New Virus Means Deadlier Flu Season Is Possible

HughPickens.com writes Donald McNeil writes in the NYT that this year's flu season may be deadlier than usual because this year's flu vaccine is a relatively poor match to a new virus that is now circulating. "Flu is unpredictable, but what we've seen thus far is concerning," says Dr. Thomas R. Frieden. According to the CDC, five U.S. children have died from flu-related complications so far this season. Four of them were infected with influenza A viruses, including three cases of H3N2 infections. The new H3 subtype first appeared overseas in March but because it was not found in many samples in the United States until September, it is now too late to change the vaccine. Because of the increased danger from the H3 strain — and because B influenza strains can also cause serious illness — the CDC recommends that patients with asthma, diabetes or lung or heart problems see a doctor at the first sign of a possible flu, and that doctors quickly prescribe antivirals like Tamiflu or Relenza. "H3N2 viruses tend to be associated with more severe seasons," says Frieden. "The rate of hospitalization and death can be twice as high or more in flu seasons when H3 doesn't predominate."

Comments

Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

After going through Ebola, who is really going to give a shit about this? My suspicion is that, now that the Ebola hype has died back, Big News is looking for another epidemic story since they hit the rating jackpot on the last one.

Re:Meh.

[NotDrWho]

Don't worry, there is always some new PANDEMIC VIRUS THAT'S GOING TO KILL US ALL around the corner. As long as the CDC needs funding, there is always a new threat on the horizon. I remember as a kid being scared to death when the CDC announced that the Russian Flu was going to devastate the U.S. Oh, how naive I was back then. My dad just laughed when II came home crying from school because some gullible teacher had thought it wise to scare the shit out of her elementary students. He told me that there was always someone predicting the end of the world, and they were always full of shit. "When real disaster comes, no one ever sees it coming," he concluded.

Re:Meh.

[TheGratefulNet]

But death rate aside - who wants to be laid up in bed for a week with fever and body aches?

with or without pay?

(I'm serious, actually. as a contractor, I get no sick time off (paid) and so each time I get sick, I have to think if its worth losing a day's pay vs infecting others at work. lose/lose. welcome to the new normal for emplo^H^H^H^H^Hworkers.)

Looks like the mismatch nailed me

[jratcliffe]

I've spent the last couple of days wishing for sweet, sweet death, and I did get my flu shot. Still 100% glad I got my flu shot, though. Basically, I was wearing a bulletproof vest, but got shot in the leg. Not the vest's fault. A group of very highly trained professionals made a judgment call back in February about what strains this year's flu shot should protect against, and they got it wrong. C'est la vie.

Re:Looks like the mismatch nailed me

[StormReaver]

Basically, I was wearing a bulletproof vest, but got shot in the leg.

You were wearing the a bulletproof vest produced by the same designer who made the Emperor's new clothes.

The Flu vaccine is no more effective than random chance, but it's a huge money maker for the pharmaceutical industry.

CDC needs more funding than the DoD

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Hello,

    I think the CDC has a LOT more grounds to ring the "danger bell" than the people supporting Department of Defense spending. How many US people did terrorists kill in the last 10 years? Probably flu deaths are in the 100,000's? We also lose about 30k people/year to antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, however, do we even have $10B/year going into new antibiotic research?

    By *that* measure, which is pretty rational, the CDC and NIH ought to be funded at a higher level than the DoD.

    I mean, does USA *really* need to be spending more next 10 nations combined on its national defense, as opposed to spending more to control diseases which could quite conceivably mutate and become major killers, or combat already existing credible threats like ebola? How about spending more to assure the food supply is continuous? There are diseases wiping out food crops like bananas, citrus, chocolate, coffee, and there are credible disease threats against wheat. Yet USA is spending a pittiance to combat *that* risk, which, rationally, is a bigger risk than the risks mitigated by USA's DoD spending.

--PeterM

Re:CDC needs more funding than the DoD

[NotDrWho]

The fact that the defense budget is bloated (and it is, VERY MUCH SO) doesn't justify the CDC being bloated, just because it's on a smaller scale.

Re:It's possible..(or not)...but you should be sca

[NotDrWho]

Or maybe the reality is that we don't really need such a large and complex federal agency to deal with diseases as a matter of course, and so they have to regularly create bullshit boogeymen virus scares to maintain the illusion that their budget should be sacrosanct.