one of whom died from complications from it. He has declined to get vaccinated because of it, and frankly I don't blame him. He has been through times when vaccinations were even more unreliable, and riskier, than they are today. And I don't consider them that big a panacea today, myself.

http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1flu/vaccination/pregnant_qa.htm

"Does the 2009 H1N1 flu shot have an adjuvant or squalene in it?"
"Adjuvants are agents that are sometimes added to a vaccine to make it more effective. There are no adjuvants (such as squalene) in either the 2009 H1N1 or seasonal flu shot used in the United States."