Slashdot Mirror


WHO Declares H1N1's Spread Officially a Pandemic

juggledean writes "The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared a global flu pandemic after holding an emergency meeting, according to reports. It means the swine flu virus is spreading in at least two regions of the world with rising cases being seen in the UK, Australia, Japan and Chile." Whether it's called a pandemic or not, there's a hopeful note in the story about H1N1's spread: "...there were people who believed we might be in a kind of apocalyptic situation and what we're really seeing now with H1N1 is that in most cases the disease is self-limiting."

368 comments

  1. Out of the firedemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and into the pandemic! (I made that up myself!)

    1. Re:Out of the firedemic by SkyDude · · Score: 1

      We need to see a post from the guy who's sig is "Pigs can't fly but swine flu.."

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    2. Re:Out of the firedemic by spiffydudex · · Score: 1

      Anyone up for some Global Domination?

      Pandemic 2!
      http://www.freewebarcade4.com/media/pandemic2.swf

    3. Re:Out of the firedemic by morghanphoenix · · Score: 1

      Europe population = 0 Looks like I made it to lethal too fast, only managed to spread a little before people started closing down the ports. I'm going to try again, work on getting infection rates up before I start mutating it into Ebola on steroids.

    4. Re:Out of the firedemic by morghanphoenix · · Score: 1

      My Best Score: 71142

      Remaining World Population: Just over 19 million

      Madagascar closed their borders before any other country even tried to hand out masks, so I was left with one little untouched island as the rest of the planet was completely wiped out.

      I salute anyone who can destroy that pesky country. I've played several games so far, even tailoring the disease to spread there, and they always close their borders before I can get an infection there.

  2. Obvious by smcn · · Score: 5, Funny

    WHO Declares H1N1's Spread Officially a Pandemic

    I don't know, I'm asking YOU!

    1. Re:Obvious by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1, Funny

      It must have been Dr. WHO, since he obviously has medical education.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Obvious by fwice · · Score: 1

      do you know of any major organizations that are similar the CDC?
      <Lucent> who?
      <Thumb> center for disease control
      <Lucent> i said WHO
      <Thumb> what? i'm asking you
      <Lucent> World Health Organization

      http://www.bash.org/?4780

    3. Re:Obvious by srk2040 · · Score: 0

      I for one will welcome our new H1N1 flu overlords.

    4. Re:Obvious by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Well, he is the Doctor.

    5. Re:Obvious by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      WHAT was declared a Pandemic?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHO CARES!

    7. Re:Obvious by Intron · · Score: 4, Funny

      CDC?
      No. I'm too far inland.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    8. Re:Obvious by Abreu · · Score: 1

      "FanTAStic!"

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    9. Re:Obvious by Cam42 · · Score: 1

      Great. I new this was coming. *hates puns*

      --
      Warning, the above comment may contain sarcasm. Don't say I didn't warn you.
    10. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHO let the pigs out?
      Oink... Oink, Oink, Oink, Oink!!!
      WHO let the pigs out?

      Apologies to the Baha Men, and to anyone who now wants to kill me b/c they can't get the tune out of their head. :-)

    11. Re:Obvious by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Why yes, yes it does.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    12. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      URGENT! URGENT! LAST MINUTE REPORT!

      Some rumors are starting to spread regarding a strange case of a chronic blogger who declares he's been infected by the AH1N1 virus through his computer's keyboard. According to the lab technicians who have analyzed the blogger's blood, it seems the AH1N1 virus has recombined its genome with the one of a Trojan, giving rise to a totally new kind of virus, which can interact both with humans and computers. An unidentified government official has leaked the comment: "It was just a matter ot time! Don't panic! We're ready to intervene, and you know we're really good at that! Internet! Here we go!"

  3. WHAT's on second by SoupGuru · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... and I DON'T KNOW is on third.

    Let's just get that out of the way first and foremost.

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    1. Re:WHAT's on second by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... and I DON'T KNOW is on third.

      Let's just get that out of the way first and foremost.

      But what's the name of the band on stage?

      Who.

      The name of the band.

      Who.

      No, I want to know who's on stage.

      Yes.

      So you're saying Yes is on stage?

      No, Yes isn't even at this concert.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    2. Re:WHAT's on second by nine-times · · Score: 2, Funny

      If I'm not thinking about it, my immediate response to these stories has been, "Why are we listening to what Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey have to say about viruses?"

    3. Re:WHAT's on second by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Let's just get that out of the way first and foremost.

      Why?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:WHAT's on second by cheezitman2001 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait, let's try this again. Do you see the band on stage?

      No I don't see The Band, that's a different group entirely.

      On stage, Skippy. Look, see the band?

      No I don't.

      Get rid of those John Lennon glasses and look! There, there's the band!

      No, that's not The Band. The Band is performing later on. Who's on stage.

    5. Re:WHAT's on second by Povno · · Score: 1

      I was about to post the obscure Slappy Squirrel reference when I saw you had already beat me to it.
      Quick thinking.

      --
      sudo apt-get lost
    6. Re:WHAT's on second by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

      WHat no Guess Who jokes?

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    7. Re:WHAT's on second by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obscure? Nothing's obscure on slashdot.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    8. Re:WHAT's on second by QRDeNameland · · Score: 2, Funny

      U2 cut that out!!

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    9. Re:WHAT's on second by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Simpsons: "Yes, not the pronoun, but rather a player with the unlikely name, Who, is on first."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re:WHAT's on second by Sen.NullProcPntr · · Score: 5, Funny

      I believe they are referred to as knock-knock jokes;

      Person #1 - Knock knock.
      Person #2 - Who's there?
      Person #1 - Yes, and they just declared a global flu pandemic after holding an emergency meeting.

      ...I don't get it.

    11. Re:WHAT's on second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:WHAT's on second by macxcool · · Score: 1

      Obscure? Nothing's obscure on slashdot.

      Obscure? There's nothing obscure about Animaniacs ;-)

    13. Re:WHAT's on second by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      Wait, Who's Next?

    14. Re:WHAT's on second by Niris · · Score: 1

      Guess Who

    15. Re:WHAT's on second by pnuema · · Score: 1
      Please tell me you are kidding.

      At the risk of having a SWOOSH pointed in my general direction, Who's On First is one of the most famous comedy routines of all time, and it has nothing to do with a cartoon.

    16. Re:WHAT's on second by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Funny

      Swoosh? Is someone going to throw a Nike at you?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    17. Re:WHAT's on second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, who throws a winged goddess of victory?

    18. Re:WHAT's on second by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      "This is a farewell kiss, you dog!"

    19. Re:WHAT's on second by slater86 · · Score: 1

      http://bash.org/?514353
      Stupid fucking Google
      "The" is a common word, and was not included in your search
      "Who" is a common word, and was not included in your search

      --
      When people ask if I'm an optimist, I say "I hope so". --Bill Bailey
    20. Re:WHAT's on second by Rue+C+Koegel · · Score: 1

      all of you have clearly reached Nirvana!

      --
      DON'T CAPITALIZE! CO-OPERATE! AND FREE EVERYTHING!
  4. "H1N1" by plus_M · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I admit I'm not the most knowledgeable about this topic, but I *do* know that H1N1 is not a very specific name for this influenza strain. In the past, we have named influenza outbreaks such as these after their country of origin (see Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu, Asian Flu), and in light of this I think a more appropriate name would be "Mexican Flu".

    1. Re:"H1N1" by TinBromide · · Score: 4, Funny

      I want it to be called swine flu again. That way bacon will be super cheap again.

      --
      Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    2. Re:"H1N1" by Spazztastic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Mexican Flu".

      With the politically correct liberal media, we can't have that name or it will possibly hurt the tourism in Mexico.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    3. Re:"H1N1" by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With the politically correct liberal media, we can't have that name or it will possibly hurt the tourism in Mexico.

      You mean more than their continual reporting of violence including beheadings in Mexico, which has claimed only one tourist life... and there are indications that he was actually there on some sort of nefarious business?

      The liberal news media is a conservative myth.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:"H1N1" by plus_M · · Score: 1

      I don't think naming it the "Mexican Flu" is going to hurt the tourism to Mexico any more than the knowledge that the strain did, in fact, originate in Mexico and the massive number of reported cases in Mexico already have. And besides, as I mentioned, there is a precedent.

    5. Re:"H1N1" by werfu · · Score: 5, Informative

      Naming it Mexican flu wouldn't not be right, because, for now, the strain is not higly virulent and doesn't kill really much. The WHO as declared it pandemic, but it's more in a move to try to stop the viral spread and help reduce the chance of a mutation. If the virus mutate and mix with H5N1, then we could be in serious trouble. And even then, lets just hope it doesn't mix with something even more deadly.

    6. Re:"H1N1" by sexconker · · Score: 0

      "The liberal news media is a conservative myth" is a liberal media myth.

    7. Re:"H1N1" by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      I want it to be called swine flu again. That way bacon will be super cheap again.

      That's genius! I live in a small town, so the supermarket's always out of the bacon I like.

      *Logs in to facbeook, and starts spamming about swine flu to local friends and family in a gloomy tone*

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    8. Re:"H1N1" by MrMista_B · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to mention, didn't the virus origionaly originate in the US?

      I vote we call it 'Freedom Flu'. :)

    9. Re:"H1N1" by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > I *do* know that H1N1 is not a very specific name ...
      > in light of this I think a more appropriate name would be "Mexican Flu".

      DOES NOT COMPUTE

    10. Re:"H1N1" by Spazztastic · · Score: 5, Funny

      "The liberal news media is a conservative myth" is a liberal media myth.

      The "liberal media news is a conservative myth is a liberal media myth" is a conservative myth.

      OH NO! WE'VE ENTERED INFINITE RECURSION!

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    11. Re:"H1N1" by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The news media is an entertainment media myth.

    12. Re:"H1N1" by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      "The liberal news media is a conservative myth is a liberal media myth" is a conservative myth.

      Fun! Who's got the next one?

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    13. Re:"H1N1" by Spazztastic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think naming it the "Mexican Flu" is going to hurt the tourism to Mexico any more than the knowledge that the strain did, in fact, originate in Mexico and the massive number of reported cases in Mexico already have. And besides, as I mentioned, there is a precedent.

      plus_M, I've talked to people who still think that you can get it from eating pork products. People in general are stupid, and these same people are the ones who avoided Toronto when SARS hit.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    14. Re:"H1N1" by dk90406 · · Score: 1, Informative

      The full name is "Infuenza A H1N1" which is specific (and boring). You are right about H1N1 being a being generic for the proteins in the family Influenza A H1N1 belongs to.

    15. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ah, Slashdot. I can always rely on you to provide more examples of the sheer banality of paranoid conservative crazy.

    16. Re:"H1N1" by dzfoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >> Fun! Who's got the next one?

      No. Who Declared H1N1's Spread Officially a Pandemic.

      Pay attention!

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    17. Re:"H1N1" by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Yea, that's why we called it "swine flu" even through it wasn't present in swine at the time (or, from what I read, transmittable by ingestion). After all, it's not like it could possibly cause a baseless backlash against the pork industry.

    18. Re:"H1N1" by twidarkling · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, you don't get it by eating pork. that's how you get tapeworms. you get swine flu by porking pigs.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    19. Re:"H1N1" by StackedCrooked · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here in Belgium it's called Mexican flu.

    20. Re:"H1N1" by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The liberal news media is a conservative myth

      Just ask the majority of reporters and news producers, who explicitly identify themselves as left-leaning and left-voting. They'll tell you it's not a myth. But they'll try to make every feel better about it by mentioning that, of course, their own world view and the way they want things like elections to wind up would never influence their editorial and reporting decisions, ever, ever, ever. No sirree.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    21. Re:"H1N1" by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you don't get it by eating pork. that's how you get tapeworms. you get swine flu by porking pigs.

      Giggity.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    22. Re:"H1N1" by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The news media is an entertainment media myth.

      Sir, I doff my hat to thee.

      In response to those who say that reporters self-identifying as liberal is relevant, please consider the economic reality of what is published and how it is edited before making ignorant remarks like that... as I failed to do when I referred to the 'news media' as if it were there to report the news or something.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:"H1N1" by Count+of+Montecristo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed it would be appropriate, although human idiocy knows no bounds. H1N1 is a neutral, politically correct, idiocy-avoiding name. There you have the Egyptian Government culling a ridiculous number of swine, just to show that the government was doing something, but hey, its "Swine Flu", swines must die! , Not to mention the Chinese Government confining Mexican Tourists -healthy Mexican Tourists, mind you- just because they were Mexican.

      The reasoning was similar, "Hey, its the Mexican Flu, let's quarantine Mexicans!"... There are other examples of Xenophobia being triggered by associating Mexico with the desease, not to mention the disaster in the Tourism industry in Mexico.

      So, while i concurr that previous practice was acceptable (Spanish Flu, et al), the current near-instantaneous information transfer and given the unlimited ability for human idiocy, A/H1N1 Influenza, is quite acceptable. After All, if you call it Human Influenza will any government risk culling humans? how about getting rid of the pesky furry H1N1s? oh, wait! H1N1 actually designates the virus... guess it is as correct as any name.

      --
      *shower*
    24. Re:"H1N1" by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      But they'll try to make every feel better about it by mentioning that, of course, their own world view and the way they want things like elections to wind up would never influence their editorial and reporting decisions, ever, ever, ever. No sirree.

      And they'd Rather quit than have it influence their fact-checking too.

