Newest Swine Flu Statistics Show Close To 4000 Deaths
By Susie Madrak Friday Nov 13, 2009 2:00pmBoy, that's a pretty big jump. The new numbers include deaths indirectly caused by flu complications like pneumonia:
Swine flu has killed nearly 4,000 people in the US, including 540 children, officials said after devising a new counting method.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said the new system is based on more precise figures provided by 10 states.
The previous estimated death toll from the H1N1 virus in the US was 672.
Latest figures show about 22 million Americans contracted the virus in six months with some 98,000 hospitalised.
"This is just the first six months and I am expecting all of these numbers, unfortunately, to continue to rise," said Dr Anne Schuchat of the CDC.
She said that, although still imprecise, the new statistics provide "a bigger picture of what has been going on in the first six months of the pandemic".
The CDC now estimates that 3,900 people in the US have died from the virus in the past six months.
Dr Schuchat said that in children under 18, an estimated eight million have had swine flu, with 36,000 hospitalised and 540 deaths.
The new estimated death toll for children is four times higher than the previous estimate.
"We will be updating the toll that the pandemic has taken... about every three to four weeks," she said.
Login or Register to post comments.
.
Q U E S T I O N:
WHERE ARE THE COMPARABLE FIGURES ON SEASONAL FLU vs. H1N1?
.
... why don't you tell us?
And please delineate the deaths of this flu from previous ones. (i.e. Pregnant women & adolescents v. older folks.)
Then account for the fact that we still have the standard seasonal flu with the 'normal' expected deaths.
Politics doesn't come into play with normal administrations, unlike the last 8 years. And we're currently in a normal admin, (sigh, I was hoping for better.)
Maybe you can tell I'm bitter over the fact that even the CDC was so politicized under Bush #2 that Americans are distrustful of Gov't science & health.
...you would have found out that (astonishingly) ...the CDC is not keeping those statistics!
p.s. (this administration is not normal)
The question is basically: is this flu more infectious or deadly than the flu we get every year.
What does 4,000 deaths mean? Is it more or less than the average amount of deaths? Is this flu more infectious or deadly?
These questions are ignored in nearly every piece I've read on this subject - and there are plenty. Each has lots of information that sounds frightening, but no context whatsoever.
As for "Gov't science and health": remember the food pyramid? Or, before that, the four basic food groups? No science whatsoever, but plenty of government authority feeding us the corporate line of the day. It's been politicized for quite a while.
If seasonal flu had hit yet. We have no numbers for this year. Historically, there are around 36,000 seasonal flu deaths in a year. H1N1 is not more lethal--just hitting different groups hard.
I think the 'fudging' here is the notion that they just now decided to include deaths 'indirectly' linked to H1N1, like pneumonia. This sounds like BS. No one dies directly from flu--the cause of death is always indirect: respiratory failure, sepsis, multi-organ failure, etc., as a complication of influenza. If they weren't including those before, that is pretty sloppy data collection.
Deaths from seasonal flu are tightly clustered in January and December. Deaths from seasonal flu in September, October, and November are rare.
a link would be nice to see if they weren't just something you heard somewhere.
CDC ststs that I have already seen show influenza peaking in weeks 9-11 (March) or each year so I have to wonder why peak deaths would precede peak infection by several months.
This is how mankind will end and the Mother will begin her healing.
A microscopic virus will end our reign of terror and let Mother and her non destructive children flourish again!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8c9JYRQGVc
.
Jane Burgermeister interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelTWCUmTsU
.
Remember that in any given year regular seasonal flu accounts for 36,000 deaths in the United states each year:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-r...
So for half of this years flu stats, swine flu has accounted for 4000 deaths - doubling that to get an approximation of a full year we have 8,000 H1N1 deaths.
This means that Swine flu accounts for less than 25% of the deaths of a given flu season (according to the CDC). So it would appear that Swine flu is actually a good deal less deadly than plain seasonal flu.
If you want a graph of seasonal influenza fatalities, one place this has been published is at Estimating Influenza -Associated Deaths in the United States.
Here's the graph, as a JPEG image: S225fig1.jpeg
Read it and weep.
You don't simply multiply the mortality from May through October by some figure you pulled out of your ass, to get the peak or total mortalities. The way you did.
When you do this way, you'll get the wrong answer.
That neither of us are infectious disease specialists.
However each of us can presumably do simple mathematics and the math says that swine flu has accounted for only a fraction (25% thus far)of the yearly regular flu deaths.
