Swine flu stupidity

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nathan Stanaway on September 4, 2009 at 4:46pm

I wonder the same thing V-fibber. I can remember my grandpa saying "If you let a kid run around barefoot and runny nosed he'll have a great immune system when he grows up" (barefoot in the country) I tend to think he might have been right.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Kirkwood on September 4, 2009 at 7:07pm

The problem with that methodology is that you will loose a few kids in the process of developing the immunity. Ever notice how ED nurses rarely get the flu, etc.? Same idea.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neil White on September 11, 2009 at 2:11pm

Angela Wyche said:

With over 250,000 cases of Swine flu worldwide and over 9,000 in the US (according to the latest CDC update) I think we are past the point of this being simply media hype. Don't get me wrong, the media has ways of making things worse then they seem, but numbers don't lie.

The old phrase, lies damn lies and statistics... Whilst there maybe 250,000 cases how many of them were actual swine flu pt's. Certainly early on the UK, the NHS stopped confirming with lab tests and use clinical symptoms alone. Fever + flu like symptoms = swine flu... not to say that there are well documented cases here where serious illness and disease were misdiagnosed costing lives. We even resorted to online diagnosis, answer a serious of q's correctly and you get tamiflu and therefore by definition have swine flu.

So I do feel it is inflated, and i'll back that up with the decrease in media coverage has seen a decrease in 999 calls coded under protocol 36 or starting as ?swine flu.

To the point that as this article shows, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209817/The-swine-flu-centr.... Nobody needs diagnoses anymore. Media Hype or the swine flu vanishing who knows?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Cannulator on September 12, 2009 at 9:32am

Angela Wyche said:

Considering that the second wave of swine flu has already begun, the vaccines will be all but useless.

Ummm, what second wave? It hasn't arrived yet.

As for efficacy of the vaccines, we have two separate developers. They work. Lucky we have them first!

So you'll give up your vaccine?

The fact that more cases have arrive doesn't decrease the efficacy of a vaccine.

(This is separate from the actually hype based comments I have made earlier.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nathan Stanaway on September 12, 2009 at 2:53pm

Regardless of haw many people get the H1N1 flu, isnt it really how many people die? To me it is.


http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm#MortalityData

http://www.ems1.com/ems-products/Infection-Control/articles/586891-...

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/acip/downloads/mtg-slides-jun09/15...


Dont click on this last link if you are easily offended or if you dont have a really good sense of humor! :)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=swine_flu

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neil White on September 16, 2009 at 12:17pm

This is half the problem, with this FLU and I use upper case because making it out to be the world is going to end disease doesn't help anyone. In majority of cases bed rest and oral fluids is enough to take care of this. Vaccinations are really an attempt to reduce the strain during a particularly busy period for health services.

With regard to the quote that 98% of flu cases are H1N1 is misquoting the article, it suggests that 98% of viruses circulating are swine flu.

Simply type "misdiagnosed swine flu" into google and you can read some of the horrendous stories that this hyped virus has caused

48yr old dying of meningitis because fever + muscle aches = swine flu,
7yr old nearly dies of appendicitis misdiagnosed as swine flu.

the list goes on...

As I said before it is on the decrease http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1252514887004 our latest report from the government shows every possible chart and graph are within normal flu baselines.

Whilst there are 3000 new cases reported, none of these are confirmed swine flu, the national pandemic flu service (a call centre of non medical trained staff) asks a series of scripted questions (which the flow chart for can be downloaded from the internet before you call) and if you tick all of the boxes you get a prescription for tamiflu and by definition have swine flu.

As this article shows http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23725400-details/Tam...'sold+at+car+boot+fairs'/article.do

the gentleman falsely obtained tamiflu under several different names and attempted to sell it. He and the several identities used are included in the previously quoted 250,000 cases.

I believe as has been previously stated its about the mortality count rather than how it is spreading and when. But essentially it is just FLU.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nathan Stanaway on October 1, 2009 at 11:57pm

ALBANY — Several hundred health-care workers, civil libertarians and members of anti-vaccine groups on Tuesday railed against a mandate that medical professionals get seasonal and swine-flu vaccines.

