UK tabloids report plans for mass graves in response to Swine Flu

tallaght01

Salvelinus wrote: »

Seriously? At what point woud they consider that option?

Say someone had ebola, and they were told they had to stay indoors. But they went a bit cuckoo and decided they were angry at god and were going to run into a church and infect everyone. As they're legging it in, someone can take them out as far as I know.

I am by no means an expert in this, as I wasn't working in this field when I was working in the UK. But a public health consultant told me they had the authority to do that if there was a significant threat to national security by someone who was purposely spreading a disease. I'm sure the legislation is more exact than that. The law has apparently been there since the 1800s and has never been used.

uprising

The british government must be getting some "Brown" envelopes from big pharma, except it's Gordon and not Bertie wrote on it.
They have their mass graves plan sorted so people who don't want to be buried in them are running for "tamiflu", the new fad.

But somebody threw a spanner in the works,

Oxford researchers warn against giving Tamiflu to children.

Children should not be given the anti-viral drug Tamiflu to combat swine flu, Oxford University researchers said today.

They urged the British Department of Health to urgently rethink its policy on giving the drugs to youngsters affected by the current flu pandemic.

Some 300,000 people in England, including children and adults, have received courses of Tamiflu through the British government’s National Pandemic Flu Service for England.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/oxford-researchers-warn-against-giving-tamiflu-to-children-422030.html#ixzz0OphG8fUA

Mass Tamiflu doses not needed: UN health experts.

Healthy people who catch swine flu do not need antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu, the World Health Organisation said today.

The advice contradicts Britain’s policy of giving out Tamiflu to all suspected of having the illness.

WHO said most patients infected with swine flu worldwide recover within a week without any medical treatment. About 40% of the severe swine flu cases are occurring in previously healthy children and adults, usually under 50 years of age.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mass-tamiflu-doses-not-needed-un-health-experts-423400.html#ixzz0OphpwCRN

This leads to the bigger question AGAIN, why is every country ordering so much vaccine?

humanji

Because if the governments did nothing people like you and the media would go nuts claiming the governments don't care if people die.

humanji

humanji wrote: »

Because if the governments did nothing people like you and the media would go nuts claiming the governments don't care if people die.

You mean like when the government did nothing for Katrina?
But when they actually prepare for another disaster like that we get: "FEMA is going to put everyone in camps and mass graves"?

tallaght01

uprising wrote: »

The british government must be getting some "Brown" envelopes from big pharma, except it's Gordon and not Bertie wrote on it.
They have their mass graves plan sorted so people who don't want to be buried in them are running for "tamiflu", the new fad.

But somebody threw a spanner in the works,

Oxford researchers warn against giving Tamiflu to children.

Children should not be given the anti-viral drug Tamiflu to combat swine flu, Oxford University researchers said today.

They urged the British Department of Health to urgently rethink its policy on giving the drugs to youngsters affected by the current flu pandemic.

Some 300,000 people in England, including children and adults, have received courses of Tamiflu through the British government’s National Pandemic Flu Service for England.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/oxford-researchers-warn-against-giving-tamiflu-to-children-422030.html#ixzz0OphG8fUA

Mass Tamiflu doses not needed: UN health experts.

Healthy people who catch swine flu do not need antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu, the World Health Organisation said today.

The advice contradicts Britain’s policy of giving out Tamiflu to all suspected of having the illness.

WHO said most patients infected with swine flu worldwide recover within a week without any medical treatment. About 40% of the severe swine flu cases are occurring in previously healthy children and adults, usually under 50 years of age.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mass-tamiflu-doses-not-needed-un-health-experts-423400.html#ixzz0OphpwCRN

This leads to the bigger question AGAIN, why is every country ordering so much vaccine?

A) You're talking about tamiflu, rather than the vaccine.

That paper from oxford never suggests that tamiflu shouldn't be given to children. That's a dangerous interpretation.They said it shouldn't be given to kids with mild illness. In pretty much all countries, only people with moderate to severe illness are given tamiflu.