No amount of sensationalism can get around that .
But of course why take my word for it - Here is a link to a Harvard researcher who definitely DOES know what he's talking about and he agrees - swine flu deaths are similar to regular ordinary seasonal flu:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32877953
Regarding your "pulling figures out of my ass comments" : it is peculiar of some people on the internet who lack facts or figures to attempt to demonize the messenger (similar to what FOX news does). Most people on this site probably are above that sort of thing and understand it well. It should be beneath you.
Each and every time you do it.
You pull shit like when people are paying attention, and you're liable to wear it.
The fact that you find this uncomfortable bothers me as little as my discomforture would have bothered my forensics teacher. If I'd been dumb enough to try to palm the card.
I see you did not bother to RTFA, or even look at the graph. Influenza deaths are tightly clustered in January, February, and occasionally March. 4000 influenza deaths by the middle of November is very unusual.
I will have to assume the are simply made up.
Those would be in the article Stormcrow linked and you didn't read.
And your articles is TWO MONTHS old. Events are moving sufficiently fast that it's out of date.
The facts and figures have already been posted. You just put anyone who posts them or points to them on ignore.
Thank you for the links, Stormcrow.
All flu is completely preventable if you take Vitamin D3 in sufficient amounts.
*
Start with this:
Dr. Cannel of the VD3 Council on the flu and VD3
*
I really hope everybody does all they can do to prevent or mitigate the flu.
The statistics are daunting.
Even more so if you know someone who dies.
Get your daily dose of fear mongering. 4000 people died in 6 months, thats 8k in a year. Influenza A, the seasonal flu, kills an estimated 36,000 a year!!!!!!
It's really simple. Look who bought the vaccine, and look who makes the vaccine. That will tell you everything. They don't hype a story for no reason.
going on in places (probably not here) by Big Pharma in order to keep the government grants coming in for the H1N1 vaccine. Big business does that all the time.
Unfortunately some people are prone to fear mongering and fall for this all the time. A whole lot of us are catching on to this tactic by now.
Eric, you write, "4,000 people died in 6 months, that's 8K in a year."
But that's not how disease numbers grow. They grow at a different rate because pockets of flu victims grow as the virus spreads, and as people travel it spreads more and then infects more people, who infect still more. It's not just a simple doubling of victims.
We have already been through one season of Swine flu already (recall past Spring and the Mexico and U.S. infection rates) so we have a good idea of how fast the disease spreads and it's mortality rate. That's how the Harvard researcher (who I linked to above via an MSNBC article) came to his conclusion regarding the mortality rate.
Anything else regarding "extreme mutation" or things like that is simply speculation. We already know the stats from this flu from the infection we already had around the world this past Spring.
As has been pointed out to you already, most flu deaths occur during January and February (and sometimes March). Simply multiplying by two in order to get yearly numbers is ostrich-level denialism.
Making up stats is not the same thing as giving an actual linkable reference to them.
We have only your word that deaths occur as you claim they do. People misinterpret things all the time and pass it along as fact on the internet.
Regardless of any peak season for deaths however, we have already been through a flu season last spring so the CDC is well aware of the mortality rate of this particular flu.
Spreading fear by claiming that the next two months are somehow "special" in that many will suddenly die when that has not been the case before, simply indicates a morbid obsession with death rather than any actual knowledge.
by the toll of a billion deaths
man had earned his immunity
his right to survive among this planets infinite organisms
and that right is ours against all challenges
for neither do men live nor die in vain.
you beat me to it.
The normal strain of flu kills 98,000 Americans a year. We're only up to 4,000 Swine flu deaths since the outbreak began. I guess it doesn't hold a candle to normal influenza. Why do we hype this stuff? Seems like C&L is using the fear card right now. Swine flu will became as normal as the common strain and in a couple of years it wont even be a headline except for Big Pharma telling you to get a shot.
See my previous post and the CDC link.
I agree with you that this flu has not proven itself to be more deadly (and likely less deadly) than a regular seasonal flu .
Sorry forgot to add the last part to my post. It was media hype that 98,000 die each year. I was being sarcastic. Just like all news on Swine it makes for good TV. I can't wait to see 2012. The Mayans are right, you'll see.
That's original.
The hype around 2012 is rather absurd. The Mayans just say there's a new age of man that will begin on the "magical" date. It says nothing about the end of the world.