    25. Re:"H1N1" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I will do my best to support you; occasionally my local Grocery Outlet gets a case or two of some no-nitrate/nitrite bacon, I can only imagine driving down the demand in the primary market will increase the supply at my local one...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberals claim conservative bias and conservatives claim liberal bias. That said, I really, truly believe that the majority of news media outlets lean left, but then we must examine the chicken-egg-farmer argument to determine which came first: left leaning populace, left-leaning politicians, or left-leaning media. I think they form a feedback loop where limited conjecture on one node starts the whole mess a-twirling. I'm fairly certain we'll see a right-shift in the near future as the three can only keep the ball in the air for so long before they drop it and start sucking each other off.

      And then repeat. Always repeat.

    27. Re:"H1N1" by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative
      "And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the 'liberal media.'"
      -- New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt on the MoveOn.org ad, Sept. 23, 2007

      "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is."
      -- headline and first paragraph of column by New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent, July 25, 2004

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    28. Re:"H1N1" by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've talked to people who still think that you can get it from eating pork products. People in general are stupid, and these same people are the ones who avoided Toronto when SARS hit.

      Over the last 5 years more people have been killed in the US by swine flu than by terrorists. If you buy into terrorism fear-mongering, as so many people seem to do along with just about the entire news reporting industry, it's no surprise people would buy into all kinds of crazy fears about swine flue.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    29. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I admit I'm not the most knowledgeable about this topic, but I *do* know that H1N1 is not a very specific name for this influenza strain. In the past, we have named influenza outbreaks such as these after their country of origin (see Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu, Asian Flu), and in light of this I think a more appropriate name would be "Mexican Flu".

      Spanish Flu came from Kansas. The reason it's called the Spanish Flu is because Spanish newspapers covered it first.

    30. Re:"H1N1" by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      A curious artifact of nomenclature. Since when do we really call pigs "swine"? OK, I know they both mean the same thing, but why not just call it "pig flu"?

    31. Re:"H1N1" by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...didn't the virus origionaly originate in the US?

      No, it subsequently originated in the US. It originally originated in Mexico - And has originated there several times since. And it keeps originating all over the place - When will all of this originating end?!?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    32. Re:"H1N1" by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Precisely why I want this to happen. I'm booking a trip to Cabo this summer.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    33. Re:"H1N1" by ChefInnocent · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I bought some spare ribs for $0.58/lb the other day, and boneless pork chops for $1.38/lb. I haven't seen these prices in a very long time. Bring on the swine flu. I don't suppose we can have a bovine plague?

    34. Re:"H1N1" by mooingyak · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Who Declared H1N1's Spread Officially a Pandemic." is a liberal media myth.

      So there.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    35. Re:"H1N1" by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's too close to pig-fu, and you certainly don't want to piss off a 300lbs tusked boar with martial arts training!

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    36. Re:"H1N1" by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I know you guys are joking, but you might want to sort of be careful in doing so.

      The law that Oprah was sued on over the mad cow disease case is still in effect. She only got off because her show attempted to inform people of he issue and not effect prices or the market (well, it's more technical then that but it can be boiled down to that).

      Anyways, your comments are specifically addressing one of the points that got her off but in the opposite direction which would have convicted her.

      Just so you know. I don't think anyone thought about that in the heat of the "joke and fun".

    37. Re:"H1N1" by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they call it the Belgian Flu in Mexico?

    38. Re:"H1N1" by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      *cough* ;-)

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    39. Re:"H1N1" by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Ted Turner on the PBS Charlie Rose program (and no I don't have the link but it's true), said that his biggest fear in starting CNN was that if a right leaning or centered 24 hour news Chanel started up before they started making it really go, it would have ended CNN altogether.

      This wasn't the first time he has said something like that. It is the first time I personally heard him say it. People have claimed CNN to be left leaning for years and it appears that the founder designed it that way.

    40. Re:"H1N1" by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      No, they called it a pandemic because it fits the definition of "pandemic" in the context of the WHO. Which basically states that it's affecting two or more geographic regions at a time.

      When you get right down to it, a pandemic really isn't that scary unless the disease itself is. Given their definition, the flu, the cold, HIV, measels, mumps, rubella, staph., cholera, and tuberculosis are all pandemics too. But you don't see them making headlines on sensationalist media outlets - though the reason is self evident.

      --

      Question everything

    41. Re:"H1N1" by RDW · · Score: 3, Informative

      'Infuenza A H1N1' is really no more specific than just 'H1N1', since all H1N1 flu viruses are Influenza A. There doesn't seem to be a generally agreed name that's both snappy and specific, so you'll see things like 'Novel H1N1 Influenza' and '2009 A/H1N1'. Virologists use more detailed identifiers for individual isolates, like 'A/New York/3002/2009(H1N1)'.

    42. Re:"H1N1" by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Except it most likely did not originate in Mexico.

      And thats that.

      --
      NO SIG
    43. Re:"H1N1" by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Thing is... it most likely did not originate in Mexico.

      --
      NO SIG
    44. Re:"H1N1" by oldhack · · Score: 1

      But we all know Be, excuse me, you're a vulgar lot.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    45. Re:"H1N1" by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Its cheap cause of the crisis plus the influenza. Also, the state where cabo is (Baja California Sur), is by far the one with least cases of H1N1 and (as you know) its hot and dry as hell in the summer. You WILL NOT get any kind of sickness. And even if you did, there is a great, shiny new amerimed clinic just there.

      --
      NO SIG
    46. Re:"H1N1" by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Aint "Belgian" a brand of waffles?

      --
      NO SIG
    47. Re:"H1N1" by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just ask the majority of reporters and news producers, who explicitly identify themselves as left-leaning and left-voting.

      Just ask the majority of owners of news organizations, who explicitly identify themselves as right-leaning and right-voting.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    48. Re:"H1N1" by alexborges · · Score: 1

      All three belgians call it that?

      Preposterous!

      --
      NO SIG
    49. Re:"H1N1" by werfu · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is pandemic as of their standard, but as you said, declaring Herpes pandemic wouldn't help nothing. What I was saying, is they made the move mostly for prevention reason. Leave this virus spread freely alone wouldn't be that bad. But once the virus hit a hotspot were it can mutate to something nastier, now we'd be in deep shit.

    50. Re:"H1N1" by y_axis · · Score: 1

      New Mexico: Cleaner than real Mexico.

    51. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viruses don't 'mix'.

    52. Re:"H1N1" by dk90406 · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate being proven wrong, I learn on the few occasions :-)

    53. Re:"H1N1" by Omestes · · Score: 1

      "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is."
      -- headline and first paragraph of column by New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent, July 25, 2004

      Good, you got the title, but what did the article itself say?

      That said, I think it is dumb we break naming conventions because of the Mexican tourist trade (and those ultrasensitive Caucasians who like to take offense for others, espeically if their is a policy debate they can naively call racist), and the pork industry decide that the name is an attack on them. Why the hell does politics even come to play in this? Its a virus, it doesn't care about your opinion of Mexico, or whether or whether not you swear brand fealty to Tyson pork products.

      And being a pandemic, it doesn't even care about your nationality, so why does the U.S. and Mexico get to dictate terms?

      Hasn't things gone a bit far now?

      Back to the media, yes there is a left wing media, and it sucks (though I do have a soft-spot for Rachel Maddow), there also is a right wing media. Both of them are good at spreading FUD for ratings, and reinterpreting neutral facts towards what their viewers want to hear. And selectively ignoring proof against stupid partisan talking points, and the trite advertising-esque crap out pols through at us (Barak Obama birth certificate people I'm looking at you, you too Keith Olbermann in general) This, we might find, has always been somewhat true, even if the rapid blending of "Yellow" and "investigative" journalism is troubling, as is the further blending of news content with entertainment and blatant editorializing. Both "sides" do it though.

      Smart people ignore the spin, and just take in the facts, they always have. Its called critical thinking, the modern dearth of this is much more disturbing than silly rants about the media not fully representing your opinion of what the truth is.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    54. Re:"H1N1" by omris · · Score: 1

      I always thought similarly, but my science mind went to "porcine" instead of "pig". Also it nips the pesky Pig-fu martial arts confusion in the bud.

    55. Re:"H1N1" by papabob · · Score: 1

      Funny, because Spanish Flu didn't started in Spain. It was only a neutral country in WWI and their newspapers weren't censored by "war reasons" and were able to talk about the pandemic.

    56. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So journalists -- the people whose job it is to go out and gather facts about how the world really works -- are left leaning.

      And scientific academics and researchers -- the people whose job it is to think deeply about how things work -- are left-leaning.

      Meanwhile businessmen -- the people whose job it is to make money for themselves at the expense of everyone else -- are right-leaning.

      And uneducated people are right-leaning.

      I'd have to conclude conclude that the real objective truth out there itself leans towards the left.

    57. Re:"H1N1" by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      Some government guy from Israel wanted it to be called "Mexican Flu" because it appears they can't (or shouldn't) name the pig as it's unclean, or something of the sort. Of course, Mexico complained about discrimination (like it did when flights from Mexico to my country were canceled).

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    58. Re:"H1N1" by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Why then is it the only flu strain that doesn't have a name?

      Even if it is related, via proteins, to what we used to call "swine flu"?

      Why didn't anyone get up in arms about the "bird flu" hubbub?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    59. Re:"H1N1" by levicivita · · Score: 1

      And I say: The """""""""liberal media news is a liberal myth" is a conservative myth" is a liberal myth" is a conservative myth" is a liberal myth" is a conservative myth" is a liberal myth" is a conservative myth" is a liberal myth"
      P.S. Please don't bother replying to this. All I have to do is run my little script© to skip through the next n replies:
      #!/bin/sh recText() { if [ $1 -gt 1 ]; then i=`expr $1 - 1` if [ $(($1 % 2 )) -eq 0 ]; then j=`echo \"$2 is a liberal myth\"` else j=`echo \"$2 is a conservative myth\"` fi k=`recText $i "$j"` echo $k else echo $2 fi } echo "The `recText 10 "liberal media news"`"

    60. Re:"H1N1" by Omestes · · Score: 1

      So we should dumb down language for the lowest common denominator? How dumb can we make everything before even the dumbest among us won't be able to use it towards the ends of incomprehensible stupidity?

      Damn, I might have used too many syllables, a moron might get angry at their lack of reading skills.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    61. Re:"H1N1" by Toutatis · · Score: 1

      Spanish Flu came from Kansas. The reason it's called the Spanish Flu is because Spanish newspapers covered it first.

      Spanish newspapers covered if frist because in 1918 Spain's neighbor countries were in WW1 and censoring its problems.

    62. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people are just real stupid and project that stupidity on to others. You are one of these that have bought into the little game that has been played for political and monetary reasons while risking lives.

      Swine Flu appears to move quite freely from human to pig and vice versa. Now, do you think a farmer is going to jump up and down and shout MY PIGS HAVE SWINE FLU?! Anyway, you most certainly CAN catch the flu from these pigs (while alive) and there is a decent chance of catching it from the food. UNLESS you handle and cook the pork properly. I always have done this and always will. Most people do not. Many like their pork chops extra juicy and undercooked. Look at all of the E. Coli beef infections which occur...this is purely a result of poor handling and improper cooking.

      W.H.O. and CDC BOTH tell you quite clearly to cook and handle your pork products properly to avoid infection with this disease, amongst others. Now, by the time that gets filtered through the pork industry lobbyists and corrupt politicians(many of the same bastards will tell you E-85 SAVES you money), what you hear on the boob tube is a huge effort to change the name of this disease rather than efforts to protect people from it. At this point, gullible SOBs (such as yourself), believe the Influenza A(H1N1)North American/Human Virus has NOTHING to do with pigs. Congratulations: you are an idiot!

      P.S. I eat bacon, pork chops, and ham frequently...love 'em. Are many people stupid? Yes. Many would likely quit eating pork under false pretenses (so, lets risk lives by HIDING the real dangers, right!?) and others, like you, buy into the bullshit. You know what is worse than all of this? The complete loss of faith in the government during a health crisis because of all of the bullshit spilling out. Biden told the truth...a half dozen high ranking government officials stood up and lied their asses off (in plain fracking view) to cover up Biden's truth. And what did the media, you, and most others think was important? Making fun of Biden for being a dumbass.

      This is more deadly and dangerous than the seasonal flu. That said, we MAY have less deaths this year, all around from flu, because of the widespread use of Tamiflu (normally only given to the old and young children). Think they are doing that for no reason...risking creating a Tamiflu resistant strain? 16% of teenagers given Tamiflu produce Tamiflu resistant virus in their bodies...widespread death and destruction is being risked by this "overuse" of Tamiflu. They wouldn't be overusing it if there wasn't a good reason to.

    63. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no! He's got the flu! And he's spreading it via ASCII. Back away from the comment thread people.

    64. Re:"H1N1" by flydude18 · · Score: 1

      break;

    65. Re:"H1N1" by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      In the past, we have named influenza outbreaks such as these after their country of origin (see Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu, Asian Flu)

      Well, except that the 1918 flu pandemic ("Spanish Flu") seems to have originated in the US; but it originated during WWI, and most of the countries it hit were suppressing information about it as part of wartime censorship. Spain was one of the first countries hit where it was highly visible because information regarding the epidemic wasn't actively suppressed.

    66. Re:"H1N1" by sexconker · · Score: 3, Funny

      At least make it semi-readable.

      recText() {

          if [ $1 -gt 1 ];

          then

              i=`expr $1 - 1`

              if [ $(($1 % 2 )) -eq 0 ];

                  then j=`echo \"$2 is a liberal myth\"`

                  else j=`echo \"$2 is a conservative myth\"`

              fi

              k=`recText $i "$j"`

              echo $k

          else echo $2

      fi

      }

      echo "The `recText 10 "liberal media news"`"

    67. Re:"H1N1" by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yay for corrupt protectionism! We have to make it illegal to call things what they are to protect the industrialists who own Congress! Yay!

