Swine flu pandemic fears

[spooly74]

So this pig flu beat up is nothing like that pandemic, right?

Swine flu is a pandemic Timmy. It's a specific term that relates to transmissibility, not mortality.

Beat up? Hardly heard a whisper about the 5 dead Aussies. 2 young kids in ICU.

Ominous signs coming from Argentina. 178 new cases with 14 deaths.
If that mortality rate wasn't bad enough, I understand they have their general elections today.

 

[trainspotter]

I too used the logic that bio tech stock would head North for the winter ... how wrong I was !! Looking at even flow spread on purchase. Swine flu pandemic, winter onslaught in Southern hemisphere, colds and general flu symptoms etc. You would think pill makers would have jumped ... well yes they have a little ... but not much really.

 

[Timmy]

Spooly we are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Someone has said its on track to be as bad as the flu pandemic early in the 20th century, quoting a 1 in 5 mortality rate. Just a cursory glance at the figures shows what a ridiculous comparison this is, utterly farcical. Hence my insisting this is a beat up. There are any number of diseases, illnesses, and what have you with a much worse effect than the pig flu.

Let me make it clear my view of this as a beat up should in no way diminish the tragedy of those who have died and the pain of their families.

 

[Julia]

Swine flu is a pandemic Timmy. It's a specific term that relates to transmissibility, not mortality.

Beat up? Hardly heard a whisper about the 5 dead Aussies. 2 young kids in ICU.

Ominous signs coming from Argentina. 178 new cases with 14 deaths.
If that mortality rate wasn't bad enough, I understand they have their general elections today.

Spooly, the ordinary Influenza that occurs each winter causes hundreds of deaths in susceptible people. The last estimate I saw was 2000 each year. No one ever makes a fuss about that. So far the swine flu virus on its own is apparently a mild illness.

The deaths in Australia have occurred in people who have an underlying health problem.
As far as I can see so far, the hysteria generated is more of a problem than the virus.

Spooly we are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Someone has said its on track to be as bad as the flu pandemic early in the 20th century, quoting a 1 in 5 mortality rate. Just a cursory glance at the figures shows what a ridiculous comparison this is, utterly farcical. Hence my insisting this is a beat up. There are any number of diseases, illnesses, and what have you with a much worse effect than the pig flu.

Of course it's ridiculous. As has already been discussed, the mortality rate in the 20th century flu was as a result of there being no penicillin in those days to fight the bacterial infection that followed the flu virus.

 

[rcm617]

Cant see that this is a beat up, there was a lot in the press in the early stages while we didnt know what we were dealing with, however nowadays its all settled down. One of the reasons why we havent had more fatalities is because we have used the antivirals here up till now, look at the higher numbers in mexico where antivirals were probably not used as often. They certainly werent available in the spanish flu. At least the increased vigilance in the early stages has given us a bit more time to develop a vaccine. With forecasts of swine flu affecting a much larger percentage of the world population than the normal flu due to lack of resistance, even a low percentage of deaths will still result in huge numbers especially in poorer countries without our medical experise.

 

[Prospector]

Cant see that this is a beat up, there was a lot in the press in the early stages while we didnt know what we were dealing with, however nowadays its all settled down. One of the reasons why we havent had more fatalities is because we have used the antivirals here up till now.

Except that even those who didnt take the antivirals with confirmed swine flu, were recovered within 3 days. We didnt even have penicillin during the Spanish flu. As we have said ad nauseum. And this disease is so mild, my predictions are that the number of cases will soon slow down to a trickle because people wont bother getting tested. And there is a theory that older people do have a resistance to this virus which is why it is mainly younger people at school who are testing positive.

And obese people, diabetics and people with compromised immune systems will have issues even with the common cold. And every one of the deaths so far has involved other illnesses.

 

[Timmy]

result in huge numbers especially in poorer countries without our medical experise.

That is a fair enough point.

My problem is with the media scaremongering we have seen here in Australia. That's why I refer to it, and will continue to refer to it, as a beat up.

If it is going to be a problem in Aus. it will be in Aboriginal communities. Don't get me started on why and the blame game, but care needs to be taken with those living in poorer conditions.

 

[noirua]

So this pig flu beat up is nothing like that pandemic, right?

You may be right this time round. However, the 1918 form of the virus was also quite mild but it change by 1919 to a deadly virus, and the present strain is the same as the 1918 - 20 variant.