But the state health commissioner said their arguments are baseless.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-09-29-swine-flu-mandatory_...

Personally Im totally against being forced to take a flu shot every year! I understand wanting to keep people safe but this is too far!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas Durkee on October 20, 2009 at 2:00am

Still think it's all hype?? Keep in mind that we are just NOW entering the Flu Season:


During week 40 (October 4-10, 2009), influenza activity increased in the U.S.

•4,093 (29.4%) specimens tested by U.S. World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) collaborating laboratories and reported to CDC/Influenza Division were positive for influenza.

•All subtyped influenza A viruses being reported to CDC were 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses.

•The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) was above the epidemic threshold.

•Eleven influenza-associated pediatric deaths were reported. Ten of these deaths were associated with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection and one was associated with an influenza A virus, for which subtype is undetermined.

•The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) was above the national baseline. All 10 regions reported ILI above region-specific baseline levels.

•Forty-one states reported geographically widespread influenza activity, Guam and eight states reported regional influenza activity, one state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported local influenza activity, and the U.S. Virgin Islands did not report.

During week 40, influenza B viruses co-circulated at low levels with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses. All subtyped influenza A viruses reported to CDC this week were 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses.

All ninety-four 2009 A (H1N1) viruses are related to the A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) reference virus selected by WHO as the 2009 H1N1 vaccine virus.



Antiviral Resistance:

Since September 1, 2009, 89 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus isolates have been tested for resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir and zanamivir). In addition, 317 2009 influenza A (H1N1) original clinical samples were tested for a single known mutation in the virus that confers oseltamivir resistance. Because of the low level of circulation of seasonal influenza A (H1N1), A (H3N2), and influenza B viruses, no samples collected since September 1, 2009 were available for antiviral resistance testing. Additional laboratories perform antiviral testing and report their results to CDC.

Antiviral Resistance Testing Results on Samples Collected Since September 1, 2009.


Over 99% of all subtyped influenza A viruses reported during week 40 were 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses, and 100% of all 2009 H1N1 viruses tested since the virus emerged in April 2009 have been resistant to the adamantanes (amantadine and rimantadine). Currently, adamantane antiviral susceptibility testing has been suspended to allow a focus on neuraminidase inhibitors

Antiviral treatment with oseltamivir or zanamivir is recommended for all patients with confirmed or suspected influenza virus infection who are hospitalized or who are at higher risk for influenza complications. Additional information on antiviral recommendations for treatment and chemoprophylaxis of influenza virus infection is available at http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/recommendations.htm.

2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses were tested for oseltamivir resistance by a neuraminidase inhibition assay and/or detection of genetic sequence mutation, depending on the type of specimen tested. Original clinical samples were examined for a single known mutation in the virus that confers oseltamivir resistance in currently circulating seasonal influenza A (H1N1) viruses, while influenza virus isolates were tested using a neuraminidase inhibition assay that determines the presence or absence of neuraminidase inhibitor resistance, followed by the neuraminidase gene sequence analysis of resistant viruses.

The majority of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses are susceptible to the neuraminidase inhibitor antiviral medication oseltamivir; however, rare sporadic cases of oseltamivir resistant 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses have been detected worldwide. Since September 1, 2009, four cases have been identified in the United States, and a total of 13 cases of oseltamivir resistant 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses have been identified in the United States since April 2009 (10 viruses identified by CDC and three viruses identified by additional laboratories). The 13 total cases represent an increase of one case over the previous week. All tested viruses retain their sensitivity to the neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivir. Eleven patients (including nine of the viruses detected at CDC and two viruses identified by the additional laboratories) had documented exposure to oseltamivir through either treatment or chemoprophylaxis, and the remaining two patients are under investigation to determine exposure to oseltamivir. Occasional development of oseltamivir resistance during treatment or prophylaxis is not unexpected. Enhanced surveillance is expected to detect additional cases of oseltamivir resistant 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses, and such cases will be investigated to assess the spread of resistant strains in the community


During week 40, 6.7% of all deaths reported through the 122-Cities Mortality Reporting System were due to P&I. This percentage was above the epidemic threshold of 6.5% for week 40.



