First Irish Swine Flu Death

Wertz

Seems this girl was a cystic fibrosis sufferer, a condition that leaves the immune system open to all kinds of things, in particular respiratory illnesses. With all due respect she was as likely to die from many other illnesses, particulalrly in this country.
That said, the first deaths in Scotland in june were also in people with "underlying medical conditions"...it makes sense that those who are already compromised will make up the first fatalities...but since then there have been fatalities among otherwise healthy individuals.

For all of those going on about regular influenza killing people every year, that's great...what you're missing out on is that for the most part those fatalities are made up of mostly elderly people and people susceptible to respiratory tract infections. Outside of those groups, fatalities are rare...this isn't the case with H1N1, where we see more relatively young people dying and we're still only a few months into the cycle of infection. The issue surroundling pregnancy isn't something you see with normal flu either AFAIK.

Whilst I agree that the constant media bombardment is sensationalist and that the perceived public reaction is somewhat OTT (if you believe what the media are telling you about that), to be complacent about the thing is a little foolhardy too...the underlying point being missed here is that this is an infection to which none of us have much immunity (unless you're already over it) and which, if/when we catch it, will affect us to varying degrees...whilst infected we may pass it on to those who have a much higher chance of dying, through the very complacency being expressed by some on here.
Until an effective vaccine (assuming there is such a thing) can be widely implemented it's within our best interests to arrest the spread of the virus as much as possible...but in reality trying to prevent the spread is a near impossible task.

God help us all when mother nature dishes up a heavyweight virus that really packs a fatal punch...because as seen with this one, we have no way to effectively control it's progress across the globe.

BTW comparisons to AIDS and nvCJD? Please...neither of those are airborne viruses (hell nvCJD isn't even a virus) and in fact require bodily fluid contact, which is somewhat preventible...

AARRRGH

Wertz wrote: »

BTW comparisons to AIDS and nvCJD? Please...neither of those are airborne viruses (hell nvCJD isn't even a virus) and in fact require bodily fluid contact, which is somewhat preventible...

The comparison was in the context of the media hyping up diseases so people think everyone is seriously at risk. (You don't remember the insane fear mongering about AIDS and CJD?)

You gotta keep the context when paraphrasing someone...

tallaght01 wrote:

As for the stuff about black people just being more likely to catch HIV?? WTF??? I dunno what it has to do with swine flu, but it's bolix!

Again, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't expect everyone to know everything about everything, but to dismiss something due to having a lack of knowledge about it is just silly. Just do a bit of Googling if you want to learn more about this topic. You can confine all your searching to CDC stats so you aren't worried about it being some anti-black conspiracy.

Anyway, let's go back to talking about swine flu. People need to keep some perspective and be careful about who is the information giver, e.g. it's in newspapers interests to drastically hype something as it's proven to sell more papers; it's in the interests of pharma companies to drastically hype diseases as it's proven to sell more drugs, e.g. tamiflu. Etc.

As I said earlier, if you're not worried about getting killed by a car (which is a lot more likely than dying of swine flu) you need to ask yourself why you're letting the fear mongerers control you.

Sea Sharp

RIP

Wertz

AARRRGH wrote: »

The comparison was in the context of the media hyping up diseases so people think everyone is seriously at risk. (You don't remember the insane fear mongering about AIDS and CJD?)

You gotta keep the context when paraphrasing someone...

Yes I realise the context you used it in...my point is that because they are transmitted in a different way, public awareness can prevent transmission to a great extent, certainly more than with an airborne virus.

I recall the mass panics about AIDS and to a lesser extent nvCJD...but your assertion that AIDS never became a problem is a bit foolish...it's arguably because of the increased awareness of people (in the west) that the figures in the heterosexual population aren't much higher (even if they were, our ability to treat and manage the virus is much higher than any 3rd world country)...but to say that it isn't/wasn't a problem in the west (irrgardless of places in the 3rd world where it's huge problem) is a bit disingenuous.

The whole thing about BSE/CJD was as much about the whole mystery of who might develop the condition and how much of the problem was down to inaction on behalf of the UK authorities at the time of the height of the BSE problem within the national herd...that has blown over because it seems that not nearly as many people ate infected beef as what was thought ...but the public mistrust of the authorities that failed to act to prevent BSE entering the foodchain lead to a media frenzy about "beef on the bone" and such and was fueled by the public's fears of the unknown.
People still died from nvCJD...nothing the media said or did could have stopped that...but the public outcry the scare caused arguably gave the authorities the kick up the hole they needed to make sure that prion contamination was treated with the utmost urgency.