Maybe the ones that do believe the world would end can join up with the faith healers and the other superstitious, mumbo-jumbo crowds and form some super cult. That way the adults can keep track of them.
I'm so sorry you didn't approve of my sarcasm. I'll try harder next.
Heehee...that was sarcasm too.
Thank you very much, I'll be here all week and don't forget to tip your waitress.
The flu season hasn't even started yet. That's why they're worried.
And the H1N1 virus was into play then. So we already know how fast it spreads, it's mortality rate , etc. We all remember the reports of swine flu outbreaks.
It's true that we have another flu season this year and H1N1 will come into play as well. In fact it has already been breaking out in a great many places. But there is no reason to expect that the upcoming flu season will be any different than last years H1N1 flu season.
My grandmother lost two brothers- ages 8 and 5- to the Spanish Influenza in 1919. Not during the first wave of that pandemic, which this one resembles so far, but during the second wave, after the virus had mutated.
Now H1N1 might not mutate in the same deadly way, but if it doesn't, we'll never know if it failed to do so on its own or whether it failed to do so because it was halted by vaccinations. But if it does mutate in just the right way, 4000 deaths in six months will be a drop in the bucket.
Mutation? Perhaps you can sell that plot for a SyFy teledrama?
Regarding 1918 and deaths back then ... welcome to the 21st century! In this century we have antibiotics that counter the biggest cause of influenza death there is - pneumonia. Plus one or two other improvements in the last 90 years I would imagine. It's a brave new world out there.
Now if you'll excuse me I think I'm coming down with a case of vapors.
What, influenza never mutates? Bwahahahahahahahaha...How do you think it survives? How do you think it's hopped between species for the last few thousand years?
And i don't know if you've been following the journals in the last 10-15 years, but antibiotics have been so over-prescribed that they're losing their effectiveness. So don't count on any magic bullets.
If something like an argument over the rate of mutation in viruses is what makes you put people on ignore, you'll be talking to yourself in no time.
Science is a crock!
I mean, what's science ever done for us? It's not like our standard of living has gone up one iota in the last 500 years.
Influenza has the highest mutation rate observed in nature, kiddo. Mutation is a certainty. Whether that makes it better or worse is down to a roll of the dice.
You're right for two reasons.
1. Influenza viruses (Orthomyxoviridae family) have RNA genomes. RNA genomes have a much higher mutation rate than DNA genomes. Also, some have a single stranded genome, which makes the mutation rate even hinter.
2. Many of the RNA-genome viruses have multiple chromosomes (three, for example), and developing a new strain only requires swapping of one or more of the chromosomes. (ie-a person gets infected with two strains at once, and a new combination of the three chromosomes is created when two viruses infect the same cell.)
That's how we get new influenza virus strains every year. Recombination and (to a lesser extent) mutation.
That being said, homologous recombination occurs between different strains, too. That's how the attenuated polio virus vaccine became virulent again. The attenuated polio virus vaccine was originally three different viral strains, each with a different set of point mutations that made them harmless. Then, in some rare cases, there was homologous recombination (putting the active bits of the chromosomes together, and throwing away the non-functional mutated parts), giving active polio viurs again. That's why they switched back to the killed polio virus vaccine. (Unfortunately, a lot of anti-vaccination activists used this story as an argument against vaccination per se.)
You learn the most interesting things in the comments section...
I don't know which of the two comments that mentioned antibiotics you're responding to, but neither of them actually said antibiotics cure viral infections. They just mentioned antibiotics in relation to preventing influenza related deaths.
Since you went to nursing school you probably know that most deaths related to influenza are associated with bacterial lung infections, especially Streptococcus pneumoniae.
(International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
Volume 34, Issue 4, October 2009, Pages 293-294)
Why not give them the benefit of the doubt? :)
Every minute of every day since the dawn of humankind, we have always been just a mutation away from another plague.
It was true last year, the year before and the before that. What's the difference?
Proximity is a big one- we've never been closer to each other than we are now. We move around the world faster than we did in 1919, or even 1968-69 duiring the Hong Kong flu outbreak. There are more of us now than ever, which means there are more places for viruses to mutate.
The upshot to this proximity is that immunities to some viruses get passed around more quickly. But influenza can mutate very rapidly, before an addition to the gene pool in a given population grants herd immunity.
