Slashdot Mirror
WHO Raises Swine Flu Threat Level
Solarch writes "Late in the afternoon on Wednesday, the WHO raised the pandemic threat level for H1N1 "swine flu" to 5. Global media outlets(such as CNN, Fox News, and the BBC) preempted normal broadcast coverage and immediately published stories on their websites. To clarify, the WHO's elevation is mainly a sign to governments that the virus is spreading quickly and that steps should be taken on a governmental level to stage supplies and medicines to combat a possible pandemic. Unfortunately, broadcast coverage focused on phrases like 'pandemic imminent' (CNN marquee).
In other news, patient zero, the medical term for the initial human vector of a disease, has been tentatively identified in Mexico."
I get the feeling that Media outlets are DESPERATELY Hoping that this will be a Pandemic... as if they're bored or really really really like human suffering... oh wait, what's that saying about if it bleeds it's frontpage news? Sigh. --Ray PS> Would hate to die of Swine Flu, just because of what it's called... and all that it would imply if I caught it...
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Only the extremely ill, old, young, and those with compromised immune systems will have a problem in more developed countries where antiviral medicine is available.
Wow. You have just far too much faith in the governments of the world, and medicine. First of all there's not enough antiviral flu medication for everyone if the virus spreads to a large percentage of the population (not to mention infra-structure to distribute all of it, care for everyone, etc). Secondly, the flu mutates like crazy. The virus can easily evolve into a strain that's resistant to the 4 drugs used against influenza. At that point being rich isn't going to save you.
AccountKiller
That's not really the right comparison to judge a "problem" with the course of action. It would clearly be, in retrospect, the wrong decision if more people died of the vaccine than would have been expected to have died from the flu had the vaccination not been carried out, but the fact that more people died of the vaccine than died of the flu when the vaccination was carried out does not appear to be a valid basis, on its own, for criticism.
Otherwise, a vaccination program that prevented all deaths from a disease (even if, unchecked, it would have been expected to kill billions) would be the wrong decision if even one person died from the vaccine, a result that is clearly ludicrous.
in the US alone there are An estimated 100,000 hospitalizations and about 20,000 deaths occur each year from the plain old flu or its complications... so what is the big deal?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Wow. You have just far too much faith in the governments of the world, and medicine
****
We've had one death so far in the U.S., and it was a baby. Two of the drugs that we do have available are effective, and I heard that there are roughly enough of those two to treat 30-50 million people in the U.S.
My comment wasn't about the people in the richer nations being so much better off so much as it being a commentary on the sad state of affairs where the poor get hit the hardest, like they do pretty much any time a disaster happens.
I don't have much faith in governments, but those populations without ANY modern medicine at all are going to suffer a large number of deaths. Be it from overactive immune systems or compromised ones - both extremes seem to be a problem in these sorts of situations.
In India, you have millions of people who are so poor that they burn garbage to keep warm. When droves of them start dying, secondary diseases and epidemics become a real worry as well. No, not everyone in India is like that, obviously, but with nearly a billion people all living in a pretty close proximity to each other, it's not likely that things will be good, either.
The cytokine storm stuff (i.e., the claim that the virus hits healthy people harder than those with compromised immune systems) is really just an early leading hypothesis that's based on the mortality data from Mexico; the virus there is reported to have primarily killed adults 20-50. I really don't think there's any other evidence for it so far.
There's a big puzzle going on right now in that the virus in the USA hasn't been nearly as deadly as in Mexico. From all I've read, this is being actively debated, with hypotheses ranging from flawed data about what's going on in Mexico (i.e., we only know about the most lethal Mexican cases of a much larger outbreak), to the possibility that the USA may have a milder version of the same strain so far.
The thing to stress, however, is that the knowledge about this is still very incomplete, and evolving rapidly.
Are you adequate?
It's like the people that believe we wasted time and money on the Y2K problem, because there was huge disaster. They just don't get that the time and money was what prevented the disaster from happening.
Very true.
At this point we're just using hypotheses and another one that I just dreamed up is that ths strain needs a certain industrial polutants to be between certain points (sweet spot) for it to be lethal.
Since more people have caught it, and more people have died from it in Mexico, this is also plausible, since the polution levels are easily higher there than in the US and Europe.
I say plausible, but very unlikely, as I just came up with this halfassed idea. But if it ends up being true, I want credit!
The WHO grand total of confirmed deaths is low because confirmation of which strain was involved in each specific case is slow. The actual number of deaths so far by the strain is almost certainly significantly higher. To put it more precisely, a large proportion of the cases that have been labeled as suspected swine flu deaths will turn out to be so.