Just because there's a media scare about it, doesn't mean that it's not in fact a threat.
To dismiss H1N1 out of hand as just another flu & media scare, when the strain in question has only been known about for 4-5 months and is still in the first stages of an actual pandemic is at best short-sighted...

AARRRGH

Wertz wrote: »

Yes I realise the context you used it in...my point is that because they are transmitted in a different way, public awareness can prevent transmission to a great extent, certainly more than with an airborne virus.

I recall the mass panics about AIDS and to a lesser extent nvCJD...but your assertion that AIDS never became a problem is a bit foolish...it's arguably because of the increased awareness of people (in the west) that the figures in the heterosexual population aren't much higher (even if they were, our ability to treat and manage the virus is much higher than any 3rd world country)...but to say that it isn't/wasn't a problem in the west (irrgardless of places in the 3rd world where it's huge problem) is a bit disingenuous.

The whole thing about BSE/CJD was as much about the whole mystery of who might develop the condition and how much of the problem was down to inaction on behalf of the UK authorities at the time of the height of the BSE problem within the national herd...that has blown over because it seems that not nearly as many people ate infected beef as what was thought ...but the public mistrust of the authorities that failed to act to prevent BSE entering the foodchain lead to a media frenzy about "beef on the bone" and such and was fueled by the public's fears of the unknown.
People still died from nvCJD...nothing the media said or did could have stopped that...but the public outcry the scare caused arguably gave the authorities the kick up the hole they needed to make sure that prion contamination was treated with the utmost urgency.

Just because there's a media scare about it, doesn't mean that it's not in fact a threat.
To dismiss H1N1 out of hand as just another flu & media scare, when the strain in question has only been known about for 4-5 months and is still in the first stages of an actual pandemic is at best short-sighted...

I'm not saying there is no threat whatsoever, I am saying people need to keep perspective and be aware of who they are getting their information from, i.e. do the people have a vested interest in creating hype.

I will eat my hat if it turns out swine flu kills tons of people.

MagicMarker

AARRRGH wrote: »

I will eat my hat if it turns out swine flu kills tons of people.

What do you public awareness is supposed to do?

Boston

AARRRGH wrote: »

The public are so stupid.

How many professors needs to come out and say the swine flu is no more dangerous than the normal flu before you'll believe them?

Loads of people die from the flu. It's a normal occurrence.

Can you not see this is just more fear mongering? First it was AIDS, then it was CJD, now it's the flu.

You're thousands of times more likely to die in a car crash tonight than you are to ever die from swine flu at any stage in your life.

AIDs was an absolute epidemic when it first hit, with thousands dying within 6 months of showing signs. Millions of people are still infected around the world and while it isn't a major problem here (a few hundred new cases a year and the majority of those are drug users) it is a terrible problem in other countries.

AARRRGH

MagicMarker wrote: »

What do you public awareness is supposed to do?

Can you tell me what the fear mongering has done to change anyone's habbits?

I don't know anyone who is living their life any differently (apart from unnecessary worry) due to the "public awareness" campaign we've been bombarded with.

Boston wrote: »

AIDs was an absolute epidemic when it first hit, with thousands dying within 6 months of showing signs. Millions of people are still infected around the world and while it isn't a major problem here (a few hundred new cases a year and the majority of those are drug users) it is a terrible problem in other countries.

Do you not remember the news? They said it would be an epidemic in the heterosexual community. There was a lot of fear.

There has been no epidemic in Western Europe and the US, even though there is a chlamydia epidemic. What does that tell you? Hint: condoms protect you from chlamydia.

tallaght01

AARRRGH wrote: »

Again, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't expect everyone to know everything about everything, but to dismiss something due to having a lack of knowledge about it is just silly. Just do a bit of Googling if you want to learn more about this topic. You can confine all your searching to CDC stats so you aren't worried about it being some anti-black conspiracy.
.

Well, as a HIV subspecialist and HIV researcher, my experience has been that the CDC are actually very keen to get away from the idea of this being anything to do with any intrinsic "black issue". In fact the CDC are very much into promoting the socio-economic conditions that lead to the higher rates in black communities.

There;s much higher rates in the white community here in Oz.