    68. Re:"H1N1" by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      If you think journalism has anything to do with truth you're an idiot. I'm not even accusing them of bias. Pure incompetence is more than enough to keep the truth from ever showing up in the news. *COUGH*Dan Rather*COUGH*

    69. Re:"H1N1" by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Ted Turner

      CAPTAIN PLAAANEEET!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    70. Re:"H1N1" by Rycross · · Score: 1

      My fiance thought that you could get it from eating pork. I told her that you couldn't. She told me that the news had been saying that you could get it from pigs. This was in Japan. Its not necessarily stupidity on the part of regular people, but rather being improperly informed. I doubt that your average person is going to do do research into the disease beyond what they are told in the news.

    71. Re:"H1N1" by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      We had one, Mad Cow Disease. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE caused lots of healthy beef to be burned at the st[eak|ake] to satisfy the knee-jerk reaction crowd. Cases of CJD are still turning up and beef didn't get any cheaper.

      Turkeys had a go recently too.
      I'm sure that this is all a ploy by the Bildeberg Group to turn us all into under-nourished vegetarians who are so weak we can't stand up for ourselves when they take over the world.

      Take the tinfiol off that pork and get it on my head!

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    72. Re:"H1N1" by ChefInnocent · · Score: 1

      The difference is that for BSE they were killing the cows and wasting the meat. With the pigs, they are still bringing the meet to the market. So, what I want is an inappropriately named bovine plague that will kill people (not cows) that drops the price of beef.

    73. Re:"H1N1" by yenne · · Score: 1

      Over the last 5 years more people have been killed in the US by swine flu than by terrorists.

      You can't be serious. What about the last eight years?

      Your analogy would have worked better with automobile accidents, heart attacks related to poor health habits, lightning strikes, or even suicides.

    74. Re:"H1N1" by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      *nods* It was indeed a right-winger that derided someone for being a member of the "reality-based community"...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    75. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the past, we have named influenza outbreaks such as these after their country of origin (see Spanish Flu...)

      Only, as far as we can ascertain, "Spanish" influenza originated in the USA. But why admit such a thing when you can blame those dirty foreigners, huh?

    76. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anon because I work for the CDC Flu Division, but can't really comment in any official capacity.

      H1N1 is not specific, considering that we have a seasonal virus of the same type currently circulating. Wikipedia gets the gist of it right, but fails to nail down the details.

      H1N1 refers to all of the following:

      * The 1918 pandemic virus. It circulated until 1957. This typically gets called '1918' specifically, or 'historical H1' if you are talking about the stuff that circulated for the next 40 years.

      *The virus that was reintroduced in 1977. It looks to be similar to a 1955 virus, and was probably reintroduced due to a lab mistake in Russia. The descendants of this virus are still circulating today - if you've had a flu shot recently, you've been vaccinated against this. We typically call this 'seasonal H1' - no N1 usually, because H1N2 puts on the occasional appearance in humans. Only in the past few years have we started tracking the NA gene consistently so that we can check for TamiFlu resistance.

      *Any number of avian viruses. Birds are the major carriers of most kinds of flu, and there is no large scale monitoring of what all exists in that population - yet. This is 'avian H1'.

      *Any number of older swine viruses. H1N1 has been in pigs for quite a while. This is typically 'classic swine H1'.

      *North American triple-reassortant swine viruses. These are viruses that circulate in swine, occasionally infect humans, but don't tend to spread human-to-human very well. This is usually 'triple-reassortant classic swine H1' - no H1N1 here, because sometimes it is H1N2 instead, just to confuse things.

      *Eurasian swine virues. A whole other lineage of swine viruses. They are similar to the classical swine viruses in North America. Recently, the North American stuff has been circulating in Eurasia as well, so the geographical naming doesn't really work.

      *The '2009 H1N1 swine-lineage' outbreak virus, which is what we are talking about here. This is a mixture of triple-reassortant swine H1, the Eurasian swine H1, and yet another swine-adapted H1 that we've never really seen before (surveillance in pigs has been horrible until this outbreak - people are paying *much* closer attention now).

      We can't call it swine flu because the pork board gets pissy. We can't call it Mexican flu because the Mexican gov't gets pissy. There is some speculation that it might have actually originated in a country other than Mexico, but if you try to name it after any of those countries, they'll get their panties in a bunch, too.

      The (current) designation in official circles is 'H1 swl', meaning that the HA gene is derived from the 2009 outbreak lineage.

      All of this is the outgrowth of some arbitrary classification rules that were put in place years ago having to do with genetic distances between viruses and antigenic cross reactivity (how well your immune system recognizes this virus if it has been trained to recognize that virus).

      Those classifications stick because they are useful, but they don't really describe all the various tricks that the virus does very well.

      Me? I like the 'Bacon Lung' name that was in vogue here for a bit. It's just as accurate as anything else!

    77. Re:"H1N1" by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      businessmen -- the people whose job it is to make money for themselves at the expense of everyone else

      Ah, spoken like someone who has never run a business or cultivated customers (and kept them for years). Of course the role of a business is to make money. Their purpose is to reward the risk of putting your time and resources into running the business. And the rewards don't happen without customers - generally, repeat customers. Your fantasy comic book villain notion of "bussinessmen" betrays a twelve-year-old's understanding of what business actually is. That is, a twelve year old kid who's never mowed a lawn, walked a dog, or sold lemonade to generate comic book money.

      And scientific academics and researchers -- the people whose job it is to think deeply about how things work

      In my experience, many academics and ressearchers suffer from paralyzing tunnel vision, and are more focused on getting grants and tenure first, and actual productive research second, and a balanced, informed world view (that includes things like where money actually comes from) as a distant third.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    78. Re:"H1N1" by Abreu · · Score: 1

      You mean more than their continual reporting of violence including beheadings in Mexico, which has claimed only one tourist life... and there are indications that he was actually there on some sort of nefarious business?

      Thanks drinkypoo... I was about to point out that drugdealers here in Mexico usually don't bother tourists at all.

      All the beheadings and shootouts are between rival cartels and their army/police allies/enemies.

      If you have no relation to the drug business (and you stay away from the more seedy parts of the northern cities), you have nothing to fear in Mexico.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    79. Re:"H1N1" by instagib · · Score: 1

      Although the first known victims of this flu strain were reported from Mexico (City), some genetic analysis actually traced the origin to North Carolina: http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/05/swine-flu-genes-traced-to-north-carolina-hog-farm.html

    80. Re:"H1N1" by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I believe it was a Texas state law but because it was broad cast in TX, it applied. I'm not sure if it was all congress or not.

      Anyways, the intent of the law is so that people can't ruin farmers by telling lies and making their crop/product spoil or lose to much value before being sold. Farmers work from a very small margin with tons of capitol at stake. A run away from some specific markets has the potential of bankrupting quite a few of them.

    81. Re:"H1N1" by ailnlv · · Score: 1

      You can also name diseases after time periods, like the dreaded saturday night fever

    82. Re:"H1N1" by the-matt-mobile · · Score: 1

      Over the last 5 years more people have been killed in the US by swine flu than by terrorists.

      In the last 5 years, more American's have been killed by terrorists in the Middle East than by swine flu. It's all about how you phrase it. With only 141 total deaths, while tragic, the swine flu is not really very lethal unless you're old, young, or infirm. You're taking significantly more risk driving to work than exposing yourself to swine flu.

    83. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like one of the plethora of US immigrant visas. H1B1, H1N1, ... (actually the "N" class visas EXIST and are for dependents of "special" immigrants - like nukulear (can we still say nuclear that way? no, its like so 2004..) scientists, etc).

    84. Re:"H1N1" by Trogre · · Score: 1

      You do realise that right now most of the world is laughing at the American news media, that would have us believe that a man has recently given birth (again). I don't think many conservatives would be afraid to call a woman in trousers exactly that.

      Then again I suppose that's just part of the ever-onward drive for sensationalism...

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    85. Re:"H1N1" by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      The ignorance of other people is not my problem and I will not change my language because of it. If they don't understand that niggardly isn't a racist term, fuck them.

    86. Re:"H1N1" by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Exactly my thought when the university sent out their usual hysterical e-mail about the "pandemic."

      I also noticed that the fatality figures they gave put the death rate at about 0.9%. IIRC that's actually less than the average for regular old flu.

    87. Re:"H1N1" by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Delete the word "swine" from his post and it's true for any stretch of time you care to contemplate.

    88. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In the last 5 years, more American's have been killed by terrorists in the Middle East than by swine flu. It's all about how you phrase it.

      Yeah, it is all about how you phrase it. Attacks on the military are not terrorism, they are asymmetric warfare.

      And if you watch Red Dawn, they are freedom fighters.

    89. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be 'capital' not 'capitol' look it up.

    90. Re:"H1N1" by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      yes there is a left wing media, and it sucks, there also is a right wing media

      And to pretend that these have any sort of equal power is just ridiculous. Let's see: on the right there is Fox and AM radio. Are you kidding me?? Freaking AM radio? *That* leftover from the 50s is the great fortress of rightism?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    91. Re:"H1N1" by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I still know a lot of people who listen to AM radio on their commutes. The fact that every broadcast area has at least one right-wing AM radio station attests to this.

      I personally don't think there is any great fortress of liberalism, or conservatism. I think we're dealing with a squeaky wheel problem, the vocal minority gets the attention, the centrist majority (wrong choice in words perhaps, lets say the majority who picks and chooses emulating centrism) gets ignored.

      If the media was so leftist, then how can you explain Bush being elected twice. Either your premise is wrong, or no one cares. Either way, then, it doesn't matter to much.

      Notice how both sides complain about this.

      Personally I think anyone who identifies with the left or the right are morons. Both parties, views, have good points and bad, but to accept a whole package is rather... lazy.

      Personally I'm a social libertarian, and a socialist. Not completely, but they are the closest labels. I think the "liberals" should stay out of social laws (as should the religious factions), and the "conservatives" should bugger out of the economy. But not completely for either preposition.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    92. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      add the racist() variable

    93. Re:"H1N1" by The+Grassy+Knoll · · Score: 1

      Well I rang the WHO Swine Flu hotline, but all I got was crackling.
      Thank you, I'm here all weeeeeeeek.

      .

      --
      They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
    94. Re:"H1N1" by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Are you sure?

      I admit my information is from mainstream media, which sucks at these things, but my understanding is that this Influenza strain is the first to use a new naming scheme, and got the name "Influenza A". Thus all H1N1 are not Influenza A, only those derived from the Mexican/Swine flu strain of 2009.

    95. Re:"H1N1" by RDW · · Score: 1

      Yes, absolutely sure. Try a search at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ for "Influenza A", and you'll see papers this term going back to the 1940s. H1N1 designates a subset of Influenza A viruses that include (e.g.) the 1918 'Spanish Flu' and the current pandemic 'swine flu' strain. The H5N1 'bird flu' is also Influenza A. For a good overview, see:

      http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/swineflu/biofacts/swinefluoverview.html

      At a quick glance, this wikipedia page looks OK:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomyxoviridae

    96. Re:"H1N1" by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      No, it's a swear word.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    97. Re:"H1N1" by thexile · · Score: 1

      No, American Flu is more appropriate.

    98. Re:"H1N1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to say that indoctrination is a function of the time of exposure?

    99. Re:"H1N1" by treeves · · Score: 1

      Yeah, especially since it's NOT "Mad Bovine Disease", and "Feline Scratch Fever"!

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  5. /. vs. WHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am glad /. thinks so highly of itself to tag this announcement by the WHO as 'overreaction.' I suppose I should have seen that coming.

    1. Re:/. vs. WHO by megamerican · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The WHO claims they are making this level 6 because it is spreading globally and it has nothing to do with the severity. So why don't they do this for any seasonal flu that spreads globally every year?

      If you read the legal definitions of what the WHO can do when it is level 6 is very scary. They can take your property, forcibly vaccinate you, quarantine you for an indefinite amount of time all with zero proof of anything.

      The few people who have actually died and had swine flu were all very ill before they were infected.

      Now for some comedy.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    2. Re:/. vs. WHO by Heed00 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The WHO claims they are making this level 6 because it is spreading globally...

      Bah. It's now level six because it camped respawn spots and got the required XP to level.

      --
      Thought thinks itself.
    3. Re:/. vs. WHO by Eevee · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying your wrong, I'm not saying you're right, but...according to the fine article,

      It is the first flu pandemic in 40 years - the last in 1968 killed about one million people.

      So the WHO seems to be using a different definition than you are for pandemics.

    4. Re:/. vs. WHO by megamerican · · Score: 1

      However, designed with the threat of a much more lethal H5N1 bird flu pandemic in mind, the present alert system reflects only the spread of the disease and not its virulence.

      FT

      They are basically admitting that they are selectively enforcing their definition of a pandemic. Every year a flu virus spreads to many parts of the globe and kills as many if not more people but they don't raise or use pandemic levels.

      This appears to be a beta test meant to see how their systems of control work throughtout each country for when a serious pandemic is released.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    5. Re:/. vs. WHO by bjourne · · Score: 1

      Isn't the reason for that, at least partially, because the virus is expected to make a comeback in the autumn when the temperatures drop? Influenza viruses does not do to well in temperatures above 15C but spread much faster when it is just above 0C. At that point, the virus could very well mutate with a regular seasonal influenza virus and become just as deadly as the worst scenarios predict.

    6. Re:/. vs. WHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The WHO claims they are making this level 6 because it is spreading globally and it has nothing to do with the severity. So why don't they do this for any seasonal flu that spreads globally every year?

      If you read the legal definitions of what the WHO can do when it is level 6 is very scary. They can take your property, forcibly vaccinate you, quarantine you for an indefinite amount of time all with zero proof of anything.

      The few people who have actually died and had swine flu were all very ill before they were infected.

      Now for some comedy.