 

[Prospector]

You may be right this time round. However, the 1918 form of the virus was also quite mild but it change by 1919 to a deadly virus, and the present strain is the same as the 1918 - 20 variant.

Sooooo, wouldn't it therefore be a good idea for people to get this mild strain now, develop the antibodies, so that if it ever should turn nasty, people will have an immune response to it?

 

[trainspotter]

Notice how the H1N1 virus has taken our minds off the hole in the ozone layer or the global meltdown/recession or the war in Iran or the ......... (insert what you like in here)

Approximately 2000 people die from the everyday common garden variety flu in Australia. No headlines screaming pandemic. BUT 5 people shuffle off this mortal coil from ALLEGEDLY H1N1 flu strain and yes they did have underlying medical issues, and KAPOW we are hoodwinked again.

I say allegedly because the South Australian Department of Health confirmed that he died form underlying health conditions read "pneumonia".

A 26-year-old Perth woman late on Friday became the fifth Australian and second West Australian with swine flu to die.

The woman, who authorities say had a pre-existing serious medical condition, had been in Royal Perth Hospital's intensive care unit for several days.

A hospital spokeswoman says it was not known how or when she contracted the human swine flu virus.

She said the woman's family had requested that she not be identified and that no medical details of her condition be released.

A 26-year-old man from the remote WA Aboriginal community of Kiwirrkurra, west of Alice Springs, became the first Australian swine flu fatality when he died in Royal Adelaide Hospital on June 19.

A 71-year-old Melbourne woman who died on Thursday was the fourth Australian with swine flu to die, after a 50-year-old Victorian long-term cancer sufferer died in Melbourne on Wednesday and 35-year-old diabetic man died at Colac in western Victoria on June 20.

Authorities say all five patients had underlying medical conditions and none of the deaths could be attributed directly to swine flu.

 

[noirua]

Become an expert on influenza in just under 7 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHPBdjCFDkE&feature=related
and a little bit more time spent to become an expert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaCJJzOIxhc&feature=related

 

[gooner]

Sooooo, wouldn't it therefore be a good idea for people to get this mild strain now, develop the antibodies, so that if it ever should turn nasty, people will have an immune response to it?

Prospector

At face value, what you say makes sense. However, the reality is that the more the virus is transmitted, the more chance it has to mutate to a deadlier v version. Thus, less transmission means less chance of it turning deadly

 

[Aussiejeff]

It might be mild, but one consequence not yet seriously considered by the media might be severe overloading of our decrepit hospital emergency systems.

Could a further significant progression *break* already teetering admission systems?

A HUGE increase in the number of people presenting to New South Wales hospitals with flu-like symptoms has forced the State Government to make hundreds of extra beds available. The number of confirmed swine flu cases in NSW has reached 1446, with western Sydney being particularly hard hit.

To cope with a 17-fold increase in people with flu symptoms - swine or seasonal - compared to the same period last year, 550 extra beds would be made available, NSW Health Minister John Della Bosca said.

NSW Health's Chief Medical Officer, Kerry Chant, said the problem was only going to get worse.

"The numbers for our Sydney southwest region are the highest," Dr Chant said.

"As time goes on, the disease will progressively spread around through the rest of metropolitan Sydney, and will also then progressively spread to our rural and regional areas."

Two people with swine flu have died in NSW this year.

Dr Chant said it was not possible to say what percentage of the population could be affected by the influenza A(H1N1) virus, but she indicated it could be as high as 40 per cent.

"We would estimate the clinical attack rate is going to be something like 20 to 40 per cent," she said.

"Because it's a new virus the population doesn't have any degree of immunity to it.

There are currently 59 people in NSW hospitals with swine flu, nine of them in intensive care."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25739712-5005961,00.html

I wonder how much *extra* on top of already massive deficit budgets might this *mild* outbreak cost both state & fed governements going forward?

It's all well for the health minister to claim an extra 500+ beds will suddenly be made available, but WHO WILL NURSE THE PATIENTS? Already over-stretched staff, is my guess. Wotif a further 1,000+ beds are needed in a hurry?

Hmmm.

 

[Prospector]

Sometimes, no, make that frequently, I am gobsmacked by the failure of Governments to understand the consequences of their actions/warnings.

They send out the red alert panic signals to people about this flu, tell them to present to Hospital emergency and indeed, they are forced to do so because GP's have signs on their doors telling anyone with 'flu symptoms' not to come inside but to go to Hospital, and then 'out of the blue' they are inundated with patients! Duh!