And not all mutations are necessarily bad for the host, and some can be deadly to the virus. A very strong virus might burn through the host population so quickly- the filoviruses (Ebola and Marburg) are an example- that all of the hosts die before they can spread the virus. And that's why, for thousands of years, influenza wasn't such a horrible thing. A flu bug might get on to a caravel in Spain, but a trip to the New World was so long that the bug ate through its host and mutated into something less lethal by the time it hit the New World.
But wasn't all this true last year too?
That's what I don't get. What I do get is fear - or as my buddy once said after some advanced sales courses: FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).
If swine flu is more infectious, or more virulent, then why don't we have some numbers for comparison? If the the data were that much worse, I'm thinking they'd have mentioned it. In fact, I almost think the MSM would have reveled in it.
In other words: are they just reporting on the "ordinary" flu and making it extra scary this season?
And I'm no hypochondriac, either. It just is what it is. Hell, if some virus were to go around and effect us like the Bubonic Plague did in Europe during the Middle Ages, there might be some good in it. In the wake of that epidemic, labor was at a premium. Wages went up, the middle class was born, the Renaissance followed....
I think what we've really got to be worried about is growing our population so high that we outstrip our food sources. Malthus warned of this in, what, the first half of the 19th century? He charted out the rise and fall of extinct species, showed how they grew disproportionately to their food sources, and our population growth is matching those charts.
Bubonic Plague = Good
Brady Bunch = Bad
I think I got it.
Seriously, though, viruses are one of nature's ways of keeping a balance. We forget- hell, we're raised to believe in this agriculture-based society- that we're above nature, that we're meant to tame it rather than to be tamed by it. We can be smart enough, individually, to know this, but, on a whole, we're the idiots that will very likely be responsible for the extinction of millions of species, including our own.
... try arranging your bacon and eggs like a smiley face. :-)
The forces of evil, or even of idiocy, are not destined to prevail.
We have the internet now.
No, the swine flu was not in play during the major part of last flu season. It was already well over by the time this virus achieved pandemic status.
That's about equal to six months of hand gun homicides, according to DOJ.
How do bullets mutate inside of a human corpse- or, in as in the case of the flu virus, in pigs and birds- and how are the mutated offspring of that bullet transmitted to other bodies?
http://marvel.com/
...and you turn out to be just another ysb sock-puppet!
;D
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27484.html
Swine flu currently has a mortality rate of approximately 0.0002%.
Based on a couple google sources, the normal Seasonal flu has a mortality rate of approximately 0.01%.
Now, I'm not a statistician or a physician, but it would seem the normal seasonal flu is much more deadly than this "horrible, world-ending pandemic" swine flu.
is off a bit :) I don't think the mortality rate of H1N1 is only 1/50th the rate of regular flu as your figures would imply (but I would be interested in seeing reliable CDC links if that were the case) but we do agree that the mortality rate of H1N1, from everything that I've seen and heard so far, is less than or no worse than ordinary seasonal flu.
In other words - it's nothing to be really worked up about.
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n...
.... unless i missed something. I even did a fond on the page for that number but could not see it. Could you perhaps direct me to where on the page the .0002% mortality rate is given?
I agree with you that the mortality rate of H1N1 flu is no greater than and likely less than regular flu.
was just some quick napkin math. 22 million cases according to the above article, with 4000 deaths.
4000 / 22,000,000 is .00018 --- or .018%
FYI.
I always did do better in English back in high school.
So, it's actually 80% worse than seasonal flu. Interesting. Still, when you're talking about fractions of a percentage, it's nothing to get all worked up about.
It's actually about only 1/5 the mortality rate of seasonal flu which is .5% .
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idU...
Stick to the English class :) .
My bad
If you don't have insurance, you pay for the vaccine.
If you get sick you pay for the doctor.
If you get really sick you pay for the hospital.
....or you just stay home and hope you make it.
...require me to get "the shot" ...???
...If so...count me out!
Do they require medicare patients to get the shot?
I will be waiting to see what congress decides is an "acceptable healthcare plan"
Nancy Pelosi said that (as it stands now) an "acceptable healthcare plan" will cost somewhere around $15,000 a year...
I'm just worried that congress will make CDC recommended vaccinations (a required part) of an "acceptable healthcare program"
Take Vitamin D3 to prevent swine flu (and all flues)
Look at the research on the flu and Vitamin D at www.vitamindcouncil.org -
Or start with this: Dr. Cannel of the VD3 Council on the flu and VD3:
More reports on the subject - find the ones by doctors - at youtube:
This video on vitamin D3 by Dr. Prendergast is good.
