Swine Flu

[Eagle87]

Chops didn't think it was mild.

You obviously know more that the NSW Chief Medical Officer, who said that if you get flu now, it's mostly swine flu (as the seasonal flu has been crowded out).

He said about 70% of the cases they had seen. In NSW. Where is Chops?

Regardless, its flu... whats your point?.... and I'm not sure that a once in 1 year sufferer is the best able to determine the meaning of mild.

Have you ever had a good dose of seasonal flu?? Not the runny nose cold that most Aussies call flu but genuine flu - it sucks and makes you feel shit.

 

[Chops_a_must]

Thanks. Any vomiting and diarrhea?

Yes, and the nausea was the bigger problem.

You will note that the 6 people they are concerned about in Sydney have had apparently serious respiratory infections and many of DR's recent posts were along the lines of Swine Flu & Respiratory/Lung issues.

So you likely had the flu and its possible you had swine flu and like most, it was over in less than a week and you required no medical attention.

Its not that hard to grasp folks....

The difference is though Eagle, infections don't generally start in the lungs. They travel there, and then of course the body can't deal with it. I kept it out of my lungs, but it was close. Had I not, I'd be looking at another 2 weeks of this rubbish most likely, and would have had to drag myself to hospital.

Aches are also a separate issue from excessive muscle cramping.

 

[Eagle87]

Yes, and the nausea was the bigger problem.



The difference is though Eagle, infections don't generally start in the lungs. They travel there, and then of course the body can't deal with it. I kept it out of my lungs, but it was close. Had I not, I'd be looking at another 2 weeks of this rubbish most likely, and would have had to drag myself to hospital.

Aches are also a separate issue from excessive muscle cramping.

Indeed they are.

Of course they are likely caused by dehydration as much as anything else but who knows since you didnt seek medical help. Regardless, cramps are hardly uncommon in those with flu.

Or are you going down the "it was really bad, so it must have been swine flu because even though WHO and the CDC say its generally mild and passes in a week, I felt like shit so it must have been swine flu and proves swine flu is the worst flu ever" route?

Its a shame you got sick and felt terrible and clearly you may have had swine flu.

That said, doesn't that just prove the point i.e. most people get it, get symptoms that largely pass within a week and you move on.

 

[Chops_a_must]

Indeed they are.

Of course they are likely caused by dehydration as much as anything else but who knows since you didnt seek medical help. Regardless, cramps are hardly uncommon in those with flu.

Or are you going down the "it was really bad, so it must have been swine flu because even though WHO and the CDC say its generally mild and passes in a week, I felt like shit so it must have been swine flu and proves swine flu is the worst flu ever" route?

Its a shame you got sick and felt terrible and clearly you may have had swine flu.

That said, doesn't that just prove the point i.e. most people get it, get symptoms that largely pass within a week and you move on.

I'm thinking it could have been because of the speed in which it came on. I've never been that sick, without any warning. And yeah, I get the flu fairly often - my job ensures that.

And I hope it was swine flu. Not because of any OMG I HAZ swine flu factor, but because I'll hopefully be immune to any possible worse variants of it. And when the streets are awash with swine flu infested zombies, I might be one of the few left to battle them. Which would be pretty cool.

 

[Eagle87]

I'm thinking it could have been because of the speed in which it came on. I've never been that sick, without any warning. And yeah, I get the flu fairly often - my job ensures that.

And I hope it was swine flu. Not because of any OMG I HAZ swine flu factor, but because I'll hopefully be immune to any possible worse variants of it. And when the streets are awash with swine flu infested zombies, I might be one of the few left to battle them. Which would be pretty cool.

You are Legend!

 

[TheBloods]

The reason for some worry is that although there are deaths every year from seasonal flu, the higher spread of swine flu will increase the number of deaths because it spreads quicker and people have not built up immunity to the virus. So yes, it is worse than seasonal flu. And that people in higher risk groups are more likely to die hardly makes it better for their relatives and friends.

 

[Eagle87]

The reason for some worry is that although there are deaths every year from seasonal flu, the higher spread of swine flu will increase the number of deaths because it spreads quicker and people have not built up immunity to the virus. So yes, it is worse than seasonal flu. And that people in higher risk groups are more likely to die hardly makes it better for their relatives and friends.

In your opinion.