In SA we are not getting any statistics about swine flu; our hospitals lost their ability to cope with swine flu weeks ago so we dont hear much about it anymore. 99.9% of people dont need hospitalisation for it anyway; those who do need hospital treatment are probably already there!

 

[Aussiejeff]

Sometimes, no, make that frequently, I am gobsmacked by the failure of Governments to understand the consequences of their actions/warnings.

They send out the red alert panic signals to people about this flu, tell them to present to Hospital emergency and indeed, they are forced to do so because GP's have signs on their doors telling anyone with 'flu symptoms' not to come inside but to go to Hospital, and then 'out of the blue' they are inundated with patients! Duh!

In SA we are not getting any statistics about swine flu; our hospitals lost their ability to cope with swine flu weeks ago so we dont hear much about it anymore. 99.9% of people dont need hospitalisation for it anyway; those who do need hospital treatment are probably already there!

I don't think that is necessarily the case given the current deterioration in management of this outbreak.

Unfortunately, I suspect some patients who really DO need urgent hospital admission are going to suffer the consequences of a system that is rapidly becoming bogged down - probably to a crawl.

 

[Prospector]

I don't think that is necessarily the case given the current deterioration in management of this outbreak.

Unfortunately, I suspect some patients who really DO need urgent hospital admission are going to suffer the consequences of a system that is rapidly becoming bogged down - probably to a crawl.

Yes, but with people who really dont need to be there who will be clogging up the works because they think they may have swine flu. For all but a very few people, swine flu is a very mild disease that does not require any treatment other than rest and possibly fever medication. I personally know of three people (all teenagers) who have had it now, and they all recovered within a couple of days and were partying hard again within a week - semester break and all that!

 

[nhand42]

Spooly, the ordinary Influenza that occurs each winter causes hundreds of deaths in susceptible people. The last estimate I saw was 2000 each year. No one ever makes a fuss about that. So far the swine flu virus on its own is apparently a mild illness.

No, it is not mild, and your attitude is very worrying. The swine flu has a mortality rate of 0.5%; i.e. 1 in 200 people with the virus will die. While that's "mild" compared to the Spanish Flu (2.5%, 1 in 40) it's much worse than the common flu (0.1%, 1 in 1000).

And the reason it's so serious is because it is now a pandemic. That means the virus is widespread with confirmed cases for over 100,000 people, and realistically will affect millions of people.

The deaths in Australia have occurred in people who have an underlying health problem.

And that is simply not true. I've seen many people repeat that myth, maybe for comfort, but it's not supported by the facts. Young healthy adults are spending weeks on breathing machines... they are the ones who *don't* die.

Google for swine-flu-hits-young-healthy-adults-hard. I can't post links or I'd link directly.

As far as I can see so far, the hysteria generated is more of a problem than the virus.

Really? Because if anything I'd say the opposite is true. People are entirely laxidasical about the swine flu. I see very few people taking precautions. I see far more people saying "it's not that serious" or "it only affects old and sick people" or "I know somebody who got it and they're fine".

Your attitude is the real danger. Especially so when someone catches swine flu and plays the "soldier-on" card by going to work, sniffling and sneezing, and making everyone else sick. Imagine you are in an office block and 1 in 200 people died. There are 3000 people in my office block; now imagine 15 of them dead. I'm not sure that would be viewed as just "hysteria".

Of course it's ridiculous. As has already been discussed, the mortality rate in the 20th century flu was as a result of there being no penicillin in those days to fight the bacterial infection that followed the flu virus.

The death rate from the 1918 pandemic was actually 20%; far higher than the mortality rate from the virus itself.

You should treat the swine flu with appropriate seriousness. Pretending it's simply a windup, or hysteria, is how you can make the problem worse. At the moment it's entirely treatable if people take caution (e.g. stay home if you're sick, cover your mouth when you sneeze, wash your hands). But it people start believing it's not serious, that's when people start dying.

 

[gav]

Is it possible to be a "carrier" of swine flu, but display no symptoms? (eg. come in contact with someone who has swine flu, then you pass the flu onto someone else, but you are not display any symptoms yourself)

2 of my brothers housemates have tested positive to swine flu, so my brother thought he should get himself checked out (for his own health, the health of his work colleagues and their customers). The GP refused to test him because he didn't have any symptoms. His work did not want to take the risk and told him to take the week off.