Dr. Cannel on the toxicity of vitamin D3 -- he explains that water is more toxic than vitamin D3.
*
Study after study after study have shown that vitamins do not work. Vitamin World and GNC are robbing you blind. If you want nutrition, get it from the source. Food! Look at your links, vitamindcouncil.org? What do you think they're going to say? "The stuff we promote and make money off of doesn't work"?
recieved a nobel prize for his work on "vitamin C"
vitamin C has been scientifically demonstrated to be...(good stuff!)
This is 2009. Current studies seem to differ with Pauling's findings. Not saying he wasn't a smart man but welcome to 2009. Vitamins are a joke and a money maker. There is no substitute for nature. They are a joke! Maybe if you took a bottle at a time but you'd be in the bathroom for most of the week.
are imported from China and not inspected in this country. Look on the labels. Many say "distributed" by a US company, not even made here. I just love melamine in the morning.
Linus Pauling received a Nobel for his work in molecular chemistry. His ideas regarding Vitamin C not only did not get him a Nobel but was the source of much laughter at him from the rest of the scientific community.
There never has been a proven scientific correlation between Vitamin C and the common cold or cancer as he suggested. In fact the Mayo clinic disproved the idea some time ago:
http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/UnconventionalT...
Those are facts.
This is the scary part of medicine/vitamins. To many people believe in phony alternatives to traditional. I'm not saying that there isn't any other alternatives but claims made by vitamin makers are dangerous and possibly deadly. My best friend worked in management for GNC for a number of years. Upper management for seven. He left on his own accord. But he will be the first one to tell you that vitamins are a farce. He did pretty well for himself and has no regrets but he knows the truth. Vitamins do nothing but give you energy and wake your ass up. Then you have the crash just like caffeine. If you want the benefits that vitamins provide, drink a pot coffee.
The best way to get your vitamins is through good food!
Excuse me about Pauling and the Nobel prize...
(he did do the vitamin C study pretty much all by himself with mostly self experimenting but...
I will always keep a little C around the house anyway...
I hear colloidal silver is a good thing...easy and or cheap too...Americans don't eat with enough real silverware anymore!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_...
Not sure if you're being sarcastic but if not, you can spend the money your saving from vitamin purchases on your next procedure that Stupak doesn't want covered.
Good talk, good talk.
...and the stupak amendment sucks!
It's just that the stupak amendmendment only costs women about 500/1500 bucks...
which is peanuts compared to the fifteen thousand dollars a year that I will be forced to pay!
(and no) I wasn't being sarcastic
...that there is a link between autism and vaccines.
(when you go get your flu shot)
tell em you want the "Baxter Special" (with extra squalene)
You're wrong. The only study to ever show any linkage has been shown to be entirely fabricated. Many other studies have been done... and there is no connection.
If you repeat the claim, I shall feel entirely justified in calling you a liar.
Are people aware that women will be required to purchase insurance the same as everyone else? The effect will be that women are required to purchase that $15,000 insurance (assuming arguendo), but safe and effective medical intervention for part of their health care needs will be *forbidden* to be covered.
Some people might believe you. If you're not making a joke, then DUH!
I have never heard that silver is poison.
...there are many colloidal silver products (for ingestion) that you can buy!
.
#1 ingredient in rat poison?...same stuff as in our municipal water!
(everything in moderation) ...is my motto!
the active ingredient (warfarin) is a blood thinner--it makes rats bleed to death.
The primary ingredient in most rat poisons is warfarin... and that is a much, much different thing than the flouride put into municipal water supplies.
Has not only been shown to NOT have an effect on viruses and HAS been shown to be snake oil ... but here is the result of continued exposure to it by idiots who take the stuff:
http://www.tomifobia.com/rosemary.html
.
So it wasn't just a medical prize for protein structure and a peace prize for fighting against the H bomb?
Actually, by the time he got to talking about vitamin C, everyone thought he'd pretty much gone off the deep end.
Linus Pauling won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on atomic bond structures. He later won the Nobel Peace Prize for his nuclear anti-proliferation work.
He had no training or experience in medicine, and his claims about vitamin C have not been born out by scientific studies.
runs a "health" website that tries to sell you miracle cures for a variety of diseases including cancer (google him).
He is also an Anti-vaxxer that claims vaccines cause autism in Children.
FYI.