C) Britain are not giving tamiflu to all suspected of having the illness. It's offered to people at the GP's discretion, which is what a lot of countries did in their treatment phase (which the UK is still in). That trial from Oxfors that you talk about concluded "Their effects on the incidence of serious complications, and on the current A/H1N1 influenza strain remain to be determined.". This is different to saying it doesn't work.The patients in this trial had seasonal flu, as opposed to swine flu. But one of the reasons for giving people tamiflu early in the pandemic is because it makes people less contagious. There is only a brief menion of this in the study. We also give it to prevent pneumonia (the bad side effect of swine flu and the cause of swine flu deaths) but this study says "none of the studies (That wer eincluded in this paper) was sufficiently powered to determine the effects of neuraminidase inhibitors on serious complication of influenza (such as pneumonia or admission to hospital)". Just because it's from Oxford doesn't mean it's important. These guys were a group of GPs who published a nice paper. But there's nothing much new in it. They reported 1 in 20 kids developing vomiting after tamiflu. No mention that I could find of dehydration and hospitalisation.

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

You mean like when the government did nothing for Katrina?
But when they actually prepare for another disaster like that we get: "FEMA is going to put everyone in camps and mass graves"?

EDIT: WTF has this got to do with what I posted?, And what are they preparing for, and you are mistaking the US and UK govt. Anyway I still mentioned katrina even though it has NOTHING to do with this, but shows they still haven't helped those who need help, what makes you think they suddenly got all moral and want to help anybody except BIG BUSINESS:EDIT

Well "the government" still haven't sorted out Katrina, they were quick enough to bail out their banks, while thousands of former New Orleans residents are STILL living in exile, until their homeless.
Ready or Not, Katrina Victims Lose Temporary Housing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/08trailer.html?_r=1

Yea they really care
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/hurricane_katrina/index.html

Sorry off topic, but just an example of "YES WE CAN(T)"

uprising

uprising wrote: »

Well "the government" still haven't sorted out Katrina, they were quick enough to bail out their banks, while thousands of former New Orleans residents are STILL living in exile, until their homeless.
Ready or Not, Katrina Victims Lose Temporary Housing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/08trailer.html?_r=1

Yea they really care
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/hurricane_katrina/index.html

Sorry off topic, but just an example of "YES WE CAN(T)"

As I said: damned if they do damned if they don't.

Thoie

Captain Furball wrote: »

The news papers are trying to scare the crap out of people.
How are they able to sleep at night is beyond me lol.

I've managed IT projects, and with the exception of the fancy graphics, that list could be used for rolling out new servers, with a few minor edits. The main differences is that in a server room we don't want water, and we try to get rid of our deceased as soon as we get replacement parts, if not before. Everything I've seen so far about this looks like pretty standard project planning and risk management/contingency plans. Now, if there's a schedule that says "Shoot and bury 5,000,000 people on August 23rd" with resources assigned to the task I'd be a bit more concerned.

uprising

tallaght01 wrote: »

A) You're talking about tamiflu, rather than the vaccine.Yes I am, but also asking why order such HUGE amounts of vaccine when quote"WHO said most patients infected with swine flu worldwide recover within a week without any medical treatment"



That paper from oxford never suggests that tamiflu shouldn't be given to children. That's a dangerous interpretation.They said it shouldn't be given to kids with mild illness. In pretty much all countries, only people with moderate to severe illness are given tamiflu.
Quote:Dr Carl Heneghan, a GP and clinical lecturer at Oxford University, said the current policy of giving Tamiflu for mild illness was an “inappropriate strategy”.
He added: “The downside of the harms outweigh the one-day reduction in symptomatic benefits.”