Also, I don't think your Mexican health care and environment objection holds. Given no other data, you would expect that to increase the number of deaths, but not the distribution of deaths across age groups. You need a stronger hypothesis: that the poor health care in Mexico increases the risk of death from H1N1 disproportionately among young adults and middle-aged adults will die from H1N1, compared to children and the elderly.
The one thing that's sure at this point is that our information is quite likely to have very serious holes yet, however.
Are you adequate?
To whomever tagged this with suddenoutbreakofswineflu: genius. haha
No, it's to Pandemic (or its sequel, Pandemic 2, which is the better game).
1 U.S. death. A child from Mexico.
The pork thing is unfortunate, but there is a lot of risk with a novel flu virus, so a strong reaction is the prudent thing (when the lethality picture clears up, things can relax pretty quickly).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The vector that propagated the 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic was soldiers returning from The World War, and people who were exposed to them, so young people with healthy immune systems were the primary people exposed to the flu, especially since they tended to be crowded together in barracks, ships, and trains where it could easily spread. So the fact that most of the deaths were younger people doesn't tell you as much as it might.
On the other hand, the world population is much more mobile than it was in 1918 - travel's radically cheaper, and most people aren't farmers who stay home or occasionally go from their villages to small towns; everybody's on the move all the time, so it's easier for infected people to spread disease around than it was for most people in 1918.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
So long as this is going on, I'll make sure to was my hands with soap and water after using the bathroom
I hope that you continue your newly found routine even after this has gone on.
Can you imagine any possible news story where you would not find it relevant to bring up Bush? Let it go already, it's over.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
Because flu viruses are particularly prone to spread (especially if it hangs around until fall and winter), and if it spreads like a normal flu in a normal season, and the high fatality rate keep up, and the , then it could be devastating.
Obviously, there are a lot of ifs in that statement. I'd guess that the fatality rate is partially inflated due to poor conditions in Mexico, uncertainties in diagnoses, and other factors; even 1% is pretty scary though. Also, given the time of year, I'd imagine we'll have a good handle on it by the time it could get serious.
Given all of that, the government response of tracking it, stockpiling anti-virals, and other efforts make perfect sense. All the press conferences have been pretty clear on the point that it sounds worse than it is. If the publicity makes people wash their hands more and other common-sense methods to prevent spread, so much the better.
The only worrying part is the pork-export issues (fears which are completely unfounded from what I can tell), and general commerce limits during an already fragile economic situation. As far as the overwhelming news coverage... it could be worse, we could be hearing endless discussions of the first (arbitrary-time-period) of Obama's presidency instead. Its the news, pick and choose what you want to read.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Except that the US mobilized 4.3 million soldiers and 50 million people died of the flu.
Being crowded together could get all of those soldiers contaminated, but then each one of them would have to infect twelve other non-soldier people after being released from that togetherness.
When there are 1000 data points (read deaths) what do you suppose the total people *infected* with H1N12009 will be?
On a side note - I didn't write it to be funny, I wrote it to make a point.
Sometimes the best way to make a point, though, is to be funny about it. Witness Stephen Colbert.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/key_facts.htm
Can people catch swine flu from eating pork?
No. Swine influenza viruses are not transmitted by food. You can not get swine influenza from eating pork or pork products. Eating properly handled and cooked pork and pork products is safe. Cooking pork to an internal temperature of 160ÂF kills the swine flu virus as it does other bacteria and viruses.
Thanks for tanking the pork prices with your misinformation though. Lots of pork for me to eat!
The active word is still and we must see that it stays that way. When a person gets killed while crossing the road, he does not let 8 others cross the road to get killed and who then force others to get killed crossing the road.
The problem is that we do not know how dangerous it could become. 1 or even 100 cases (or more?) cases can be easily controlled and if that means 100 or 1000 people dying, that means nothing.
Look what happend in 1918 It is estimated that anywhere from 20 to 100 million people were killed worldwide. 20 million (when looking at the low numbers and not calculating a higher world population) would be a tad more then people who get killed crossing the road.
So we must not look at what happend, but what might happen. We just do not know how dangerous the wolf is and if we should cry wolf.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Absolutely not. But that's what the parent is indicating: it's overhyped and there's a spread of "fear" and needless "danger" associated with it in the media.
In recent events, the stockmarket has crashed, economies are trying to recover, alot of people in unemployment and instead of taking action, they're manipulated into panic and fear about some insignificant virus and envisioning a swine-apocalypse. To me it seems a bit as populuscontrol or some weak sensationalism.
Do you remember SARS?
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1