Susie Madrak blogged elsewhere. No disrespect intended, but her health posts are not only out of place on a political blog but even worse they are representative of the hyperbolic and fetishized nature of the MSM coverage of this issue that has not only done a horrible job in covering, but has actually made the situation worse. I suggest she find a different forum for what appears to be obsession.
I think that potentially this could be a huge political issue in the right circumstances but to date I am not convinced that it is.
And I also must agree that the tone of the original post seems to present a rather one sided outlook on the issue. It makes it appear as it it is a huge threat but fails to mention the actual mortality stats with respect to regular seasonal flu.
I'm certainly not saying there isn't politics in the story, there are tons of it. But her posts are never about that. They are always death stats and MSM scare tactics. Sad to see this on this blog.
That is something you see everywhere in the internet. Anytime people have an agenda, be it Big Pharma wanting to sell more vaccine or Little Trolls {g} wanting to pretend they have a life. When people have agendas they resort to lies and misinformation to try to convince people less educated then themselves of their peculiar viewpoint.
Even on this thread we see several individuals arguing made up facts and debating their own peculiar belief systems as if it were a religion. I like to think that on forums like this one people are smart enough, generally , to look at all the arguments and weed out the obvious lies from the facts.
The facts are that we already have been through a full season of swine flu and pretty much nothing happened. There isn't anything particularly special about the net few months that will herald the "Swine Flu Apacolypse" . I think most poeple already know and sense that.
That's Amato's call, ain't it?
opinions shouldn't be expressed here I guess. Good point.
If you have some underlying health issue, get the vaccine. Absolutely, and if you don't have insurance (like oh so many of us) there are low or no-cost clinics. (Try Wall Street! Haha. Sadly, just kidding)
The same as the regular flu. This particular strain seems to hit 'healthy' regular people a bit more, but still. Again, if you have some underlying health issue - go get your shot. Period.
If not, well, you may get sick or you may not.
Healthwise, H1N1 or not, it's always a crapshoot. Take your pick.
Just don't panic, that's all I'm saying.
Despite being turned down for the swine flu vaccine - the first time I have ever been turned down for any vaccine since I am in the highest "at risk" group; none the less, I am not worried.
Why? Because the criminals at Goldman Sach's got their shots first and thats what really matters.
Nice P.R. move Obama administration. ASSHOLES!
I really am beginning to loathe this guy, along with all the DLC repuke-lite corporate coke-suckers in his administration!
the manufacturer - NOT the government administration in any way.
This is what always happens when money is king.
If you don't like it then you need to to get politically and socially active to start electing representatives who make laws for YOU and protect you fro the ultra-wealthy. Until you and a lot of others connect together and basically take to the streets in protest of these privileged people - and continue to do it for a long long time - nothing will ever change.
The ultra-wealthy count on the masses not especially doing anything other than complaining about the government on websites. This isn't a critique against you personally - it's just the way things are.
Yes I know, but it still sucks.
And I did work very hard for democrats last year, and have gotten nothing in return but a big fat bluedog shit-sandwich.
Hell, here in Michigan, our overwhelmingly elected democratic State House has a speaker who comes up with more republican ideas than the god damned republicans themselves - the little SOB!
He has proposed legislation that would strip collective bargaining rights from public employee unions. In Michigan, one of the birthplace's of the union movement! This is what we got for giving the little bastard an overwhelming majority in last years election.
And if you bother to look at the CDC's website, you would see that the rate of hospitalizations are falling as is the rate of infection: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/
Instead of looking at the overall figures of childhood death, look at the regions that have the highest rate of death and ask why that is instead of fear mongering.
Here's what I find interesting about this; most of the sources I'm seeing are showing that the US fatality rate per infection is somewhere in the vicinity of 4 times higher than Japan's.
Now, this might just be due to underreporting of actual infections in the US or any number of other factors, but presuming it's right, that points to people being a whole heck of a lot liklier to be killed by the virus here than there. It does tend to hit kids--something Japan has a severe shortage of--harder, but with Japan's very aged population, multiplied by the fact that the country is almost ENTIRELY urban and extremely dense on top of it (plus a lot of public transit), I'd generally expect to see a lot more dead there than here as a percentage.
Yet, if we really do have a higher rate of fatal infections, I can only think that points to the extreme weakness of our health care system vs. Japan's relatively strong national health care. After all, if I get the flu here in the US, I'm not going to the doctor unless I think I'm dying, much less check into a hospital. In Japan, the first thing most people I know who get sick do--even with a bad cold--is go to the doctor. Can't help but think this might lead to a lot more people surviving what is so far a relatively mean strain of seasonal-level flu.