I presume you are aware that in 2008, like pretty much every year, seasonal flu in the US lead to approximately 200,000 being hospitalised and 36,000 deaths. Nearly all in high risk groups.

I am unsure of the Aussie numbers but I am sure campbell can dig them up.

My point is, as always, that until we (at least) equal the normal seasonal flu numbers (per above) then its much ado about "nothing".

 

[campbell]

In your opinion.

I presume you are aware that in 2008, like pretty much every year, seasonal flu in the US lead to approximately 200,000 being hospitalised and 36,000 deaths. Nearly all in high risk groups.

I am unsure of the Aussie numbers but I am sure campbell can dig them up.

My point is, as always, that until we (at least) equal the normal seasonal flu numbers (per above) then its much ado about "nothing".

as I have said before, a lot of the swine flu ICU admissions and deaths in Australia, have been from people NOT in the high risk area. and to me that is a major concern, as it can and often does strike down normal healthy young people.

 

[TheBloods]

In your opinion.

I presume you are aware that in 2008, like pretty much every year, seasonal flu in the US lead to approximately 200,000 being hospitalised and 36,000 deaths. Nearly all in high risk groups.

I am unsure of the Aussie numbers but I am sure campbell can dig them up.

My point is, as always, that until we (at least) equal the normal seasonal flu numbers (per above) then its much ado about "nothing".

It wasn't my opinion. Seasonal flu kills about 2500-3000 per year in Australia. The experts believe that it will be higher because of swine flu for the reasons I stated.

That the deaths are in high risk groups doesn't alleviate the suffering. "Oh cool - my parents and my child all died because of swine flu but it's okay because they were 'high risk' anyway".

 

[jumpinjimmy]

Sheesh DR, this could be a record thread for SRP The whole 'jimmy' household came down with something godawful over the school holidays. The house at times looked like a MASH unit but we all came through the over end. Like others I hope it was the 'Swine Flu' but can't be sure. One thing I am sure of is that it wasn't the common cold.

 

[medusala]

Chops didn't think it was mild.

You obviously know more that the NSW Chief Medical Officer, who said that if you get flu now, it's mostly swine flu (as the seasonal flu has been crowded out).

http://www.theage.com.au/national/if-youve-got-flu-youve-got-swine-flu-20090707-dbui.html

Swine flu has become the dominant flu in Victoria, with research showing that 99 per cent of people testing positive for influenza have the H1N1 strain.

Head of epidemiology at the Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, Heath Kelly, said that of the 73 people who tested positive for influenza at clinics monitoring flu viruses during the last week of June, 99 per cent had H1N1 swine flu. "It's amazing, swine flu has taken over the flu season," he said. "If you've got the flu, you've almost certainly got swine flu

 

[Dry Rot]

Huh?

Because I dont agree with your alarmist attempts?

Its mild ... per the head of the WHO in a Swine Flu conference in Mexico - held there to demonstrate that Mexico is safe and there is no reason to be alarmed.

You will note that the 6 people they are concerned about in Sydney have had apparently serious respiratory infections and many of DR's recent posts were along the lines of Swine Flu & Respiratory/Lung issues.

In your opinion.

I presume you are aware that in 2008, like pretty much every year, seasonal flu in the US lead to approximately 200,000 being hospitalised and 36,000 deaths. Nearly all in high risk groups.

I am unsure of the Aussie numbers but I am sure campbell can dig them up.

My point is, as always, that until we (at least) equal the normal seasonal flu numbers (per above) then its much ado about "nothing".

Seems the Vic health boss doesn't agree with you either

While the virus remained mild in most people affected worldwide, Professor Kelly said a recent analysis showed Mexicans who died of severe pneumonia during the outbreak in March and April were much younger than those who usually died of such an illness.

"This makes it a bit different to seasonal influenza. You do not expect to see this," he said.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/if-youve-got-flu-youve-got-swine-flu-20090707-dbui.html

 

[Eagle87]

Seems the Vic health boss doesn't agree with you either



http://www.theage.com.au/national/if-youve-got-flu-youve-got-swine-flu-20090707-dbui.html

... and?

Are you being deliberately disingenuous or are you really not grasping any of this?

Which parts of the 3 posts that you quoted does the Victorian health DEPUTY boss disagree with?

She says;

In most cases around the world the virus is mild. She also comments that they have noted a fall in the number of infections in the last 2 weeks.