C) Britain are not giving tamiflu to all suspected of having the illness. It's offered to people at the GP's discretion, which is what a lot of countries did in their treatment phase (which the UK is still in). That trial from Oxfors that you talk about concluded "Their effects on the incidence of serious complications, and on the current A/H1N1 influenza strain remain to be determined.". This is different to saying it doesn't work.The patients in this trial had seasonal flu, as opposed to swine flu. But one of the reasons for giving people tamiflu early in the pandemic is because it makes people less contagious. There is only a brief menion of this in the study. We also give it to prevent pneumonia (the bad side effect of swine flu and the cause of swine flu deaths) but this study says "none of the studies (That wer eincluded in this paper) was sufficiently powered to determine the effects of neuraminidase inhibitors on serious complication of influenza (such as pneumonia or admission to hospital)". Just because it's from Oxford doesn't mean it's important. These guys were a group of GPs who published a nice paper. But there's nothing much new in it. They reported 1 in 20 kids developing vomiting after tamiflu. No mention that I could find of dehydration and hospitalisation.

The children were being treated for normal seasonal flu but Dr Thompson said the findings would extend to the current swine flu pandemic.

“I don’t think we have got any reason to think our results would be any different,” he said.

“The current swine flu is generally a mild flu illness...it does not seem that different from current seasonal flu.

“We would be happy to say our results apply to the current swine flu strain.”

He said children with mild symptoms should be treated in the same way as if they had any other mild flu – with drinks to cool high temperatures and rest.

Dr Heneghan said the only benefit found in the study was that children were back to normal half a day to one day earlier if taking Tamiflu or Relenza.

He said his advice to GPs was “not to rely on Tamiflu as a treatment to reduce complications” or to think of it as a “magic bullet”.

He warned that widespread use of Tamiflu could result in the flu becoming resistant to the drug.

“What is a problem going forward – like with antibiotics – is you run into a resistance issue."

tallaght01

uprising wrote: »

The children were being treated for normal seasonal flu but Dr Thompson said the findings would extend to the current swine flu pandemic.

“I don’t think we have got any reason to think our results would be any different,” he said.

“The current swine flu is generally a mild flu illness...it does not seem that different from current seasonal flu.

“We would be happy to say our results apply to the current swine flu strain.”

He said children with mild symptoms should be treated in the same way as if they had any other mild flu – with drinks to cool high temperatures and rest.

Dr Heneghan said the only benefit found in the study was that children were back to normal half a day to one day earlier if taking Tamiflu or Relenza.

He said his advice to GPs was “not to rely on Tamiflu as a treatment to reduce complications” or to think of it as a “magic bullet”.

He warned that widespread use of Tamiflu could result in the flu becoming resistant to the drug.

“What is a problem going forward – like with antibiotics – is you run into a resistance issue."

how come doctors are suddenly trustworthy when they agree with you?

Basically this guy from oxford is saying you shouldn't use tamiflu for mild disease. That' a fair point, because it's not hugely beneficial for mild disease. In australia we don't use it in mild disease. Same goes for most countries.

BUT the UK has left the decision to the discretion of their GPs, which is also fair enough. Tamiflu makes you less contagious. So, if I have mild illness and my wife is pregnant, I may take tamiflu to make me less contagious, as swine flu is dangerous to pregnant women.

Personally, I wouldn't give it to most people with mild illness, unless they're in a vulnerable group. But I have no problem with the option being there. They're not saying tamiflu is bad, though. The same group at Oxford were involved in showing how useful it is. It's a lifesaver in people with moderate to severe disease.

They may be from Oxford, ut they're GPs, as opposed to public health doctors. He may have said GPs shouldn't use tamiflu to protect against complication. Ut that's a bizarre thing to say when they said themselves in the trial "Their effects on the incidence of serious complications, and on the current A/H1N1 influenza strain remain to be determined.".

Don't be mistaken, though. Tamiflu is a very useful drug. Very few docs will say it's not.

bonkey

tallaght01 wrote: »

That trial from Oxfors that you talk about concluded "Their effects on the incidence of serious complications, and on the current A/H1N1 influenza strain remain to be determined.". This is different to saying it doesn't work.

Indeed.

Isn't there some paper which (correctly) concludes that there are no well-conducted trials which indicate the wearing of a parachute will increase your chances of surviving jumping out of an aeroplane at altitude?

Maybe its just apocryphal, but it shows the difference between "no studies showing it works" and "it doesn't work".