Already two dead in my rural county here, and it hasn't even been going around at the university. They are finally vaccinating younger students, at least, though there's still a severe shortage.
If you were exposed to the Asian(?) flu in the late '50s, the H1N1 vaccine isn't seen as vital. So if the population of Japan is older, and more people, on average, were exposed to the earlier, similar virus, that might be the reason the rate of infection is lower.
There are many strains of the flu that have been around a while and we naturally have built up some immunity to them , we can fight the bug off and recover , this Swine flu is a completely new strain and we have no natural defense against it , this from my doctor today . Went in for an unrelated problem and he insisted I get the vaccine as my health is not good , the hippy days and the bachelor years have caught up with me , I was not going to get the vaccine ( don't trust the system ) but went ahead and let em poke me ... in the arm that is . If I grow fangs or what ever I will report to you folks here immediately , so far so good .
I don't know where people get such ideas but it is common knowledge that H1N1 strains have been around for decades. The Spanish flu of 1918, and the Russian flu of '77-78. The 1947 flu epidemic was also am H1N1 strain.
And before you go off half cocked and proclaim that this is a new mutation , yes each and every single year there are thousands of new flu mutations. That's why people keep getting the flu. The new mutations are what keeps viruses alive in spite of our immune systems. But the basics of how a given strain behave are similar so this being a new outbreak means nothing at all.
This is NOT a completely new strain in any way shape or form
It's a subtype of the influenza A virus. And all of those strains you listed differed from each other slightly at the genetic level. This current flu is a different strain from the rest of those occurring in the H1N1 subtype. It is a new strain.
Think I would rather seek out H1N1 than take up skydiving.
and multiply by 100.
Still not that incredibly high, but why increase your risk of dying?
Of course, I go to C&L _first_ but then I usually head toward Buzzflash. Take a look at:
A Nun Speaks Out On the H1N1 Pandemic: "The WHO Changed the Official Definition of a Pandemic"
http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=1048647
Basically, we're being sold vaccinations by redefining a "pandemic" as anything people around the world have caught. And she speculates that it might have unfortunate side effects.
Of course, I go to C&L _first_ but then I usually head toward Buzzflash. Take a look at:
A Nun Speaks Out On the H1N1 Pandemic: "The WHO Changed the Official Definition of a Pandemic"
http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=1048647
Basically, we're being sold vaccinations by redefining a "pandemic" as anything people around the world have caught. And she speculates that it might have unfortunate side effects.
It told me to submit a second time
And the victims probably didn't have health insurance either.
in posting any threads on scientific or medical issues on this site. Having read through the comments all it appears to accomplish is demonstrating that appalling ignorance about the fundamentals of science is every bit as common on the left as it is on the right. Not much causes me to despair but this does.
But my sense is that there are people who have an agenda to spread misinformation here. They are acting more like trolls than anything else . I have a much easier time believing that such people are simply trolls out for an argument then anyone actualy believing such things.
This is an old Trick that the CDC.And the Pharmaceutical Industry i Guess
actually they are the same thing,do sell Vaccines and scare the Hell
out of the General Population. Anyone who has worked at a Nursing Home
knows most Elderly People there Die of pneumonia.So what the CDC.will
do is add these Numbers with the Flu deaths to make the overall Numbers
more HORRIFIC. They have been doing this for Years. It helps sell a
lot of Vaccines$$
So many odd people have been popping up claiming that swine flu is going to suddenly pick up in the next few months and turn into some sort of major disaster. Why these people say such things one can only speculate....
BUT here is a link to a Harvard researcher who specializes in infectious diseases . He says that H1N1 virus has no greater death rate then plin old yearly flu.
Don't take my word for what H1N1 is doing and don't take the words of anyone you see on the internet - they may be nine year old kids for all you know - as I might be :)
Take the word of this Harvard epidemiologist:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32877953
http://qbit.cc/harvard-mdreuters-h1n1-death-r...
Yes, the death rates have been like seasonal flu, but we aren't in the flu season yet. Take a look at the graph here.