      Because people in the world have immunity against the widespread influenza virus, I'd guess - whereas this strain is unknown to man and its immune system. Influenza viruses that have been around for some time just don't have the same potential to spread and wreak havoc.

    7. Re:/. vs. WHO by rgarbacz · · Score: 1
      There is no reason to panic, but there is a good reason to take some actions. According to wikipedia the fatality rate of the swine flu is about 0.4% (in Mexico), were a seasonal flu has the fatality rate < 0.05%. The difference is obvious, despite the fact that the worst for the swine flu will come this autumn.

      The few people who have actually died and had swine flu were all very ill before they were infected.

      I would appreciate some evidences to prove this statement, since what I have heard/read about gives a quite different picture. Lets see, the first case I found on the Internet: Mitchell Wiener, a 55-year-old assistant principal at Intermediate School 238 in Hollis, Queens, died yesterday at Flushing Hospital Medical Center, said Andrew Rubin, a hospital spokesman. Wiener had swine flu and no other pre-existing medical conditions that the hospital knows of, said Rubin in a telephone interview today.

  6. Ya well by COMON$ · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am still heading down to cabo next week for some fishing....I plan on imbibing enough sterilizing fluid to kill any rouge viruses coming into my system. Those that survive my Digestive system wont survive my bloodstream.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    1. Re:Ya well by plus_M · · Score: 0, Troll

      Perhaps you should more thoroughly research the difference between virus and bacteria before you submit yourself to the risks of both alcohol poisoning and the Mexican Flu simultaneously.

    2. Re:Ya well by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 4, Funny

      Although it will probably hurt your chances of getting some thick Mexican pipe, consider avoiding the virus entirely and not applying rouge.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    3. Re:Ya well by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      enough sterilizing fluid to kill any rouge viruses

      Rouge? I can't say I've heard of any red ones before, but that might be because they are small enough that the wavelength of light is such that colour has no meaning.

    4. Re:Ya well by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Alcohol is an effective viricide, capable of 'killing' the flu virus. Don't lecture when your facts are wrong.

      However, it does so only in extremely high concentrations -- over 60-90%. By contrast, blood alcohol is usually lethal at 0.4% concentration, so being drunk isn't an effective method to stop disease.

      That said, it's a fucking flu. More people will die of explosive diarrhea than of the swine flu this year. People need to relax. (Had a flu, odds are it was the swine flu, I lived after being knocked out of commission for a week.)

      --
      It's been a long time.
    5. Re:Ya well by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      So I have been building up my tolerance today...I can spell however I want ;)

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    6. Re:Ya well by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      enough sterilizing fluid to kill any rouge viruses

      Rouge? I can't say I've heard of any red ones before, but that might be because they are small enough that the wavelength of light is such that colour has no meaning.

      Don't be silly! If the viruses weren't different colours you wouldn't know what color pills to drop on 'em to make 'em disappear!

      I put that extra vowel in "colour" just for you. XD

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  7. funny by markringen · · Score: 1

    after it hit europe it's a pandemic. india/china aren't pandemic worthy?

    1. Re:funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It hit Europe more than a month ago, Idiot.

      The new status as mostly due to the somewhat big presence in Australia (1300 infections).

    2. Re:funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pandemic describes how widely a disease has spread. Europe just happened to be the region that pushed the count over the required limit.

    3. Re:funny by WeirdJohn · · Score: 1

      The raised alert is due to the spread in Australia. There are now over 1200 confirmed cases here, with over 1000 of these in the state of Victoria. This is probably a measure of the effectiveness of testing, and our public health system. There are 4 patients in Vic who are in intensive care, but these are all people who "have pre-existing conditions that put them at very high risk". Although it hasn't been stated I wouldn't be surprised if these people have HIV/AIDS or some other serious disorder.

      Most cases do not have people being very sick. One sufferer is on the record as saying "I've had paper cuts that were worse". This doesn't stop the media using phrases like "the deadly swine flu". I have to wonder if the morbidity in Mexico is due to them having gung-ho immune systems due to the environment in places like Mexico City, in which case the disease will have a high morbidity once it hits India, as Indians have amazing immune systems.

    4. Re:funny by markringen · · Score: 1

      not where i live. it only hit my country just (all i can say, i live under sea level..)

  8. Poster Declares WHO's Credibility Officially Dead by sexconker · · Score: 0

    ..

  9. Think of the Trees... by localman57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For years, and years in the United States we fought forest fires in an absolute manner. When you see a fire, put it out completely, ASAP. And slowly fuel that should have burned built up. Until eventually the fires that did break out were so intense that they couldn't fight them anymore. Now that the world population is approaching 7 billion, am I the only one who finds this analogy terrifying?

    1. Re:Think of the Trees... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its the worst in California with all the lawyers masquerading as environmentalists.

      Honestly the best thing for the environment is the CONSERVATIONISTS rather than the environmentalists who live in LA or San Francisco and take weekend trips to the napa valley to "be one with nature", nevermind the fact that the "No tree should be cut ever, no brush should be cleared ever" policy they screech and sue for has cost millions of dollars of taxpayer money (the money California spends fighting the yearly fires caused by uncleared brush is staggering, and if we used 1/10th of that to clear the aforementioned brush and prevent the majority of fires all together) and lives.

      Totally lost my train of thought.

      Personally, I think its all a dystopian plot - If the fires burn hot enough it'll literally just glass the forestland and then nothing will grow there for 5-10 years, I saw this once growing up - scary. When it was glassed it was suddenly not considered forestland anymore and the developers can move right on in with no meaningful environmental impact report required.

      Thank god for the do-gooders at the sierra club.

    2. Re:Think of the Trees... by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For years, and years in the United States we fought forest fires in an absolute manner. When you see a fire, put it out completely, ASAP. And slowly fuel that should have burned built up. Until eventually the fires that did break out were so intense that they couldn't fight them anymore. Now that the world population is approaching 7 billion, am I the only one who finds this analogy terrifying?

      If we left our dead to rot at our feet, I might be concerned. Yes, I know, we're the fuel, and viruses the fire; but we're like dry brush and tinder that can move, wet itself down when it sees fire in the distance, build firewalls, make back-fires, etc.

    3. Re:Think of the Trees... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, the idea I find terrifying is that we should deliberately let millions of humans (presumably, if your aim is to make a noticeable dent in the world population) die from a preventable disease. If that's your aim then presumably you would support using gas chambers for the same purpose since it would achieve the same result but in a more humane way?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    4. Re:Think of the Trees... by localman57 · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong. I'm all for modern medicine. I'm actually a Lymphoma survivor, who would have been absolutely, 100% dead at 30 years old if I'd been born 100 years ago. I'm part of the underbrush... In the end, however, I believe that we are trying to fight forces of nature, and that eventually nature will come up with something that will knock us back into balance. And it will be horrible and scary. But I'm not saying we shouldn't try to prevent it...

    5. Re:Think of the Trees... by Pebble · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes you are...

      Because when we save an infant or an elderly person from the flu they don't wait for the next flu to come around. They either grow up and get a better immune system or they eventually die of something else.

      We don't have a backlog of pensioners and infants who didn't die of the flu before just waiting until the flu comes round again so they can die of it, They don't pile up like dry old logs and brush.

    6. Re:Think of the Trees... by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 1

      You have a very interesting analogy.
      Though, not the high population.

      As viruses in the wildlife and livestock continue to mutate, and humans continue to not be exposed to them because of good luck, good hygiene and a well organized WHO, our lack of resistance to these new strains will build up like deadwood until one day a virus breaks out that we have little resistance to. I'm not about to go trying to contract H1N1 to prevent this. But it is worrysome analogy.

    7. Re:Think of the Trees... by RsG · · Score: 1

      *Sigh* I see this POV every time a novel plague story (fact or fiction) comes up...

      First up, the widespread view in the popular media regarding "overpopulation" is riddled with errors, both factual and logical. So it is very likely you've already been given a skewed view of what the situation is.

      If the global rate of reproduction had remained steady for the past two hundred years, we would not now be at close to seven billion, we'd be much more numerous. The rate at which people have kids is declining. The reasons are too numerous to list here, and range from per-capital wealth to modern sanitation to birth control, but a large part that your view on overpopulation overlooks is the fact that human beings are self-regulating.

      We don't breed to the extent our biology allows - we are one of only a handful of species that exercises choice in the matter. 2 kids to the couple has become the norm in the developed world, and yet would have been considered extremely unusual even a hundred years back. The birthrates in the developing world are variable, but declining. The current continuation of growth is as much about population inertia as anything else, and is not a stable state.

      This does not mean overpopulation isn't an issue. Growth is exponential, and if the human race all decided at once that having lots of kids was the way to go, we'd be in trouble. This is part of what happened in China under Mao; the one child policy came later, as a massive, scrambled overreaction to a nonetheless serious problem.

      Even without such a radical shift, it is obvious we must be cautious of the dangers that large numbers, fragile ecologies and limited resources bring. But the Malthusian predictions of imminent, unstoppable doom date back to the nineteenth century and are just as foolish and as naive now as ever. It is not just that we can avert such disasters; by and large we have averted them, as evidence by our continued, comfortable existence. We should not let ourselves get too complacent or comfortable, but neither should we despair of humanity's inability to control itself when needed.

      Second to this, pandemic disease was not, is not, and never will be a danger to our species. A massive plague like the black death in the medieval period still leaves more alive than dead, and that is about as bad as it can get. If a plague of equal strength hit the human race today, we'd be down to about 4-5 billion. Which is more people than lived even fifty years ago. Remember that even though the rate of reproduction is declining, it's still an exponential equation, and you don't have to go that far back to find populations a fraction of what they are today.

      Finally, never personify nature. She hates that :-) When you hear people talk of the "forces of nature" or "forces of evolution" remind yourself that they would never have gotten through a rudimentary education in biology with that attitude and are therefor most likely speaking from their colon.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    8. Re:Think of the Trees... by Calithulu · · Score: 1

      This isn't the case, though I do agree about the difference between the attitudes of Conservationists and Environmentalists. I know that it is easier to blame a group with an opposing view, and limiting controlled burns certainly didn't help, but since controlled burns are back in use you can't pin the blame entirely on their lack.

      In California we have a major issue with non-native grasses. Every year after a fire we end up with grasses growing in where chaparral plants used to be. They are not from a fire-based ecology as the natives are and they provide the fuel we're seeing now whenever a fire burns. Native plants are slowly being forced out and what replaces them burns very well.

      Take a look at any hillside in southern California (as I am right now). You see a lot of mustard and European grasses, but not much in the way of manzanita, bunch grass (now extinct), Mule Fat, etc. Those grasses burn high and bright, and there is little we can do about it other than keep our homes clear, don't build in areas with a high burn risk (developers be damned), and get used to fighting major fires every year.

      Couple this with the Pine Borer Beetle in the coastal mountains killing, depending on who you listen to, between 40% and 70% of the pine trees and the new Oak Beetle found in San Diego killing Oak trees and we have a little powder keg just waiting to go off.

    9. Re:Think of the Trees... by RsG · · Score: 1

      That would be more true were it not for the fact that medicine and modern living does more to strengthen our immune response than weaken it. Remember that people living without such luxuries are the ones who suffer the brunt of disease, and having immune systems weakened by chronic infection and malnutrition is a major factor in that.

      I bet they don't have as many allergies however - that's more a problem for those of us who have immune systems that lack pathogens to expend their strength upon.

      Also, while jumping species increases the danger of a pathogen turning into a major killer (see for example the AIDS epidemic), it is not because the time spent evolving in another organism makes the infection more deadly. Pathogens that kill their hosts are poorly adapted organisms; the best disease is the one that infects and prospers, at the host's expense, but not at the cost of their life (which would end that prosperity). If a disease is adapted to infecting, but not actually killing, an animal, then finds its way into a human, the situation changes. Whatever adaptations it had to cope with its previous host will no longer work.

      This doesn't mean all zoonotic infections are deadly, but then, you never hear about the ones that aren't, do you?

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    10. Re:Think of the Trees... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Exactly! if I thought I had H1N1, I might wet myself.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    11. Re:Think of the Trees... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      The set of humans who have fewer children in areas with higher standards of living are being outbred and supplanted by sets of humans who are not affected.

      It only takes a small subset who are immune to the industrial value meme (personal pleasure in exchange for having fewer kids).

      In the US it is hispanic catholics. In Europe it is Islamics.

      High living standards lowering the population is like hitting bacteria with an antibiotic. It only takes 1% surviving the antibiotic and soon the entire population can ignore it. You are assuming high living standards are 100% effective at reducing population growth.

      ---

      Don't underestimate the black plague. Huge reaches of Europe were abandoned and went back to forest.

      With regard to the H1N1 or other possible super-bug proposed, we have two challenges- increasing population density. Increasing health care expense.

      I could see this exploding in areas like Detroit. It doesn't take much to overwhelm the health care system and I don't think our doctors and nurses are as willing to die as those back in the 1918's were. I think they'll stop showing up to work if they are faced with something aggressive and fatal.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    12. Re:Think of the Trees... by RsG · · Score: 1

      It only takes a small subset who are immune to the industrial value meme (personal pleasure in exchange for having fewer kids).

      In the US it is hispanic catholics. In Europe it is Islamics.

      Sorry in advance for the long post, but I get a bit sick of this. Do you actually believe that, or were you simply told this fact by someone you thought wiser than yourself?

      The only relevant separating factors that those two groups have from the places they've immigrated to are culture and religion. Neither of which survive unchanged in the long term (and when talking about population dynamics, it's the long term that matters). I'll focus on the former group for brevity's sake.

