Health industry may have exaggerated the dangers of swine flu

Did you ever think that the reason it turned out to be not as deadly as orignally feared is because of the precautions people took and the actions of the WHO? Increased hand washing, awareness of the symptoms etc would have prevented a lot of infection. As some one else said, catch-22: if they did nothing it could have been deadly. I would prefer over reaction and no pandemic to inaction and a pandemic.

It doesn't matter though, people will find a reason to bitch and moan, complain and claim a conspiracy. The problem is, when there is a genuine problem or crisis of any sort it can get lost among the constant bull****. I know the Pharma industry did well out of, I was talking to guy who worked for the company that makes Tamiflu and he was of the opinion that it saved and created a lot of jobs. I have no doubt that the Pharma industry is up to dodgy tricks in many ways (suppressing results of clinical trials, lobbying government bodies to push through drugs, re-labeling and creating disorders to suit their drugs to extend the patent etc). But whatever the chances of swine-flu being a conspiracy to make money, there is an equal chance that it was a genuine concern.

Its a fact that disease and illness makes some people a lot of money. There is enough sickness and disease in the world for them to continue to make money, whether they need to conspire on a global scale or not.

But the biggest argument against any global conspiracy of any kind is the unpredictability and down right idiocy of the human race. If you have ever worked in a large organisation you will know that nearly ALL mistakes and problems are due to human error. No group of people could carry out a massive conspiracy without some human related ****-up bringing the whole thing down or leaking information about it.

AARRRGH wrote: »

How so?

A far smaller number of people have died.

You can't argue with the numbers.

But of course you're going to anyway.

I'm going to argue with, and about what those numbers mean, even though you appear to be a conspiricy theory loon so it's going to be a pointless exercise trying to have a logical debate with you.

As I already said:

phantom_lord wrote: »

Also I think it's being results orientated to say that the threat was exaggerated. As far as they were concerned it appeared that there was likely to be a major threat from this, just because it didn't come to pass does not make what they said wrong.

The fact that only that many people died does not mean that the WHO was incorrect it's assessment of the potential threat of the disease or in its precautions.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'm sure people being over-cautious probably did help, but I don't think that's the reason we don't have the high number of fatalities that were predicted.

For example, I would imagine poorer countries who can't afford handwashes etc. should have had far higher fatalities if we use your logic.

But I accept it probably made some sort of difference in Ireland, the UK, the US, etc.

Possibly, but flu and other airborne diseases (afaik) don't do well in hot climates were most of the worlds poor live.

Respiratory related diseases are not as prevalent in some countries, possibly due to the very hot climate. I do think it turned out to be no where near as bad as it was but this is not necessarily a conspiracy, it isjust the way it was and the WHO were cautious about it. Technically speaking it did reach pandemic proportions based on the number and type of deaths. People think a pandemic means something like the bubonic plague, but it has a very precise meaning.

ride-the-spiral wrote: »

In 1918, the first wave of the Spanish Flu acted much like a regular flu, mostly affecting the elderly and very young. It was the second wave which had mutated that caused the staggering amount of deaths that it did.

I'd rather people over-hyped the first wave of Swine Flu then it be allowed mutate.

jesus, i thought run to the hills was talking sense there for a sec!