BUt on the issue of swine flu: The death rate is about 1 in 1000 at the moment. My only worry would be if half a million people catch the disease, that's 500 unneccessarry deaths.

The hospitalisation rate has been about 1 in 200, with 30-50% (depending on which country you're in) ending up in ICU. That's a lot of ICU beds. And it's a lot of cancelled ops because of no hospital beds.

This bug, like someone said above, affects people who are traditionally not badly affected by normal influenza.

I'm not losing sleep over it. But I'm also not keen to be in the middle of an outbreak of swine flu.

tallaght01

AARRRGH wrote: »

There has been no epidemic in Western Europe and the US, even though there is a chlamydia epidemic. What does that tell you? Hint: condoms protect you from chlamydia.

It tells you chlamydia is much more contagious than HIV. That's all it tells you. There's 35 million people infected with HIV worldwide. Most of them are heterosexual.

HIV is probably the biggest health issue facing the world today.

lostexpectation

i wonder does this add anything to story of cystic fibrosis sufferers in ireland

AARRRGH

tallaght01 wrote: »

It tells you chlamydia is much more contagious than HIV. That's all it tells you. There's 35 million people infected with HIV worldwide. Most of them are heterosexual.

It tells you people aren't using condoms, yet heterosexuals very rarely get infected.

In other words, the media fear mongering in the 80's was nonsense.

I read once (in a political science book) that the public will swallow the same bull**** as long as you wait a few years before dishing it out to them again. This seems to be happening here. The public have forgotten the media love to hype up 'potential' epidemics.

tallaght01 wrote: »

HIV is probably the biggest health issue facing the world today.

What about cancer? Way more people die of cancer, yet cancer research only gets a fraction of the funding.

Wertz

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'm not saying there is no threat whatsoever, I am saying people need to keep perspective and be aware of who they are getting their information from, i.e. do the people have a vested interest in creating hype.

I agree...but the public by and large are going to get their information and form their perspective from the media...that's the way it is on every issue...the media tell people what they should fear, who they should like, who they should hate, what they shouldn't eat, etc etc.

In the case of this virus it's the latest fear because from the first time people heard about it, it was killing a sizable number in a short time in one city, then they hear that it's crossed borders, then it's killing people in other countries, then pregnant women and schoolchildren and now people in their own countries.
To form perspective from just that, without getting into other facts such as flu mortality in general, people have a right to be scared and take any manner of precaution they feel is justified.
The media want to sell you their story, the drugs companies wnat you to buy their drugs...it's in their interests to influence public perception...but who's interest is served in ignoring or downplaying any possible threat from this or any other threat that the media informs us about?

AARRRGH wrote: »

I will eat my hat if it turns out swine flu kills tons of people.

I hope that isn't necessary, but keep some sort of edible headwear on hand just in case.

AARRRGH

Wertz wrote: »

...but who's interest is served in ignoring or downplaying any possible threat from this or any other threat that the media informs us about?

The publics? I know I personally don't want to live in fear...

Wertz wrote: »

I hope that isn't necessary, but keep some sort of edible headwear on hand just in case.

tallaght01

AARRRGH wrote: »

It tells you people aren't using condoms, yet heterosexuals very rarely get infected.

In other words, the media fear mongering in the 80's was nonsense.

I read once (in a political science book) that the public will swallow the same bull**** as long as you wait a few years before dishing it out to them again. This seems to be happening here. The public have forgotten the media love to hype up 'potential' epidemics.




What about cancer? Way more people die of cancer, yet cancer research only gets a fraction of the funding.

More people die of HIV than any of the individual cancers. You cure HIV..you cure all those people. You cure lung cancer and you still have a hell of a lot of other cancers to cure.

Heterosexual rates of HIV acquisition are about 1 in every 300 cases of intercourse with a HIV infected person. Chlamydia is far more contagious than this.

So, u shag 3 people with HIV once each, and then nail a person with chlamydia. End result is you'll end up with chlamydia.

Nothing is being hyped up about HIV.

HIV is a bigger health issue because:

A) it affects young people mostly (18-30 age group). These are the economically active group.

It's a single disease, so one cure/one vaccine will be sufficient.

C) HIV/AIDS leads to lots of other illnesses, like TB, meningitis.

D) It creates shed load of orphans

E) It costs developing countries several percentages of GDP each year.

Swine flu is similarly attractive. It's dangerous, but tamiflu is very effective. Also, a vaccine could potentially wipe it out.