      Among Catholics, there is a world of difference between what is practised among those in the developing and developed world. There is little difference between what is preached, and I want to emphasize that. Regardless of where you are, if you're Catholic, the Padre is going to tell you not to use birth control, ever. Yet this advice is casually disregarded among American and European Catholics. This wasn't always the case, but times have changed.

      Why the difference in practises? Culture. Religion does not exist in a vacuum. It is a part of, and is interpreted by, a larger society of practitioners which may span multiple cultures. Barring small cults that enforce strict and total adherence to dogma (and I'm including some Christian fringe groups in my definition of "cult" here), every religion is practised differently in each culture that its adherents live in.

      Immigrants adjust to the culture they've moved to. They don't think they will, and many people already living there don't think they will either either, but they do. Every single immigrant group thinks it's going to maintain separation and keep its own language and traditions - if this were true, then the people who think of themselves as local would still belong to some immigrant group themselves. There would be no "locals" anywhere at all.

      The only exception I can think of to this is when the immigrating culture kicks out the existing one, such as what happened when Europeans came to North America, but we have a separate word for that - colonization - and it's not what generally goes on today. It took a huge gap in technology to allow that, coupled with massive migration from old world to new, such that the colonists both outgunned and outnumbered the locals.

      If Hispanic Catholics were going to move into the United States and remain totally unaffected by the change in scenery, then I might agree with you. They aren't. Within a variable, but finite, time period, they will become akin to the current batch of American Catholics, who of course aren't reproducing nearly as fast as they would be if the followed all the dogma.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    13. Re:Think of the Trees... by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 1

      well put. I stand corrected.

  10. Weird.... by Drone69 · · Score: 0

    When I first read the subject line I had a sudden hankering for some pork chops and apple sauce. Mmmm.

  11. Swine flu rap. by BlueKitties · · Score: 1, Funny

    Today when I awakened, I saw something that had me shake'n; the WHO was warning of da flu, something new, this strange new Swine flu; now this big 'ol pandemic is causing quite a panic; the media is trip'n, help'n the economy keep slip'n; dum dee dee dum dum; I don't know where to run, so I'll sit here on my bum sip'n on sum rum; dum dee dee dum dum.

    --
    "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    1. Re:Swine flu rap. by Eddy+Luten · · Score: 3, Funny

      Someone get this delirious person a flu shot.

    2. Re:Swine flu rap. by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

      The WHO was on the ball, keeping this outbreak small; I was scared a lot, until I got this shot; now I'm sleep'n sound, 'cause the Swine flu ain't come'n around; bum dum dump dump.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
  12. Like switching to Blue A;art by vmahrra · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of Blue Alert, from Red Dwarf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa_gZ_7sdZg

  13. WHO?... by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    ...Mike Jones

  14. I tell people this by samexner · · Score: 1

    I tell people that freak out about swine flu this:
    - You can get infected when it sinks through your skin
    - If you catch it, it will give you an aneurysm

  15. Symptoms by WillKemp · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can tell if you've got swine flu, because you come out in rashers.

    1. Re:Symptoms by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

      I smell European insidfe joke here... explain...

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    2. Re:Symptoms by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Oh. Maybe. It's Australian. But i guess "rasher" doesn't mean anything in some English speaking countries. A "rasher" is a slice of bacon.

    3. Re:Symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as in rashers (slices) of bacon. used in the UK.

    4. Re:Symptoms by Drafell · · Score: 1

      Enough of the ham jokes, please.

    5. Re:Symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rashers == bacon

    6. Re:Symptoms by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

      Interesting, so what is the plural then of rasher? Rashers or just plain bacon?

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    7. Re:Symptoms by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      People talk about "rashers of bacon".

    8. Re:Symptoms by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      It's a common term in the UK/Ireland also, but not so common in America.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    9. Re:Symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can tell if you've got swine flu, because you come out in rashers.

      Best get some oinkment

  16. 2010 - Year of the **** by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't know if this is just a sick coincidence but....

    2007 - Chinese year of the Chicken - Bird Flu Pandemic devastates parts of Asia
    2008 - Chinese year of the Horse - Equine Influenza decimates Australian racing
    2009 - Chinese year of the Pig - Swine Flu Pandemic kills hundreds of pigs around the globe.

    Has any one else noticed this?

    It gets worse........

    next year......

    2010 - Chinese year of the Cock - what could possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck, H5N1 will be back :-(

    2. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2050 - Year of the Linux Desktop - oh shit...

    3. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2006 Dog Fire 9 Feb 2006 28 Jan 2007
      2007 Pig Fire 29 Jan 2007 16 Feb 2008
      2008 Rat Earth 17 Feb 2008 5 Feb 2009
      2009 Ox Earth 6 Feb 2009 26 Jan 2010
      2010 Tiger Metal 27 Jan 2010 14 Feb 2011

    4. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So 2010 will be bird flu again? oh wait... its a penis joke...

    5. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by Convector · · Score: 5, Informative

      That would be a great observation except that:

      2007 - Chinese year of the Boar
      2008 - Chinese year of the Rat
      2009 - Chinese year of the Ox

      So next year, we should be worried about Tiger Flu.

    6. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      Would be interesting IF that actually was the cycle of the chinese year.

      However, as an AC already pointed out, this is the year of the ox, last year was rat, next is tiger.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_astrology

    7. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I am -so- looking forward to the year of the Dragon now.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    8. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Not to mention there is no year of the chicken, apart from the rooster/cock. Other than that, though, it was brilliant.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    9. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      and guess what 2012 is? Yeah, Year of the Dragon. The Mayan's were right, we're all fucked... well, maybe not depending on what the Year of the Cock has in store :/

      --
      -SaNo
    10. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      Just because I'm a total skeptic, but I still like to get my facts about totally absurd pseudoscience right, I checked and 2009 was not the year of the pig.

      Just making that clear.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    11. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by AioKits · · Score: 4, Funny

      So next year, we should be worried about Tiger Flu.

      Don't worry, I hear it's gonna be GRRRRRREAT!

      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    12. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the GP has more karma than your post, so I'm going to continue to blindly believe him....

      NARY A COCK IS SAFE IN 2010!!!!!!

    13. Re:2010 - Year of the **** by myspace-cn · · Score: 1

      Government Flu you mean..

  17. News for alarmist douches... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Douches,

    Pandemics refer to a disease's spread, not its severity.

    The common cold is also a pandemic.

    1. Re:News for alarmist douches... by Drakin020 · · Score: 1

      Funny, I don't see "The Cold" anywhere on this list.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics

      --
      The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    2. Re:News for alarmist douches... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Oh my god, you mean there's been an oxygen pandemic for centuries now, and I only now just found out about it?!?

    3. Re:News for alarmist douches... by mybecq · · Score: 1

      Pandemics refer to a disease's spread, not its severity.

      I completely agree, and so far haven't seen any details on age-related infection or death rate.

      However, the WHO declaration of a Level 6 pandemic is supposed to cause countries to react in a specific way: closing borders, causing companies to produce much more vaccines, etc. However, the WHO isn't really saying that countries should do that... yet.

    4. Re:News for alarmist douches... by Opyros · · Score: 1

      epidemic!=pandemic

    5. Re:News for alarmist douches... by Fropod · · Score: 1

      Funny, I don't see "The Cold" anywhere on this list.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics

      From same source: "Because it is based on what is "expected" or thought normal, a few cases of a very rare disease may be classified as an "epidemic," while many cases of a common disease (such as the common cold) would not."

    6. Re:News for alarmist douches... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Because it is based on what is "expected" or thought normal, a few cases of a very rare disease may be classified as an "epidemic," while many cases of a common disease (such as the common cold) would not."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemic

  18. Re:Let's play a word game by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Funny

    While we're talking about animal diseases, what about german measles?

    ...That wasn't really fair, I apologize in advance to any germans who may have been offended by that.

  19. Editing for alarmists by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Whether it's called a pandemic or not, [...] we might be in a kind of apocalyptic situation and what we're really seeing now with H1N1 is that in most cases the disease is [...]."

    Fun with selective editing!

    1. Re:Editing for alarmists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, are you an editor for 60 minutes?

  20. Overreaction by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But it IS an overreaction. It's only NOT an overreaction if you're: a politician who is desperately trying to get the public to look the other way, to funnel more public money into private hands... a bureaucrat who is trying to get a promotion by "doing something" and is also very concerned about being labeled as passive if the final tally is 1% higher than normal... or a scientist who is desperately trying to grab more funding or a contract for his very own vaccine-making company.

    It's a paradise for self-interest (and OF self-interest, as well).

    With something like less than 500 deaths worldwide, this is the average equivalent of 3 days worth of seasonal flu... and considering that this virus has had a chance to spread for the past 2 months, I simply cannot fathom it being any more damaging than whatever seasonal flu strain is circulating in the world right now.

    Yet all we get are headlines such as "27'000 infected". Well... how about 500'000 dead?! Cause that's what seasonal flu did last year. Put that in a headline and smoke it.

    1. Re:Overreaction by Allicorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Pandemic" is not a word which implies anything about lethality or how "damaging" the strain is.

      The WHO declaring H1N1 pandemic is not overreaction, hyperbole or scaremongering. The particular strain has reached a specified spread at which point it qualifies for that label.

      Now, the news media's choice of tone and language in reporting on H1N1 is another matter entirely.

      --
      OMG!!! Ponies!!!
    2. Re:Overreaction by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      Fair point. The problem is that sometimes language can be a little funny in that the public understanding of a certain word becomes so heavily diluted with popular stigma, that it loses its descriptiveness. For reference, we can consider the word "theory".

    3. Re:Overreaction by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      This should be called the economic flu. Because as far as I can see it is all about distracting the average people from their current economic panic, long enough for the economy to start recovering. Look at the stock market, look for sudden climbs, then look back and find a troubling flu announcement came out the day before.

      Then again I could be wrong.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    4. Re:Overreaction by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

      Now, the news media's choice of tone and language in reporting on H1N1 is another matter entirely.

      Now, I don't want to say that the media did a perfect job by any means, but in the early days of H1N1's spread in Mexico, the number of deaths reasonably attributed to it and the age distribution of the victims was truly very worrisome. It was only clear after a couple of weeks that those early numbers weren't truly representative.

    5. Re:Overreaction by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      You realize, don't you, that the 1918 Spanish Flu had a relatively mild dispersal the spring of the year, followed by the full-blown bodies-burned-in-the-streets lethality that fall, right?

      It COULD get bad this fall.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    6. Re:Overreaction by simplu · · Score: 1

      Seems like somebody has something to sell. I wonder WHO is it?

      --
      L.
    7. Re:Overreaction by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      And if my grandfather had a vagina, uterus, and ovaries, he COULD've been my grandmother.

    8. Re:Overreaction by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmmm. I don't think you have it right.

      The level 6 pandemic declaration signifies that the WHO believes containment and eradication of the pathogen is not a possible scenario. This means the total number of infected will steadily increase. Exposed individuals will be prescribed bed rest instead of antivirals as supplies become limited to health care workers. A(H1N1) will become a widespread strain of the flu and some day a year, or 2 years or 5 years from now, YOU will contract it and its low (but higher than the seasonal flu) chance of causing fatality.

      That doesn't mean it will be terrible. Not much worst than the seasonal flu. Especially since the virus has spread slowly enough that the vaccine should be available before we are at a significant risk of contracting the disease. But in due time, you will be seeing the '1 million dead' headline.

    9. Re:Overreaction by ailnlv · · Score: 1

      I live in Chile. It's already winter here and I haven't seen any corpses on the streets. I think we've got one or two dead people from swine flu. Actually, two of my nieces got diagnosed with swine flu two weeks ago. They had a fever for two days and then they were fine.

      Lamest pandemic ever.

    10. Re:Overreaction by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      With something like less than 500 deaths worldwide, this is the average equivalent of 3 days worth of seasonal flu

      500 deaths so far, with a mortality rate of possibly 0.1%. That's a fair bit higher than bog-standard flu.

      ... and considering that this virus has had a chance to spread for the past 2 months, I simply cannot fathom it

      Ah! Argument by incredulity. Well I prefer to listen to the experts on serious matters. And they're saying "don't panic, but this is a serious cause for concern". So while some elements of the media seem to panicking, I'm glad we're taking it seriously.

      We may yet see this virus, or a mutation, cause serious numbers of deaths.

    11. Re:Overreaction by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      The WHO declaring H1N1 pandemic is not overreaction, hyperbole or scaremongering. The particular strain has reached a specified spread at which point it qualifies for that label.

      Except that somewhere around 4 other strains of influenza reaches greater spread every year. The influenza seasons are caused by global spread of influenza where the strains moves across the global as the seasons changes.

      So we have several other strains every single year with more dead and greater spread. Yet, this is the first disease in over 20 years to be declared a pandemic. It might semantically qualify but it is still a perspectiveless reaction, or in other words: and overreaction.

  21. Jumping the gun by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Compared to REAL pandemics like the black death, the 1918 flu pandemic, etc. they are REALLY screaming wolf on this one. I think WHO is more interested in covering their asses than giving useful information. If they're not careful, they're going to set off a panic like the "pandemic" of 1976 (that led to more deaths from the inoculations than the disease).

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Jumping the gun by OriginalSolver · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the definition of pandemic used by WHO is different to the one that you and I might use in common speech. By the WHO definition they are correct in calling this a pandemic. The WHO definition itself needs to change.

    2. Re:Jumping the gun by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

      wasn't the black plague an epidemic?

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    3. Re:Jumping the gun by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Informative

      Er, the 1918 flu pandemic started as a mild but very infectious disease. Then, come autumn, it killed more people than WW1. And mostly young people at that.

      Furthermore, maybe you should look up what the word "pandemic" actually means. They're using it correctly. You're not.