Eleven influenza-associated pediatric deaths were reported to CDC during week 40 (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana [2], North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee [2]). Ten of these deaths were associated with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection and one was associated with an influenza A virus for which the subtype is undetermined. These deaths occurred between August 30 and October 10, 2009. Since August 30, 2009, CDC has received 43 reports of influenza-associated pediatric deaths that occurred during the current influenza season (three deaths in children less than 2 years, five deaths in children 2-4 years, 16 deaths in children 5-11 years, and 19 deaths in individuals 12-17 years). Thirty-nine of the 43 deaths were due to 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infections. A total of 86 deaths in children associated with 2009 H1N1 virus have been reported to CDC.

Among the 43 deaths in children, 28 children had specimens collected for bacterial culture from normally sterile sites and seven (25.0%) of the 28 were positive; Staphylococcus aureus was identified in five (71.4%) of the seven children. One S. aureus isolate was sensitive to methicillin, three were methicillin resistant, and one did not have sensitivity testing performed. All seven children with bacterial coinfections were five years of age or older and four (57.1%) of the seven children were 12 years of age or older.


Laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations are monitored using a population-based surveillance network that includes the 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) sites (CA, CO, CT, GA, MD, MN, NM, NY, OR and TN) and 6 new sites (IA, ID, MI, ND, OK and SD).

During September 1, 2009 – October 10, 2009, the following preliminary laboratory-confirmed overall influenza associated hospitalization rates were reported by EIP and the new sites (rates include influenza A, influenza B, and 2009 influenza A (H1N1)):

Rates [EIP (new sites)] for children aged 0-4 years and 5-17 years were 1.4 (1.8) and 0.7 (1.0) per 10,000, respectively. Rates [EIP (new sites)] for adults aged 18-49 years, 50-64 years, and ≥ 65 years were 0.4 (0.4), 0.4 (0.3) and 0.3 (0.3) per 10,000, respectively.







Nationwide during week 40, 6.1% of patient visits reported through the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet) were due to influenza-like illness (ILI). This percentage is above the national baseline of 2.3%.



On a regional level, the percentage of outpatient visits for ILI ranged from 1.8% to 12.9% during week 40, and increased in nine of the 10 surveillance regions compared to the previous week. All 10 regions reported a proportion of outpatient visits for ILI above their region-specific baseline levels.

•During week 40, the following influenza activity was reported:

◦Widespread influenza activity was reported by 40 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).
◦Regional influenza activity was reported by Guam and eight states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Vermont).
◦Local influenza activity was reported by the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and one state (Hawaii).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas Durkee on October 21, 2009 at 2:32am

Still think this "Swine Flu" is all hype???

Check this out:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5394553n&tag=contentMain...


And please keep in mind that we are just NOW entering the flu season.

-Tom

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas Durkee on October 24, 2009 at 5:58pm

So, as of yesterday, we now have a national Swine Flu emergency - - - -

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/24/obama-declares-hn-flu-na...

President Obama declared a national emergency Friday related to the outbreak of H1N1 flu, allowing health officials greater leeway under federal regulations to respond to the virus. The virus has claimed the lives of 1,000 Americans, but it isn't clear yet whether the outbreak will be any worse than the annual outbreak of seasonal flu

Is EMS taking this seriously? Or are we too "flippant"? Or is this seriously overplayed (like Michigan was today, against Penn State)? Or is this just more "Swine Flu Stupidity"?



-Tom Durkee
http://umich.confidentialresume.com/tomdurkee

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nathan Stanaway on October 24, 2009 at 6:02pm

Its something to consider, but mainly to the effect of telling everyone to stay home if your sick and stop going to the ER or calling 911 unless your having problems other than a fever and a headache. Our greatest impact for good here is to educate the public when given the chance that they most likely will not die, they'll just be pretty miserable for a few days. Stay home and drink gatorade and water!

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page