AARRRGH

tallaght01 wrote: »

Nothing is being hyped up about HIV.

Ah I'm repeating myself now, but don't you remember the 80's?

Do you not remember the TV adverts? The constant predictions by the media?

I am fully aware the media don't have a "you're all going to get AIDS" campaign at the moment, but they did in the 80s.

They tried something similar with CJD in the 90s.

That's why I am suspicious of their current swine flu campaign.

You know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

AARRRGH

Anyway, we've both made our points, let's not go round in circles.

tallaght01

AARRRGH wrote: »

Ah I'm repeating myself now, but don't you remember the 80's?

Do you not remember the TV adverts? The constant predictions by the media?

I am fully aware the media don't have a "you're all going to get AIDS" campaign at the moment, but they did in the 80s.

They tried something similar with CJD in the 90s.

That's why I am suspicious of their current swine flu campaign.

You know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

There was a definite HIV epidemic in the 80s. BUt people died from it quickly after diagnosis. The drugs we have available now are the reason it's not spreading in developed countries.

But in some countries, 10% of the population have it.

It's a major epidemic. Biggest one in the world.

AARRRGH

tallaght01 wrote: »

The drugs we have available now are the reason it's not spreading in developed countries.

The drugs don't prevent transmission though... condoms do. And because of the chlamydia epidemic, we know most people aren't using condoms. (I know some pregnant mothers take drugs to prevent their child becoming HIV+, but we're not talking about them.)

But whatever, let's stop talking about AIDS.

tallaght01

AARRRGH wrote: »

The drugs don't prevent transmission though... condoms do. And because of the chlamydia epidemic, we know most people aren't using condoms. (I know some pregnant mothers take drugs to prevent their child becoming HIV+, but we're not talking about them.)

But whatever, let's stop talking about AIDS.

I will stop talking about it when you stop giving people faulty information

HIV drugs SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the infectiousness of someone who has HIV.

They do NOTHING for people with swine flu

AARRRGH

tallaght01 wrote: »

I will stop talking about it when you stop giving people faulty information

HIV drugs SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the infectiousness of someone who has HIV.

They do NOTHING for people with swine flu

I'm not giving faulty information.

• We both know the majorty of people are not using condoms (i.e. hence the chlamydia epidemic.)
• We both know only a tiny amount of heterosexual people in Western Europe are HIV+.
• We both know it is extremely difficult for a heterosexual person to contract HIV from a HIV+ person (you say it's 1 in 300 instances of unprotected sex, I have statistics which show it is more like 1 in 10,000 instances of unprotected sex.) This is irrespective of whether or not the HIV+ person is taking anti-virals.

Where does that leave us?

I am saying HIV is a hard to catch disease, and that the epidemic which was predicted in the 80s has not come true.

You are saying HIV is a hard to catch disease, and that the epidemic which was predicted in the 80s has not come true.

You are saying this is because anti-virals are preventing HIV transmission. I think this is rather naive, as a lot of HIV+ people do not know they are HIV+, and condoms (which aren't being used!) are the only known way of preventing transmission.

And, if people are not using condoms, that means the fear mongering in the 80s was pointless, because if you recall, the message was USE CONDOMS.

Wertz

AARRRGH wrote: »

The publics? I know I personally don't want to live in fear...

Nor do I.

...and I don't.
It's up to the individual to form an opinion and weigh up the risks that this virus or any other disease or any perceived threat in general poses to them personally.
Now forming that opinion is down to the individual's level of intelligence and their level of education...if for the most part they're poorly educated and/or of low intelligence then they rely on the media for information (or not) and will accept what they're told and perhaps act accordingly or completely overreact...on the other hand those with enough education and/or intelligence to look beyond the headlines and the hype may form the same opinion or may dismiss it out of hand because they "know better".
In reality both groups are at just as much risk of infection...those that have been overly prepared may do better than those who have failed to prepare or they may not...time will tell.

It would be interesting to know if spanish flu had occured at a time in history where we had instant global communication and international air transport, if the malady would have killed more or less people...you could argue that more communication and awareness may have prevented spread soemwhat...but you can also argue that the flu would have crossed the globe at a much higher rate and arguably infected and killed more people.

Crying wolf at every opportunity does the media no favours...this doesn't mean that the news they bring shouldn't be heeded, only that that news needs to be seen for what it is...a reflection of events.

Turtwig

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'm not giving faulty information.