      --
      Azural - instrumentals
    4. Re:Jumping the gun by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The 1918 pandemic happened during a time when sanitation (particularly in the cities, where it was most prevalent) and medical knowledge of disease were complete shit compared to the developed world of today, during a war that had exposed millions of people worldwide to even more unsanitary conditions, in close quarters. This little disease outbreak (and likely no disease outbreak ever again) can compare to that, because our circumstances are too different (outside of the 3rd world, at least). And, idiot, the word "pandemic" doesn't ACTUALLY mean anything--it's a vague and recently-invented word that epidemiologists (looking for grant money) came up with to describe an epidemic that involves a worldwide spread. And, even in that purely artificial sense, I am using it correctly (or maybe you're too stupid to know that the Black Death also spread to the Middle East and Asia?).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Jumping the gun by myyrk · · Score: 1

      Just a few nitpicks:

      pandemic origin is from the 1600s, not very recent.

      Even though are circumstances are better sanitation wise they are worse travel wise.

    6. Re:Jumping the gun by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      And, idiot, the word "pandemic" doesn't ACTUALLY mean anything--it's a vague and recently-invented word that epidemiologists

      Wrong on all counts, 'vance.

      And, even in that purely artificial sense, I am using it correctly (or maybe you're too stupid to know that the Black Death also spread to the Middle East and Asia?).

      And by artificial you mean the actual sense, not whatever it meant in your head. And yes, you did accidentally use the word correctly to describe the Black Death, though your insistence on saying Black Death was a REAL pandemic and this flu isn't shows that you believed the word to mean something it does not.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Jumping the gun by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The vast majority of infection and death happened after WW1, so you're wrong about that.

      Another difference from those times to now is air travel, which can see infection spread vastly quicker.

      Regarding the meaning of the word "pandemic", I'll take the technical description of people working in that field, thanks very much, and not yours.

      The reason I stated that your definition of the word was wrong was not the mentioned of the Black Death, but the "REAL" (sic, in caps) qualifier, suggesting that in your head you have a cut-off death toll for your special definition of the word. This was sorta the point of your post.

      But aside from the ad hominems, caps and lack of logic, keep it up, you're doing great.

      --
      Azural - instrumentals
    8. Re:Jumping the gun by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The problem with decrying this as a pandemic is that the word "pandemic," try as WHO might to pretend it's just a technical term for any worldwide disease outbreak (even minor ones) is a VERY loaded term for the general populace. This is just the kind of thing that panics people and makes them behave irrationally (just like they did in 1976), and it's irresponsible. WHO should not be using the same term for this minor outbreak as the horrific pandemics (yes, the REAL pandemics). The panic they could incite is most likely going to cause way more harm than the disease at this point.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Jumping the gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how much you wanna bet the (US) "nightly news" will use it horribly wrong? And the sale of vaccines will go through the roof?

      WE'RE DOOMED!

    10. Re:Jumping the gun by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 1

      It amuses me when i read American news reports and posts that claim swine flu will be deadly in autumn/winter. It's currently snowing in Australias capital Canberra right now and swine flu has yet to do any real harm despite over a thousand confirmed cases.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak_in_Australia

      Most have reported a runny nose as the worst symptom.

    11. Re:Jumping the gun by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      No, a scientific institute shouldn't have to muzzle itself because of a bunch of illiterates who don't understand big words. Pandemic is a technical word. The WHO isn't "pretending" it's a technical term for a worldwide outbreak - it *is*. They define it quite clearly. It's when a disease reaches a certain threshold of infections, in a certain number of continents. Just because a word is of recent origin, doesn't mean it's somehow fake.

      If people are panicked by the term, then it should be their government or the media educating them as to the true meaning. As it is, those organs are more likely to fan the flames than educate. But the point of failure is there, not with the WHO.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  22. I work at a hospital... by greenguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... and the nurses spend a lot of time rolling their eyes about this. Or as one of the doctors put it, "Replace 'H1N1' with 'bad cold.'"

    Yes, it's killed a number of people. But not as many (in the same timespan) as, say, cars, or industrial accidents, or smoking, or cancer, or heart disease, or drug violence, or drugs themselves, or the US military, or suicide, or old age, or AIDS, or plane crashes, or....

    --
    What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    1. Re:I work at a hospital... by n30na · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is what i always tell friends that freak out about this. The disease isnt all that bad, they're just worrying about possible mutation. So we're freaking out over a new cold.

    2. Re:I work at a hospital... by oneirophrenos · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's killed a number of people. But not as many (in the same timespan) as, say, cars, or industrial accidents, or smoking, or cancer, or heart disease, or drug violence, or drugs themselves, or the US military, or suicide, or old age, or AIDS, or plane crashes, or....

      ...or your regular yearly flu epidemic...

    3. Re:I work at a hospital... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm worried about all those too. This store is about H1N1 though. Just because it's not the top of the list doesn't mean it isn't worthy of mass hysteria.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:I work at a hospital... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Tell the doctors to read up on the 1918 pandemic - which started with a 'bad cold' flu spreading unseasonably in the spring and killing not all that many and mostly outside of the usual demographics... which faded with the coming of high summer. Then reemerged in the fall to kill millions.
       
      A disease that's spreading rapidly and widely is a significant risk even if it doesn't kill.

    5. Re:I work at a hospital... by maxume · · Score: 1

      We're freaking out over a new flu. A new cold is even less noteworthy.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:I work at a hospital... by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

      Living in todays number one H1N1 country (Chile - 2000+ cases... and stopped counting)... I must say that it kills less that the common cold (the very few deaths had always had a previous illness condition, pneumonia, depressed inmunne system, etc. , just bad luck it was H1N1 that finally made the kill.)

      The official word here is that the reason Chile and Australia have both such high numbers is just because we have REAL GOOD med system, and we are able to detect and treat H1N1. Other countries in the region may have far more cases that are simply not being detected.

      It's just a high fever cold (influenza), that will keep you in bed for a week.

    7. Re:I work at a hospital... by mrfunnypants · · Score: 1

      Not Even close:

      http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com/

      United States already has over 17,000 confirmed cases of novel H1N1.

      --
      "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
    8. Re:I work at a hospital... by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

      Yes... but... we are just a 16 million people country.

      We are number one (nothing to be proud of) in cases as a % of population

    9. Re:I work at a hospital... by sam_paris · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      My girlfriend works as a nurse at one of the most respected hospitals in NYC and she says that the Doctors and Nurses think it's all a storm in a teacup. They believe it's no worse than regular flu and is just being publicized so much for the revenue in terms of newspapers sold etc.

      When I ask her what the real killers are: smoking related illnesses, heart disease due to obesity/being overweight, accidents/drunk people/cars/ etc...

      Don't worry about H1N1, we have enough worry about without this bullshit.

    10. Re:I work at a hospital... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Chile too, and in my hometown (Puerto Montt) the main hospital stopped all operations because it's all infected, and you have to wait several hours to get attended (much more than usual). I have my father and a cousin infected, but are resting at home. Perhaps this is going to happen everywhere when the winter arrives.

  23. Weakens Pandemic by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think this completely diminishes the "severity" of a pandemic.

    In the technical sense it is a disease that is widespread and uncontained; but if this is the benchmark then the common cold and normal flu ought to be raised to this level too, because they have the same wide spreadness and are most dangerous to the same classes of people, the elderly, children and those with immune issues. Every single year the "poultry (normal)" flu kills many, many more people in the exact same way and in the exact same circumstances.

    This is only getting attention because of the media hype. The left wants more money to expand government to deal with it, and the right wants money to build a fence to keep things like this from coming from Mexico into the US, and the media is psyched because it's new, has political tie-ins, and came when the meltdown was becoming old-news.

    Not only that, are we really surprised? Pigs are biologically similar enough to humans that we use pig organs for some transplants. Having infections that cross the species barrier in this way seem blatantly obvious.

    --
    Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
    1. Re:Weakens Pandemic by n30na · · Score: 1

      But... we EAT pigs.... are you saying we're cannibals?

    2. Re:Weakens Pandemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, are we really surprised? Pigs are biologically similar enough to humans that we use pig organs for some transplants. Having infections that cross the species barrier in this way seem blatantly obvious.

      The reason for pigs being used as transplant supplies is not so much the histocompatibility (most mammals would be equally suitable); but rather it's the size and availability. Simply put, pig organs are about the same size, shape and configuration as human ones. Also, they're readily available.
       
        Disease transmission between species (especially with viruses) has a lot more to do with cell surface receptor specificity. Due to the fact that the virus has crossed the species barrier, you have correctly ascerted that there's sufficient biologic similarity between us and pigs. Still, that same similarity exists with many other mammals, making us just as likely to get cat flu, dog flu, mouse flu, etc... as we are to get swine flu.

    3. Re:Weakens Pandemic by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      No one is surprised that a pig specific flu strain can leap to humans. Absolutely no one who knows anything about viruses, so it's kinda odd that you even try to make that point.

      This is a very infectious novel flu virus which is spreading during summer in America and Europe (unusually). A disease which mutates rapidly. A disease to which very few have any immunity from catching. Thus far, it's not looking too different from how the 1918 flu pandemic started. And that killed tens of millions of healthy young people in the end. Probably it won't be anywhere near that bad.

      But there is a chance, and the WHO are totally right to be cautious.

      --
      Azural - instrumentals
    4. Re:Weakens Pandemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then the common cold and normal flu ought to be raised to this level too

      Uh, they already are?

    5. Re:Weakens Pandemic by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I think this completely diminishes the "severity" of a pandemic.

      Only in the minds of those mistaken about the meaning of pandemic in the first place. It means a widespread disease, not a severe disease. That non specialists and the ignorant have attached a mistaken meaning to it is not the fault of the specialists.

    6. Re:Weakens Pandemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Left and Right have absolutely nothing to do with this. It is an international effort by a few pharmaceutical companies to score massive government contracts to supply worthless, obsolete-before-completion vaccines. Right now, today, the absence of ANY substantial policy agenda differences between Left and Right in the U.S. is painfully obvious.

      Kill the television and read Obama's executive orders, DoJ filings, and budget summaries: The NeoCon agenda is alive and well and living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Those of us who were voting "against Bush" last year got screwed as usual, and it's past time to start ripping the foundations out from under Obama's "liberal" propaganda platforms.

  24. CANADA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, nobody mentionned us in the last few topics, we're lonely up here.

  25. Um... what? by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    "Mexican Flu". With the politically correct liberal media, we can't have that name or it will possibly hurt the tourism in Mexico.

    Let us grant, very strictly for the sake of argument, that the fact that the virus isn't being called "Mexican Flu" (a name that has never been in widespread use for it, but I digress) is because the media, which is, again for the sake of argument is in fact liberal and "politically correct," doesn't want to hurt tourism in Mexico.

    Now, what exactly is supposed to be wrong with that goal? Isn't it a virtue to help other people? Are you actually telling us that we should instead change the name of the current H1N1 flu outbreak to "Mexican Flu" in order to hurt tourism to Mexico? Why would anybody want to do this?

    1. Re:Um... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you actually telling us that we should instead change the name of the current H1N1 flu outbreak to "Mexican Flu" in order to hurt tourism to Mexico?

      No, we should change it to be accurate. It was first reported in Mexico, and it's good a jumping borders. The Mexican flu is the perfect description, Mr Martinez.

    2. Re:Um... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we should change it to be accurate.

      How is "H1N1" inaccurate, you idiot?

    3. Re:Um... what? by alexborges · · Score: 1

      No its not, Mr Coward. For example, the Spanish Influenza should have been called USA Influenza because it started in the states but was discovered in Spain. Why fuck a particular country over what is now a worldwide pandemic?

      Hell, lets call it the earthling influenza 1 just to be even MORE accurate!

      --
      NO SIG
    4. Re:Um... what? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      So... Ebola hurts tourism in the Ebola river valley, and Marlburg hurts German tourism in that region, not to mention German measles.

      Swine flu is appropriate, pork industry be damned. It is genetically close to the original swine flu pandemic of 1914, and the subsequent outbreaks. Mexican flu would be more appropriate if it was a new virus, though it still would be O.K. in general usage terms. Swine flue, OTH, works just fine, and I will continue to call it that, pork lobby be damned, I'm not changing my language for corporate interests.

      Actually, I refuse to change my language just to make thin skinned people happy. Eat that Squaw Peak, Mount McKinley (now Denali for no good reason), and Elk (now wapiti, for even dumber reasons). Doesn't anyone see a connection between this and newspeak?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  26. MODS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent up for conspiracy theory!

  27. BIO TREK II: The Wrath of Chan by megamerican · · Score: 1

    I say we call it the "Wrath of Chan"

    Chhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!

    --
    If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    1. Re:BIO TREK II: The Wrath of Chan by Publikwerks · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ricardo Montalbán did hail from Mexico, died, and like a month later, bam, h1n1! Swine flu should be renamed "The Wrath of Khan"!

    2. Re:BIO TREK II: The Wrath of Chan by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Ricardo Montalbán did hail from Mexico, died, and like a month later, bam, h1n1! Swine flu should be renamed "The Wrath of Khan"!

      All this is true... Pinche Ricardo nos jodiste a todos!

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  28. In honour of the Pandemic by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

    A link to Pandemic 2 the game.
    http://www.crazymonkeygames.com/Pandemic-2.html
    Celebrate the promotion of H1N1 to Pandemic status by trying to wipe out the human race. Fun for the whole family.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    1. Re:In honour of the Pandemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  29. don't let facts interrupt your humor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that was funny, but...

    2007 Pig
    2008 Rat
    2009 Ox
    2010 Tiger

  30. Stop being such whiny babies by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it a pandemic in the disease spread methodology? Yes.

    Is it killing millions of people each year? No.

    Is it killing thousands of people each year? No.

    Is it killing slightly more than any typical flu does? Yes.