Do these seem the sorts of comments that should alarm people?

Of course with any new strain of flu for which there is no general level of immunity, you would expect a high rate of infection and a higher rate than normal in people who are otherwise healthy - hardly surprising. In the vast majority of cases they have a mild case of flu and move on. This strain of flu - as with all different strains of flu - also has its own "quirks" which cause it to impact differently, in a few people, to other strains... again hardly shocking.

The point remains that you propose that all these reports added together should cause us some grave concern - you regularly make reference to 1918 and 40 million+ deaths.... in reality it is a new flu that is mild in most cases but does lead to death in others and a greater number of otherwise healthy people have a tougher time with swine flu than other flu's - which is simply a function of it being new. In addition, these extreme responses remain restricted to a very very small percentage of those who do get it.

200,000 hospitalisations per annum in the US. 36,000 deaths. Thats from seasonal flu. In Australia its about 3,000 deaths. We have had 13 from Swine Flu despite it being THE flu (per your report) in Victoria, at least.

My point is simply that your reports and the slants you put on them are alarmist. Nothing has changed.

 

[Dry Rot]

.
The point remains that you propose that all these reports added together should cause us some grave concern - you regularly make reference to 1918 and 40 million+ deaths....

I wonder why?

New flu resembles feared 1918 virus, study finds
13 Jul 2009 14:28:11 GMT

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
WASHINGTON, July 13 (Reuters) - The new H1N1 influenza virus bears a disturbing resemblance to the virus strain that caused the 1918 flu pandemic, with a greater ability to infect the lungs than common seasonal flu viruses, researchers reported on Monday.

Tests in several animals confirmed other studies that have shown the new swine flu strain can spread beyond the upper respiratory tract to go deep into the lungs -- making it more likely to cause pneumonia, the international team said.

In addition, they found that people who survived the 1918 pandemic seem to have extra immune protection against the virus, again confirming the work of other researchers.....

"When we conducted the experiments in ferrets and monkeys, the seasonal virus did not replicate in the lungs," said Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin, who led the study. The H1N1 virus replicates significantly better in the lungs."

The new swine flu virus has caused the first pandemic of the 21st century, infecting more than a million people, according to estimates, and killing at least 500. The World Health Organization says it is causing mostly moderate disease but Kawaoka said that does not mean it is like seasonal flu.

"There is a misunderstanding about this virus," he said in a statement. "There is clear evidence the virus is different than seasonal influenza."

Writing in the journal Nature, Kawaoka and colleagues noted that the ability to infect the lungs is a characteristic of other pandemic viruses, especially the 1918 virus, which is estimated to have killed between 40 million and 100 million people.

OLD PROTECTION

They tested the virus in blood samples taken from nursing home residents and workers in 1999 in California, Wisconsin, the Netherlands and Japan.

People born before 1920 had a strong antibody response to the new H1N1 virus, meaning their body "remembered" it from infection early in life. This finding supports a study published in Nature in August that also found people who survived the 1918 pandemic still had immune protection against that virus....

My point is simply that your reports and the slants you put on them are alarmist.

You might like to review that now.

 

[Eagle87]

I wonder why?





You might like to review that now.

So, in short, there was no point in quoting my 3 posts as the Vic DEPUTY health boss said nothing of any import AND you have found another alarmist report that actually shows nothing much at all other than the new virus has some charachteristics in common with earlier virus' which is hardly surprising since they are all flu virus' .....

I mean seriously .....

By the way, reports out of the UK show that people over age 60 get this virus far less than others ... which suggests people over 60 have been exposed to it before.... 2009-60 = 1949 ......

Hmmm..... maybe it was around in 1948 or 1947 etc etc .... but there wasnt a huge deathly pandemic then, so maybe it was just a generally mild flu that 60 years later no-one remembers.....

Of course this doesnt feed your "end of the world" paranoia does it?

You really need to lie down and relax or shut the door on the bunker.

 

[campbell]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/swine-flu-invades-maternity-wards-20090715-dlhp.html


Most of those now becoming infected are young and healthy, prompting doctors to blame a condition called cytokine storm, where a vigorous immune system can overreact to certain pathogens, racing so many antibodies to the infection site that they collect in a cytokine storm.

When that storm occurs in the lungs, it can block airways and prevent oxygen getting into the blood supply.

Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon said yesterday that although the virus remained mild in most of the people affected, experts were trying to detect early signs of deterioration in young, healthy people to ensure that they were treated quickly.

"I'm advised by (chief medical officer) Jim Bishop that the early signs that people should look for is really the troubled breathing very early in the disease, and it's possible for people to deteriorate quite quickly over a couple of days," she said.

 

[campbell]

So, in short, there was no point in quoting my 3 posts as the Vic DEPUTY health boss said nothing of any import AND you have found another alarmist report that actually shows nothing much at all other than the new virus has some charachteristics in common with earlier virus' which is hardly surprising since they are all flu virus' .....

I mean seriously .....

By the way, reports out of the UK show that people over age 60 get this virus far less than others ... which suggests people over 60 have been exposed to it before.... 2009-60 = 1949 ......

Hmmm..... maybe it was around in 1948 or 1947 etc etc .... but there wasnt a huge deathly pandemic then, so maybe it was just a generally mild flu that 60 years later no-one remembers.....

Of course this doesnt feed your "end of the world" paranoia does it?

You really need to lie down and relax or shut the door on the bunker.

how disrespectful imo of someone trying to just put the latest information out there for people to be informed of whats happening.

 

[Eagle87]

how disrespectful imo of someone trying to just put the latest information out there for people to be informed of whats happening.

Campbell, we are both aware that we dont like each other, ostensibly because you arent that clever but you believe you have special knowledge.


Twice in this thread I have ased you to provide this "special knowledge" that you have that the WHO & CDC havent been prepared to provide and you have avoided doing so and also answering speciifc questions - likely because you can't.

You, as always, are trying hard for the high moral ground. DR is providing info but he is also providing his slant on that info and only selecting the more extreme end of the reporting. He would have us believe that the end of the world is upon us. This is alarmist.

Thats all I have consistently said. You seem entirely incapable of a reasoned view on anything, so unfortunately your responses are unsurprising.

 

[Eagle87]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/swine-flu-invades-maternity-wards-20090715-dlhp.html


Most of those now becoming infected are young and healthy, prompting doctors to blame a condition called cytokine storm, where a vigorous immune system can overreact to certain pathogens, racing so many antibodies to the infection site that they collect in a cytokine storm.

When that storm occurs in the lungs, it can block airways and prevent oxygen getting into the blood supply.

Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon said yesterday that although the virus remained mild in most of the people affected, experts were trying to detect early signs of deterioration in young, healthy people to ensure that they were treated quickly.

"I'm advised by (chief medical officer) Jim Bishop that the early signs that people should look for is really the troubled breathing very early in the disease, and it's possible for people to deteriorate quite quickly over a couple of days," she said.

The "cytokine storm" argument is old news. They were reporting that in the US back in April.

As I am sure you are aware, this is a condition that kills people with many varients of flu - certainly including bird flu and the old 1918 version (per some tests on mice) - but not only those versions. It happens rarely but again, ANY new flu will infect the "young and healthy" (usually a group between 15-50) more than usual because of the lack of any immunity.

Sure a very very very small percentage of those infected will get very sick and a smaller percentage again will die ... perhaps of a cytokine storm - an overreactive immune system response.

Again, thats in a very small number of cases. To suggest or infer that this is widespread and we should all be worried or queing at DR's bunker would be silly. Which remains my point. A point apparently beyond your capacity.

 

[campbell]

The "cytokine storm" argument is old news. They were reporting that in the US back in April.

As I am sure you are aware, this is a condition that kills people with many varients of flu - certainly including bird flu and the old 1918 version (per some tests on mice) - but not only those versions. It happens rarely but again, ANY new flu will infect the "young and healthy" (usually a group between 15-50) more than usual because of the lack of any immunity.

Sure a very very very small percentage of those infected will get very sick and a smaller percentage again will die ... perhaps of a cytokine storm - an overreactive immune system response.

Again, thats in a very small number of cases. To suggest or infer that this is widespread and we should all be worried or queing at DR's bunker would be silly. Which remains my point. A point apparently beyond your capacity.

DR is not bunker bound, he is trying to put the facts out there for people. I appreciate it, as I work within the area that actually treats the people who have the illness. I have supplied you with the QLD Health info on the illness, I suppose thats scaremongering as well is it. Its just trying to be nice and advise people of information that they may not readily have access too.
Thanks DR, I appreciate your information.