• We both know it is extremely difficult for a heterosexual person to contract HIV from a HIV+ person (you say it's 1 in 300 instances of unprotected sex, I have statistics which show it is more like 1 in 10,000 instances of unprotected sex.)

.

Care, to show us the statistics then?

My name is URL

AARRRGH wrote: »

The drugs don't prevent transmission though... condoms do. And because of the chlamydia epidemic, we know most people aren't using condoms. (I know some pregnant mothers take drugs to prevent their child becoming HIV+, but we're not talking about them.)

But whatever, let's stop talking about AIDS.

In the developed world, it's spread mostly by dirty needles and amongst gay men, which explains why chlamydia is still endemic despite AIDS never reaching that level

and the reason it hasn't spread massively to heterosexual people is in no small part due to the public awareness amongst those most at risk

AARRRGH

Malty_T wrote: »

Care, to show us the statistics then?

I'm not your teacher, Google them.

If you don't like Googling, ring St. James's GUIDE clinic and just ask them.

My name is URL wrote: »

In the developed world, it's spread mostly by dirty needles and amongst gay men, which explains why chlamydia is still endemic despite AIDS never reaching that level

Yes, but the media claimed the epidemic would be amongst the "normal" heterosexual community.

My name is URL wrote: »

and the reason it hasn't spread massively to heterosexual people is in no small part due to the public awareness amongst those most at risk

Can you explain this? We already know most people aren't using condoms, so what exactly has the public awareness accomplished?

Don't confuse fear mongering with public awareness.

slimjimmc

AARRRGH wrote: »

I am saying HIV is a hard to catch disease, and that the epidemic which was predicted in the 80s has not come true.

You are saying HIV is a hard to catch disease, and that the epidemic which was predicted in the 80s has not come true.
: : :
: : :
And, if people are not using condoms, that means the fear mongering in the 80s was pointless, because if you recall, the message was USE CONDOMS.

In the 80's HIV was a recent discovery and scientists knew very little about its transmissibility, heck they didn't even discover its origins until 1999. That combined with the almost guaranteed death sentence it served meant that widespread awareness was prudent imo.

With H1N1 flu there are loads of previous H1N1-like flu outbreaks to show what could easily happen if left to it's own devices. Sure knowledge and drugs are better nowadays but they alone are still not sufficient to halt wide spread infection among the human population. Individual awareness and responsibility is the key until an effective vaccine is released.

My name is URL

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yes, but the media claimed the epidemic would be amongst the "normal" heterosexual community.

It probably would be unless they warned people

Can you explain this? We already know most people aren't using condoms, so what exactly has the public awareness accomplished?

Don't confuse fear mongering with public awareness.

As messed up as it might seem, sometimes instilling the fear of something in people is the only way to ensure that people take heed of warnings.

I'm not disagreeing with your point about the media blowing it out of proportion, but at the root of their warnings are trained professionals who have the public's best interests at heart.

It's up to the individual whether they take any notice or not

Personally I do take notice of the advice given, but I wouldn't be necessarily fearful

Complacency is as dangerous as ignorance

Wertz

AARRRGH wrote: »

Can you explain this? We already know most people aren't using condoms...

Most people in the hetero community aren't having casual sex with IV drug users or bisexuals either...arguably because of an awareness campaign back when they were growing up...preventing it entering the hetero populace on a mass scale and thus preventing the spread through causal heterosexual relations even though condom usage remains at a low figure.

Also slimjimmc makes a good point about medical profession not even knowing what is was we were dealing with when AIDS first emerged and in that regard covering all the bases was the responsible way to tackle it...

AARRRGH

My name is URL wrote: »

It probably would be unless they warned people

This doesn't make sense because people aren't using condoms (i.e. there is a chlamydia epidemic).

The only way to prevent HIV transmission is by using condoms.

If people aren't using condoms the warning hasn't worked.

Does that make sense?

My name is URL wrote: »

...but at the root of their warnings are trained professionals who have the public's best interests at heart.

Do they really?

You have to remember a lot of people (pharma industry + medical community) stand to make a lot of money from the current panic.

Sure I remember with Y2K bug. Most of us in the IT industry knew it was totally overhyped, but that didn't stop us going along with it as we could make a fortune from the panic.

Ricky91t

Jello wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0807/swineflu.html

She ''had an underlying medical condition''.

Yeah,That's the health boards attempt to reassure us!Pah!