    Solution? Wash your hands with hot water (not scalding) and non-antibiotic soap (e.g. Ivory hand soap). Cover your mouth and nose when you sneeze, using a sleeve if you have no tissue.

    That literally cuts the infection rate dramatically.

    Now, if you don't mind, I'm going back to my medical research.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Stop being such whiny babies by Celeste+R · · Score: 1

      Cover your mouth and nose - apparently that approach spreads more germs than sneezing into your sleeve, because they tend to scatter between the fingers with the former approach.

      --
      There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
    2. Re:Stop being such whiny babies by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      If we have to presume that people are too stupid to use kleenex when they have it, then we might as well assume they will try put soap on their eyes.

      I stand by my statement.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Stop being such whiny babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It is NOT killing slightly more than any typical flu. If that were the case then 40,000 people would have died in the US alone.

      The common flu that strikes each year in the US kills approximately 40,000 men, women and children.

    4. Re:Stop being such whiny babies by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, Doc, what's the best way to actually get the soap into your eyes? Should I use liquid soap?

    5. Re:Stop being such whiny babies by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Did you leave of the "using a sleeve if you have no tissue." end of the sentence so you could make your stupid point that was already in the original post?

      Or did it set of your pet-hate insanity and you didn't bother reading a few more words before rushing to reply?

    6. Re:Stop being such whiny babies by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are many individual strains of the flu that compose that 40,000 count. The specific strain of H1N1 going around has a slightly higher count, but not too much.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    7. Re:Stop being such whiny babies by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      I like to take bubble baths with nubile vixens, such as the lead character in Tetro (coming out next month) does.

      That method may lead to soap getting in your eyes, and other impacts on your nervous system.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    8. Re:Stop being such whiny babies by sam_paris · · Score: 1

      Actually my girlfriend (a Nurse) says you should cover your mouth with the inside of your elbow when you sneeze. This way the virus particles are not spread onto your hands and there is much less chance of rubbing your elbow against a door handle or some other often used public object.

    9. Re:Stop being such whiny babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally?

    10. Re:Stop being such whiny babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is it killing thousands of people each year? No.

      Huh? Given that the flu generally kills about 30,000 people a year in the USA, I'd say it's a safe bet that this H1N1 will have killed thousands within the year.

    11. Re:Stop being such whiny babies by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      The flu is not one strain.

      Regardless, more people die from sunstroke.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  31. Some Legitemate Worry by smallferret · · Score: 2, Informative

    In all of the planning that's been going on in my public health work, the big worry is that this will repeat the pattern of the 1918 pandemic: - The disease shows up in a weak form in the spring, makes some people mildly ill, kills some people who are traditionally susceptible to influenza (very young, elderly, and people with chronic disease) - The disease mostly disappears through the summer--not entirely, but becomes much less common - The disease shows up again in the fall in a new, much more virulent form, and has a much higher mortality rate, especially among healthy adults. See this graph, which shows how the mortality among different ages was very different from traditional influenza. There is no guarantee that this would happen, and no guarantee that it won't peter out like the 1976 fiasco. But we see it as a better bet to risk the accusation of an overreaction than to risk not being prepared.

    1. Re:Some Legitemate Worry by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >no guarantee that it won't peter out like the 1976 fiasco.

      The 1976 fiasco was only a fiasco because everyone didn't die.
      That's the thing with firefighting: if you're lucky it doesn't kill everyone; if you're fast enough at the very beginning it doesn't kill everyone, and if you're neither, it kills everyone. But you have no way, a priori, of knowing whether you're going to be lucky or not, so if you have any sense whatsoever, you react quickly and vigorously. Even if it means that the inoculations kill more people than the disease would have, because the alternative could be 100 million deaths.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    2. Re:Some Legitemate Worry by blackfrancis75 · · Score: 1

      Even if it means that the inoculations kill more people than the disease would have, because the alternative could be 100 million deaths.

      Uhh, not sure I follow this part of your logic.

    3. Re:Some Legitemate Worry by maxume · · Score: 1

      If there is a pandemic scare every ten years and you kill 100,000 people each time by inoculating them, after 100 years, you are much better off than if you had one pandemic kill 10 million people, let alone 100 million.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Some Legitemate Worry by blackfrancis75 · · Score: 1

      One pandemic that would have killed 10 million people means that the disease kills MORE people than the inoculations have. I guess this is just a case of bad (imprecise) grammar.

  32. I for one welcome .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    our new swine overlords.

    1. Re:I for one welcome .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Took a while. but it got there. :P

  33. Plot? by edivad · · Score: 1

    Drug companies, making disease and cure? Or is it too conspiracy theory-ish even for a boring Thursday morning?

  34. Re:Let's play a word game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you just pull a Godwin on diseases?

  35. it IS a pandemic by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    just not particularly lethal

    in 1918, the same thing happened: the flu appeared in the spring, outside its usual pattern of appearing in the fall, and then percolated all summer, just below the radar, expanding stealthily but inevitable everywhere

    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-0979.htm

    then (in the northern hemisphere, it would explode in the cold months of the spring in the southern hemisphere) the flu exploded in the fall, and killed millions that winter. this is inevitable with flu because the flu virus actually survives in cold air for a longer period of time

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/health/05flu.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=login

    so the summer months deaden its spread (really, just slow down its spread) so that it spreads stealthily but inevitably, while the winter months allow it to flourish and explode, seemingly everywhere at the same time (because the summer months allowed to actually go everywhere, just in small little clusters everywhere)

    its also important to note that flu in 1918 killed at a very low rate, like under 1% of its victims. whatever strain dominates this winter, will be the real issue. will it have a 0.0003% mortality rate? or a 0.3% mortality rate? we're talking about the difference of tens of millions of lives in that difference, and no one knows what that mortality rate will be, since its such tiny little variations and random chance of one mutation dominating or another at work here

    so beware false alarmism, and beware false complacency. this virus is a genuine unknown quantity. it really could kill a lot this winter, it could really completely fizzle out. both anyone freaking out, or completely blase and lackadaisacal about the whole thing, are fooling themselves

    an unknown is an unknown is an unknown. neither false complacency or false alarmism is an appropriate response to that

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:it IS a pandemic by Doc+Daneeka · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This pandemic is the analog to what the Y2K was for the computer industry. People should be concerned - but not flip out - because if the professionals don't do their jobs (or the public doesn't follow their advice), the ramifications of failing could be enormous.

    2. Re:it IS a pandemic by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      The current mortality rate seems to be around 0.75%--for 35K cases, there've been just under 300 deaths.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    3. Re:it IS a pandemic by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      an unknown is an unknown is an unknown.

      If this is the case, how do you know?

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    4. Re:it IS a pandemic by Fropod · · Score: 1

      the summer months deaden its spread (really, just slow down its spread) so that it spreads stealthily but inevitably, while the winter months allow it to flourish and explode, seemingly everywhere at the same time (because the summer months allowed to actually go everywhere, just in small little clusters everywhere)

      Well it is winter in Australia, thus the higher spread of the disease. The death rate does not appear to be exploding however. I guess our winter is not comparable to some parts of the world though.

    5. Re:it IS a pandemic by Caity · · Score: 1

      Apparently Australia currently has the highest per capita infection rate so far. However, I don't think we've had any deaths here at all yet (apparently there are some people in intensive care though).

    6. Re:it IS a pandemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expect a large number of people to die. They will die because of the disease but not from it. They'll die from Guillain-Barré syndrome from the flu SHOT rather than from the flu itself.

    7. Re:it IS a pandemic by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      I don't really agree. I am complacent because I always try to live healthily. If I get H1N1 and if I die from it, that sucks, but what else am I supposed to do? What is the point in worrying about it?

    8. Re:it IS a pandemic by Xarin · · Score: 1

      For a pandemic, it is also helpful to have a war with massive troop movements from one place to the other such as during WWI with everyone living in tight quarters. It is thought to have incubated in the U.S., was carried over to Europe by our troops and then brought back to the U.S. by them.

      http://virus.stanford.edu/uda/

  36. I am glad.... by Drone69 · · Score: 0

    ...Pete Townshend, Roger Daltry, and company are being proactive on the medical front.

  37. Damn! by Aggrajag · · Score: 1

    This means I have to get the goddamn vaccine shot on Monday when my vacation ends as I work as a nurse.

  38. Pandemic is not covered by Insurance Companies by LanderX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most of them, do not cover pandemic cases.

    Check your insurance contract.

    Cheers!

  39. Re:Let's play a word game by lavacano201014 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Godwin only apply to Nazi/Hitler references? (I just pulled it, didn't I?)

    --
    A wise man once said, "Where is my other quotation mark?
  40. True... by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

    ...don't cast pearls before swine like that.

    --
    If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
  41. Re:Plot? Rainbow Six by glocker · · Score: 1

    That was the main plot of Rainbow Six. Except the cure was also a vector.

  42. Someone sneezed in Brazil! by Gabbermatt · · Score: 0

    SHUT...

    DOWN...

    EVERYTHING!

  43. PANDEMIC II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once it spreads, it can become servere afterwards.

    BRB, moving to Madagascar...

    1. Re:PANDEMIC II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, only safe place on the planet apparently.

  44. Re:Let's play a word game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does pointing this out make you a Goodwin law Nazi?

  45. It's not news, it's FARK by Punk+CPA · · Score: 1

    Everybody panic!

  46. Re:Let's play a word game by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    Does pointing this out make you a Goodwin law Nazi?

    If you hadn't just goodwin'd yourself, that would be quite insightful for pointing out that irony.

  47. O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www17.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=number+of+deaths+swine+flu

    139

  48. End of the world on Slashdot... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ... as the Earth falls down a giant black hole.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  49. wrong category for story by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clearly, this should have been an "Ask Slashdot"

  50. disinformation by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've talked to people who still think that you can get it from eating pork products.

    We've got to put a stop to this ignorance. You cannot get the disease that way -- but you CAN get revenge!

    1. Re:disinformation by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Is swine flu more fattening than bird flu?

      Seriously, how much of a risk is a new mutation between H1N1 (2009) and another flu strain? Given that H1N1 (2009) usually causes mild symptoms, why not just let people catch it and develop their own immunity? The effort being spent on developing a H1N1 vaccine might be better spent staying focused on H5N1 instead of the FUD de jour.

    2. Re:disinformation by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Because influenza viruses mutate when organisms catch them and the virus is allowed to commingle with whatever else the animal has in its system. Thus, considering that this H1N1 influenza seems to be fairly virulent, preventing as many people/animals from catching it as possible seems like a worthwhile goal, to prevent it from acquiring new properties. The influenza strain responsible for the very-deadly 1918 flu pandemic was a strain of H1N1.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  51. OH FUCK!!!!! by commodoresloat · · Score: 0

    The common cold is also a pandemic.

    OH SHIT!!! The common cold is a pandemic!!! I had a friend who had a cold last week. SHIT!!! We're all gonna DIIIIIIEEEEE!!!!!!!!

  52. we have nothing to worry about by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Er, the 1918 flu pandemic started as a mild but very infectious disease. Then, come autumn, it killed more people than WW1.

    This is no problem then; autumn is literally months away!

  53. Re:Let's play a word game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Careful. We Germans aren't all smiles and sunshine.

  54. What??? by osgeek · · Score: 1

    "...there were people who believed we might be in a kind of apocalyptic situation and what we're really seeing now with H1N1 is that in most cases the disease is self-limiting."

    Because it's wiping out the entire local populations? AIEEE!!!

  55. I don't think WHO has noticed... by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

    ... that nobody is really paying attention OR giving a shit anymore.

    --
    Send your spendthrift head of state this
    1. Re:I don't think WHO has noticed... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Not true. Clearly, WHO gives a shit.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:I don't think WHO has noticed... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's why they had to have a press conference when it technically became a pandemic.

  56. Seriously? by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    I can't take this news seriously, and I don't think it deserves to be taken seriously. It's not news, it's fear mongering.

  57. Re:TheMeuge, what about? by Omestes · · Score: 1

    Post-DNA living (possibly on computer chips like the analog FACETS) would mean no more influenza.

    But then we'll have to worry about conficker, and who knows what else (damn, I clicked that attachment, and now I've got AIDs!)

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  58. Re:Let's play a word game by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Mad cow == bird flu == swine flu == HORSESHIT."

    You might have expressed it better, but you....are correct.

    MRSA has a vastly higher body count than all the above, but since it is often spread by poor hygiene at hospitals it gets low billing.

    http://www.protomag.com/assets/a-killer-called-staph

    http://www.symptomsmrsa.com/ca-mrsa/ca-mrsa-death-count-surpassing-aids/

    http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heic/patient/mrsa/

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  59. This means that... by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

    Swine flu dropped off the media radar. They had to turn the scare back on... Millions are at stake! $ not people of course.

  60. you're forcing me to quote donald rumsfeld by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    "The Unknown"

    An Amateur poem by Donald Rumsfeld
    Feb. 12, 2002

    As we know,
    There are known knowns.
    There are things we know we know.
    We also know
    There are known unknowns.
    That is to say
    We know there are some things
    We do not know.
    But there are also unknown unknowns,
    The ones we don't know
    We don't know.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2081042/

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  61. Re:Let's play a word game by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    No that would be "Swinehund" flu.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  62. Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its Manbirdpig!

  63. getting hyped up about an unknown is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we know for now is that it is extremely benign. Doom saying aside, it'll likely have little effect. 1918 was a looong time ago with wars going on, etc. Oh wait...

  64. Some perspective is needed by Alcoholist · · Score: 1

    People need to get a grip on their fear. This thing has killed like what, 150 people globally? And people are worried why?

    In related news, HIV killed another 6000 people today. It will kill another 6000 tomorrow too, and the day after that, and the day after that. Funny how the more deadly but less trendy pandemics don't seem to get a lot of news time these days.