See those numbers at the bottom of the graph? Those numbers are the weeks of the year. "2007-06" is the week of the year, so this graph shows where the seasonal flu peaks. In 2006-2008, the mortality rates for seasonal flu in children peak in weeks 7 and 8. Same in 2009, but then at the end of the graph, there's a huge spike, above and beyond 2007-2009 seasonal flu deaths. In 2008, there were no deaths in this group between week 26 and week 52; in '07, over the same time period, single deaths were reported in four separate weeks, with no deaths reported in the other 23 weeks in the "off season". But in '09, so far, there have been a few weeks in the "off season" with over 20 reported deaths in pediatric influenza A cases, and many "off season" weeks with more than 5 deaths.
So your two month old articles are misleading, first because they aren't current, but second, and more importantly, they don't factor in that there are traditional peaks and valleys in the number of flu related deaths in a calendar year.
It's from September.
check out this link.http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/14/Expert-Pediatrician-Exposes-Vaccine-Myths.aspx
He kind of sounds like an anti-vaxxer and, although he brings up some interesting points, I look at his credentials and wonder if a pediatrician with no research or scientific publishing credentials is really someone I would want to trust as the last word on vaccinations. He also seems to have a business going around giving talks about not vaccinating so there's kind of a vested interested as well. He impresses me not as a researcher but rather someone who has something to sell.
With that said I think if nothing else he serves to remind everyone that not everything is necessarily safe and people should be informed before accepting any kind of medication - especially these days when the FDA has had a recent history (last 8 years) of approving so many dangerous medications while at the same time taking money from the Pharmaceutical industry. And I do recall how an ill considered H1N! vaccine in 1976 was responsible for setting off a wave of Guillume-Barre syndrome and leaving many permanently paralyzed. Granted that was a fluke but it does emphasize the necessity of being informed on both sides and making a sensible decision.
My decisin not to have the H1N1 vaccine is based in my prior exposure to an H1N1 flu but I personally believe that at-risk groups would be wise to take it.
The big thing I think is to not panic - to not listen to the internet Chicken Littles who are foretelling disaster . Who knows what these people do in real life ? I looked around and saw people like that Harvard epidemiologist that I linked to earlier say that this H1N1 flu has a rather low mortality rate so that is who I am going to base my decisions on - people who have credentials and credibility.
Thanks for that link though - I don't agree with a lot of what that guy is saying but it was interesting none the less.
I can tell you, when you work in a hospital and see these little babies come in with H1N1, it doesn't really matter what the numbers are.
It's silly to freak out or to worry beyond taking simple precautions when around people who are diagnosed with the flu. Please remember though, there doesn't have to be a million deaths before it becomes a reality for the families affected. I'm actually kind of embarrassed that we, as a society, seem to think that "only 4,000" deaths is something to be sarcastic about. Those are real lives, and some of these kids don't see even 1 year of life. So have some respect.
Either way, arguing the stats is certainly nothing worth spending your whole Saturday on.
I see that you just created an account prior to this very first post. Welcome :)
I am curious - how do you know that the children that you are seeing with the flu in the hospital that you work in have Swine flu? It takes a rather expensive genetic test to differentiate swine flu from ordinary flu. This test is actually only rarely done and usually only at a CDC request. So I was curious how you see children coming in with H1N1. If your hospital is testing every single child I think that would be fantastic. I wish my VA could afford the several thousand dollar test to check everyone but that's not the case :(
It looks like a lot of people may just be guessing at whether they have H!N1 flu - instead of the regular seasonal flu that most people get. In fact the Center for Disease Control is now reporting that many (probably most) people who think they have (or have been told they have) swine flu probably just have ordinary flu.
You can read about it here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/...
In this recent CBS report they found that over 95% of the people who were listed by doctors as having "probable" swine flu, when actually tested for H1N1, tested as having regular flu instead.
You can read about it here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbs...
And yes it's tragic that 36,000 people die of flu every year. It's awful that 31,000 people die of gun deaths too. And 1300 children die from car deaths each year. I guess that's just part of life that everyone accepts.
The high number of false negatives in the tests (as confirmed by autopsy results), perhaps we should listen to them. Just a thought!
What "false negatives" are you referring to and what sort of autopsies are being carried out and why? Is there any kind of link you can provide that would clarify what you are trying to say? I admit ou do have me curious now. :)
One thing we can be sure of - the hype around Swine flu has really gotten to a lot of people out there. From that CBS News report that I linked to above, the state statistics (from their various health depts) showed that about 95% of people who were diagnosed with Swine flu never had it at all. Frankly that's a statistic that surprises even me ! But I suppose you can't argue with health department statistics.
Login or Register to post comments.