 

[Eagle87]

DR is not bunker bound, he is trying to put the facts out there for people. I appreciate it, as I work within the area that actually treats the people who have the illness. I have supplied you with the QLD Health info on the illness, I suppose thats scaremongering as well is it. Its just trying to be nice and advise people of information that they may not readily have access too.
Thanks DR, I appreciate your information.

Good God, get a room...

I reckon you probably believe that Fox News Channel is fair and balanced as well.

All information needs to be provided in context to ensure its, well, in context... much of DR's stuff isnt in context and becomes alarmist. Which is what the media stands accused of since the arrival of swine flu.

EDIT: I note you again made reference to being a nurse or cleaner or whatever in hospitals AGAIN! An yet AGAIN, you have never provided a breakdown of why bomber gal (who has the polar opposite view to you) was wrong. When you are prepared to critically analyse her comments and tell us why her view is wrong, then your "credentials" might actually mean something.

 

[campbell]

Good God, get a room...

I reckon you probably believe that Fox News Channel is fair and balanced as well.

All information needs to be provided in context to ensure its, well, in context... much of DR's stuff isnt in context and becomes alarmist. Which is what the media stands accused of since the arrival of swine flu.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25789176-5001021,00.html


Sad stuff. Young fit healthy pregnant women and babies on respirators fighting for their lives. With normal flu, thats not an occurance.
Thats what is the difference to me as a clinician with this strain, it can and has done affected young fit people, quickly. Not just your old frail, babies or immuncomprimised as with normal flu.

Maybe you are alarmed with this information thats why you are so cutting in your personal replies?

 

[Eagle87]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25789176-5001021,00.html


Sad stuff. Young fit healthy pregnant women and babies on respirators fighting for their lives. With normal flu, thats not an occurance.
Thats what is the difference to me as a clinician with this strain, it can and has done affected young fit people, quickly. Not just your old frail, babies or immuncomprimised as with normal flu.

Maybe you are alarmed with this information thats why you are so cutting in your personal replies?

I am not alarmed at all. The report you posted 2 posts back quoted the pregnant women story which has nothing at all to do with the link in this post - why link a story and then talk about something else?

The pregnant woman story actually says:

A spokesman for the Victorian Department of Human Services said the two babies born to the Victorian women in intensive care were healthy, although one was born prematurely, and were clear of the virus.

At least one other pregnant woman has required critical care with the H1N1 swine flu virus in Victoria since it arrived, but the spokesman said no pregnant women, new mothers or babies were among the 12 Victorians who had died with the virus so far.

Swine flu can pass to a foetus through infected membranes in the placenta or can cause a baby to overheat if the mother is running a fever. Pregnancy reduces a woman's immunity, and her capacity to breathe properly due to compression on her lungs from the foetus.

Health authorities have warned pregnant women and those with underlying medical conditions such as diabetes, obesity, or compromised immune systems to be vigilant because they are at most risk of severe illness if they contract the virus.

Pregnant women have ALWAYS been a risk group with flu because they have compromised immune systems and babies are also a risk group - this is for ALL types of flu.

In addition, none have died and none of the babies actually have the virus. And yet, you roll out emotive claptrap about babies fighting for their lives....

Again, my point remains, its generally a mild condition which rarely results in an extreme response.

This is the sort of somewhat balanced report we are sadly lacking in Oz and from DR & campbell:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-big-question-is-swine-flu-mutating-and-how-worried-should-we-be-1746366.html

Again, no cause for alarmism. And again, nothing much we can do anyway.

But campbell wants to talk about babies in ICU ... for balance

 

[Black Ball]

how disrespectful imo of someone trying to just put the latest information out there for people to be informed of whats happening.

Haven't you noticed that the only opinion that he respects is his own?

He is after all an authority on anything and everything and being abusive and demeaning of others and their opinions is his usual MO!

 

[Eagle87]

Haven't you noticed that the only opinion that he respects is his own?

He is after all an authority on anything and everything and being abusive and demeaning of others and their opinions is his usual MO!

haha....

I love this group of essentially inarticulate people who wander about sticking the boots in, pointing out that I stick the boots in.

Of course they are also the ones who either have nothing to contribute or contribute pointless, poorly reasoned silliness.

Feel free to point out what is actually wrong with what I have said rather than forming some "he hurt me" support group