    --
    Bibo Ergo Sum.
  65. Re:Let's play a word game by Pentagram · · Score: 1

    I'd disagree that MRSA gets a low billing. Pretty much everyone has heard of it and it's widely acknowledged as a big problem.

    However, saying it has a "higher body count" is meaningless. Do you mean a higher mortality rate? This is difficult to measure because it tends to hit those who are already weak.

    H1N1 seems to be not *that* bad at present, but the mortality rate could be something like 0.1%. That's not going to bring down society but it's an awful lot of deaths if it explodes. It's potentially a much greater threat than MRSA.

  66. Drop WHO by kentsin · · Score: 0

    Check out the death rate.

    They are not doing technical work, they are politican.

    Drop WHO.

  67. Already mixed by DrYak · · Score: 1

    If the virus mutate and mix with H5N1, then we could be in serious trouble.

    The current strain that started in Mexico is already a mix of strains of avian-, pig- and human- flu origin.
    That's also why there was an initial "OMG! Mexican pigs are going to kill us all" panic.
    But turns out that when the virus reaches richer and better prepared countries, it "only" has a mortality rate of 0.2%, not the higher rate initially observed in Mexico.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  68. No cause for alarm by Trogre · · Score: 1

    they say, but I wish if they're just elevating the level of monitoring a bit they would choose a different name for it.

    Remember you can't spell PANdemIC without panic, and that's exactly what I think the outcome will be.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  69. How about we call it Mexican Swine Flu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about we call it Mexican Swine Flu?

    Another 2 case's detected in New Zealand at Auckland Hospital (during the week I was there with my kids), a nurse returned from UK with the virus and passed it to one of her children... who then went to daycare.

  70. so what might be the kill rate by megabunny · · Score: 1

    Working from the BBC report at
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8021547.stm
    Canada reports 2 deaths in 1530 cases giving a raw rate of 0.1%.
    Mexico reports 97 deaths in 5029 cases giving a raw rate of 1.9%.
    The US reports 17 deaths in 8975 cases giving a raw rate of 0.2%.
    The world totals are 117 deaths in 19,315 cases giving a raw rate of 0.6%.
    Now, I know the infection rate is institutionally, and systematically under reported in Canada. That means the Canadian death rate is like an upper bound. Assuming ten percent of the world's 6.8 billion inhabitants are infected, then under 680 thousand to 13 million people will die from this. On the Canadian data, I put it at under half a million if the virus does not become more deadly next fall.
    MB

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  71. Ambitions of a Flu Virus by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

    Shit, son,
    you think I'm done?
    You show your lack of wit 'cause I ain't even begun.

    Y'all think you got me broken down and beat-ah
    but the truth is that I just don't like the heat-ah
    I got ways to run around all of your careful treatments
    evolution's bit shiftin' my genetic sequence
    so just wait until the autumn comes around, then
    we'll see who's runnin' in the breaking news again, because we
    mutate, mutate and multiply, multiply we
    mutate, mutate and multiply, multiply

    Crossed species once (oink)
    crossed species twice (chirp)
    pick up some more alleles, I'll make you wear a mask the rest of your life
    which won't be long, 'cause
    I'm gettin' stronger
    my body count is rising, gonna outdo Mao Zedong with
    mutate, mutate and multiply, multiply
    mutate, mutate and multiply, multiply
    mutate, mutate and multiply, multiply
    mutate, mutate and multiply, multiply

    I wanna give a shout out to all the H1N1 strains--they may get some of us but they can't get all of us! Much love for my sibs in quarantine, keep hope alive!

  72. Under-reported numbers: I'm one of them (perhaps) by dukeGuinness · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, when I went to the doctor for a persistent fever, coughing, and sore throat, he advised me that I was likely to have an influenza variant but that this health division was no longer doing swabs for H1N1 unless you were admitted to a hospital. This means that, at least in my area, there are probably a great number of cases un-reported, despite having presented themselves to medical personnel with typical symptoms. Oh, and I live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, home of ~200 cases.

  73. I keep getting flashbacks... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I keep seeing the scenes from resident evil (or any of your cliché pandemic horror movie)
    where everybody is turning into _____ (add your sickness) and running through the streets.....
    and your trying to get out of the city before you are contaminated as well....and they all run after you...
    you got a few seconds head start....quick where do you hide?

  74. so what would you prefer? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    that people not get the shot?

    if 98% get the shot, and 1,000 die from the shot and only 100 die from the flu, then the shot is a roaring success, considering the amount who would die if no one got the shot

    right? or is logic not your strong suit?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:so what would you prefer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those susceptible to mortality by the flu generally are:

      1) The extremely young

      2) The extremely old

      3) Folks who are already sick with something else

      Those people should get the flu shot. Everyone else can easily survive it assuming they have access to rudimentary medical care and aren't complete idiots (like folks who try to treat diseases with prayer and refuse medical treatment). EASILY.

      The problem is that many perfectly healthy adults are going to demand it. Those healthy adults in all likelihood would never even catch the disease. Those who would have caught it would have to just sweat it out and would be fine in a few days. A very large chunk of those healthy adults is susceptible to deadly auto-immune reactions to the flu. Doctors have consistently complained this is a major problem with flu scares. Your numbers of 98% getting the shot and only 100 dieing are quite wrong seeing as how in past experience there have been cases where less than 20% or so got the shot but MANY thousands died from it. Flu shots are not meant for all people so they can avoid the flu. Flu shots are meant for people for whom the flu would likely be deadly. That's a very small number of people even with the worst cases, with modern medicine.

  75. President Obama'a Response ... by Poppa · · Score: 1

    to this airborne epidemic, was to have brochures handed out at airports and tell us to wash our hands. Whereas, other countries had heat-sensing machines where they would quarantine people that had fevers, and hand out masks.

    Maybe someone needs to explain to him how these things are spread?

    He got lucky, again. I hope for our sake that his luck holds out during the rest of his term.

  76. Controlled Burns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, is the suggestion here to do controlled burns?

  77. that's not realistic by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    that's fatalistic

    there are many things you can do about H1N1 to protect yourself

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:that's not realistic by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      There are many things I can do to protect myself against snake bites, too. So what?

    2. Re:that's not realistic by khallow · · Score: 1

      So there are often choices you can make which can reduce the harm you receive.

    3. Re:that's not realistic by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Yes, obviously. The point I was making is that I have a balance between ridiculous shut-in paranoia and having a life, and I don't see why the latest thing to be scared about even though its kill rates are smaller than most other things should change that.

    4. Re:that's not realistic by khallow · · Score: 1

      The point I was making is that I have a balance between ridiculous shut-in paranoia and having a life

      It doesn't appear that you have this "balance". Otherwise, you wouldn't be concerned.

      I don't see why the latest thing to be scared about even though its kill rates are smaller than most other things

      Well, run of the mill influenza already has "kill rates" greater than most other causes of death. And we have a strain which is more virulent than normal human-infectious strains, possibly more lethal, and is a new mix of existing flu strains. It will likely over the next couple of years achieve the "kill rate" of a normal influenza strain. The serious question is how bad will it be? We, of course, don't know. That uncertainty can be crippling in a ridiculous, shut-in paranoia kind of way, but it's just as foolish to ignore that this strain (as well as other strains) has potential for considerable mischief.

      History indicates that flu pandemics are a real problem. Further, the global environment seems more likely than in the past (eg, global travel, the widespread practice of raising birds and pigs in close contact with people) to breed new versions of flu. In that light, it is reasonable to figure out how to respond to a high lethality, virulent flu strain.

    5. Re:that's not realistic by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      > It doesn't appear that you have this "balance". Otherwise, you wouldn't
      > be concerned.

      ??? I'm not concerned in the least. Not sure where you got that idea...

    6. Re:that's not realistic by khallow · · Score: 1

      The fact you bothered to post at all.

    7. Re:that's not realistic by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      The fact that I posted something saying this guy is overreacting proves I am concerned about getting H1N1? Brilliant.

    8. Re:that's not realistic by khallow · · Score: 1

      No. Your posts indicated that you're concerned about acquiring some sort of raging paranoia merely from considering this subject.

    9. Re:that's not realistic by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      As I said, it was hyperbole. I just don't see why I would waste my time worrying about something so relatively unlikely to have any effect on me.

  78. spanish flu killed the young and healthy by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm

    perversely, the healthier your immunse system, the more likely you are to die from a novel h1n1 pandemic, as your immune systems drowns your own lungs in overreaction. the weaker your immune system, the more likely you are to survive

    but please, be my guest, don't get a shot. improve the gene pool by removing the fucking morons from it

    a flu shot is a no brainer dumb as nails obvious thing that everyone should get

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:spanish flu killed the young and healthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cytokine storms are not a given in any infection, and with modern anti-inflammatory and antihistamine drugs that inhibit the pro-inflammatory cytokine action as a primary mode of operation, good hygiene, and front-line antibiotics, they are rarely a problematic side-effect of a primary infection.

      Two asprin (ASA) and a Benadryl (cetirizine salt rather than diphenhydramine) will probably terminate any cytokine storm within a few minutes. Hygiene is probably sufficient to avoid a secondary infection, which will probably be susceptible to frontline beta lactam antibiotics.

      A massive cytokine inflammatory response is also treatable in the same way as a massive allergic reaction (anaphylaxis), and has similar symptoms. In a case which becomes a medical emergency: adrenaline (or epinephrine if you want the greekified word) shot, proper patient positioning, ventilation, and if necessary intubation by tracheotomy or cricothyrotomy, an earlier generation sedating but not long-acting antihistamine (diphenhydramine, chlorphenamine), and careful monitoring for rebound reactions.

      The problem with the last is that this implies hospitalization, and hospitals are filled with nasty opportunistic microbes that are resistant to many front-line antibiotics. You really don't want someone with a respiratory infection in hospital AT ALL if you can avoid it, much less staying there for any length of time, ambulatory or bedridden. Sending someone home is not a good idea either because of the possibility of rebounds, and the liklihood that by that point sufficient exposure to resistant microbes to warrant concern has already happened. Stressing hygiene hygiene hygiene is enormously important.

      but please, be my guest, don't get a shot. improve the gene pool by removing the fucking morons from it

      People who avoid vaccinations do not risk just themselves; infectious diseases evolve in vivo. Unvaccinated people are much more likely to be contagious than vaccinated people, although there will be a substantial temporary viral load in vaccinated people who are inoculated by contact with an unvaccinated person. The viral load in a vaccinated person may survive that person's active immune system long enough to become a strain that can cause symptoms in other vaccinated people. The viral load in an unvaccinated person is even more likely to mutate, and because the viral numbers are much higher, more mutated viruses will wind up in other people, vaccinated or not. Worse there is a small but nonzero chance that such mutated viruses are not suppressed in people who have been vaccinated against (or otherwise have developed active immunity against) its ancestor type.

      This is why, in the past, people could get chicken pox, measles, mumps, and rubella more than once in their lives.

  79. you can do things to protect yourself by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    that don't involve becoming a shut in

    you are reacting to a radical position that no one is proposing except you

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you can do things to protect yourself by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      You are being disingenuous and fully understand my explanation by hyperbole, or you're just not thinking.

  80. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OP: Actually [...] you should cover your mouth with the inside of your elbow when you sneeze.

    That's obvious, even to non-nurses.
    In fact, it's exactly what the GP stated:

    GP: Cover your mouth and nose when you sneeze, using a sleeve if you have no tissue

    GP states that if you're going to sneeze, you use 1.tissue, or in lieu of a tissue, 2.sleeve. Never does he even offer 'use your hand' as an option.
    ---
    Reading comprehension

  81. Re:Let's play a word game by morghanphoenix · · Score: 1

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/07/health/main535605.shtml

    From January 2003, says that the flu kills an estimated 36,000 a year, and last I checked Swine Flu still hadn't killed 100 yet.

    Sorry I couldn't find the CDC link for their estimate, Google kept giving me results for only H1N1 and it's late enough that I don't care to keep hunting.

  82. Flu Vaccines vs Anti-Viral Drugs by betasam · · Score: 1

    Using the new In-Cell growing technique many companies seem to be coming up with vaccines in a shorter period than earlier. Medicinenet has an informative article on Flu Vaccines and immunization candidates, and goes on to say why they are required. This is a good read to understand why vaccination is being given importance here. The 1918 "Spanish" Flu epidemic Virus which is very similar to the recent outbreak was re-engineered in a laboratory in 2005 by Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger and colleagues at AFIP. Comparison with Avian flu strains led to the conclusion that Human Flu Virus strains are derived from Avian flu virii.

    Among young people and children Flu vaccines claim to be 70%-90% effective, while this drops down to 30%-40% in people aged over 65 who may have other secondary complications. Hence the scale of vaccination required for the present outbreak (which has been repeatedly noted for not being as lethal as the 1918 Flu strain) may be entirely different covering only those in a risk category. More stress is on drugs that help in combating the Virus in an infected individual. These are usually amino-acid chain suppressors like Tamiflu. There has already been mobilization and distribution of the drugs to combat such an outbreak. The WHO has done a recent donation of drugs to Nigeria.

    The role and importance of the Vaccines that would be available is not yet certain. It seems that the stress is more on treatment. Insofar stress on prevention without the involvement of Primary Medical care personnel. Only those who suspect infection have been requested to visit quarantine or medical facilities for treatment. The WHO's present stand with the Flu Virus has been a direct result of criticism during the second widespread Avian flu H5N1 attack incidents in 2006.

    --
    No Greater Friend, No Greater Enemy! (Lucius Cornelius Sulla)
  83. Re:Let's play a word game by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 1

    Nah, you Godwin German measles discussions by latching onto the peripheral abortion issue that can be attached.