 

[Prospector]

No, it is not mild, and your attitude is very worrying. The swine flu has a mortality rate of 0.5%; i.e. 1 in 200 people with the virus will die. While that's "mild" compared to the Spanish Flu (2.5%, 1 in 40) it's much worse than the common flu (0.1%, 1 in 1000).

And the reason it's so serious is because it is now a pandemic. That means the virus is widespread with confirmed cases for over 100,000 people, and realistically will affect millions of people.

And that is simply not true. I've seen many people repeat that myth, maybe for comfort, but it's not supported by the facts. Young healthy adults are spending weeks on breathing machines... they are the ones who *don't* die.

Google for swine-flu-hits-young-healthy-adults-hard. I can't post links or I'd link directly.

Really? Because if anything I'd say the opposite is true. People are entirely laxidasical about the swine flu. I see very few people taking precautions. I see far more people saying "it's not that serious" or "it only affects old and sick people" or "I know somebody who got it and they're fine".

Your attitude is the real danger. Especially so when someone catches swine flu and plays the "soldier-on" card by going to work, sniffling and sneezing, and making everyone else sick. Imagine you are in an office block and 1 in 200 people died. There are 3000 people in my office block; now imagine 15 of them dead. I'm not sure that would be viewed as just "hysteria".



The death rate from the 1918 pandemic was actually 20%; far higher than the mortality rate from the virus itself.

You should treat the swine flu with appropriate seriousness. Pretending it's simply a windup, or hysteria, is how you can make the problem worse. At the moment it's entirely treatable if people take caution (e.g. stay home if you're sick, cover your mouth when you sneeze, wash your hands). But it people start believing it's not serious, that's when people start dying.

You are kidding right? The only people who have died from this Pandemic in Australia have been morbidly obese (too heavy to even get into an ambulance) or have co-morbidities like Cancer (and therefore a suppressed immune system) or other significant respiratory illness. And even the Health people are not saying that they died from swine flu, but that they simply tested positive for it. If this was a share thread you would be accused of ramping!

My nephew had it - he wanted to go back to school three days and said he had had worse colds. Even the very first person in Adelaide who had it was attending school the day they were tested positive. The word Pandemic is used not to define its seriousness, but just its spread.

The death is much lower than you say too - the few deaths we have had are only compared with 'official' positive results; most people I know are not being tested for it when they are unwell, and even our Health People are saying it isnt worth testing everyone.

The only poster whom I agree with about the seriousness of this pandemic (Gooner) is that the rate of occurence does make it more likely that the virus might mutate into something else more sinister.

And I am also curious, why are you just picking on Julia for these things - many of us have said similar but you seem to have settled on Julia as your target for some reason.

 

[Timmy]

No, it is not mild, and your attitude is very worrying. The swine flu has a mortality rate of 0.5%; i.e. 1 in 200 people with the virus will die. While that's "mild" compared to the Spanish Flu (2.5%, 1 in 40) it's much worse than the common flu (0.1%, 1 in 1000).

And the reason it's so serious is because it is now a pandemic. That means the virus is widespread with confirmed cases for over 100,000 people, and realistically will affect millions of people.



And that is simply not true. I've seen many people repeat that myth, maybe for comfort, but it's not supported by the facts. Young healthy adults are spending weeks on breathing machines... they are the ones who *don't* die.

Google for swine-flu-hits-young-healthy-adults-hard. I can't post links or I'd link directly.




Really? Because if anything I'd say the opposite is true. People are entirely laxidasical about the swine flu. I see very few people taking precautions. I see far more people saying "it's not that serious" or "it only affects old and sick people" or "I know somebody who got it and they're fine".

Your attitude is the real danger. Especially so when someone catches swine flu and plays the "soldier-on" card by going to work, sniffling and sneezing, and making everyone else sick. Imagine you are in an office block and 1 in 200 people died. There are 3000 people in my office block; now imagine 15 of them dead. I'm not sure that would be viewed as just "hysteria".



The death rate from the 1918 pandemic was actually 20%; far higher than the mortality rate from the virus itself.

You should treat the swine flu with appropriate seriousness. Pretending it's simply a windup, or hysteria, is how you can make the problem worse. At the moment it's entirely treatable if people take caution (e.g. stay home if you're sick, cover your mouth when you sneeze, wash your hands). But it people start believing it's not serious, that's when people start dying.

Absolute rubbish. 1 in 200????? You have no idea - back up these outlandish statements with some facts.