H1N1 question

[DouglastheBFE]

Ignorant

I'll try and use 'othering' the next time I'm at my local and see what happens, NOT.
My eyes glazed over after 'continental philosophy'.

Who said I was a social worker? Are you reading the same post?

Nice Cut&Paste from the other thread, but I fail to see the relevance as you didn't follow it up with some pearls of wisdom or editorial. I still do stand by my comments though.

If you're not a social worker, or medical professional...what the hell are you??

Because...

You seem to confidently proclaim such alarmist statements like 'JUST GET THE FUCKING SHOTS!!'...with a sense of urgency like you know better.

What do you really know?? You've already admitted that a fucking Wikipedia article is too dense to keep your attention. Heaven forbid a medical journal fell into your lap...your head would pop off...

You should have just agreed to disagree, because now you just come across as ignorant and dumb.

I'm going to retire from this thread...I've wasted enough of my time.

Good luck, a-hole.

-Douglas

 

[lurkerjoe]

First: without diagnostic testing it's not possible for you or you doctor to confirm you have the flu.

Second: if you do have the fluA it's almost certain that it's H1N1 (99.7%).

Can you come down with it again? Not likely this year. This subtype hasn't yet mutated. If it does, then all the current vaccines that are being injected into people are useless.

Bottom line: if you have the flu, it's likely H1N1. Don't bother with the flu shot. Stay at home and avoid contact with other people, wear a facemask and I hope you get better soon.

If you have symptoms such as difficulty breathing or shortness of breath, pain/pressure in the chest or abdomen, sudden dizziness, confusion or you're constantly vomitting head to the hospital - you might be having a severe outcome.

Relax though, death rate is currently running at 0.3 per 100,000 persons in Canada.

I predicted in May or June that the Canadian death toll would be less than 1,000 by year end. You called me an idiot back then and said that it would be many times that. I think the current reported death toll which stands at 115 at November 5 just about says it all that needs to be said on that subject.

Australia's flu season is almost at an end and it has 185 pH1N1 deaths with a population of approximately 22M, crude mortality rate of 0.84 per 100,000 persons. Assuming Canada has the same rate (which is higher than New Zealand's 0.44 per 100K) it should be approximately 300 deaths attributable to pH1N1. Yes, it's a big assumption and large leap to say it but it shows a pattern.

I debunked your do-it-yourself research, where you failed to understand the difference between an estimate and a confirmed report. I provided you with references to multiple medical journals where you learned that you were wrong.

The numbers above are estimated crude mortality rate based on actual deaths that are attributed to pH1N1 post mortum. Want the link? Public Health Agency of Canada.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/fluwatch/09-10/w42_09/pdf/fw2009-42-eng.pdf

 

[basketcase]

I will get it when I don't have to stand in line for more than 20 mins. Which means I am going to be waiting a long time.

If you're a priority group, you should have no problem. I did it last week and by the time I filled out the form I was holding a cotton swab to my arm.

If you're not a priority group or don't want to lie about it, you have a while but I doubt that as high a percentage of the general public will get it unless there are a number of high profile deaths.

 

[blackrock13]

If you're not a social worker, or medical professional...what the hell are you??

Because...

You seem to confidently proclaim such alarmist statements like 'JUST GET THE FUCKING SHOTS!!'...with a sense of urgency like you know better.

What do you really know?? You've already admitted that a fucking Wikipedia article is too dense to keep your attention. Heaven forbid a medical journal fell into your lap...your head would pop off...

You should have just agreed to disagree, because now you just come across as ignorant and dumb.

I'm going to retire from this thread...I've wasted enough of my time.

Good luck, a-hole.

-Douglas

Ooow!!

You again make bad assumptions. My dazed condition comes from not wanting to read lengthy dissertation on philosophy as presented in Wikipedia. I doubt I'm not alone in that on this BB.

You use adjectives incorrectly. My 'JGTFS' comment is not alarmist in any sense. You asked for my stance and that it for all the reasons I've given throughout the 1000+ posts in this forum and they don't need repeating except for you, but you asked for clarification and I gave it.

Medical journals would be a snap. My family has those stacked in the most washrooms in many of their homes, right next to Golf Digest.

As for your retirement and the wasting of someone's time, you've said that before.

Bye!!

 

[nolabel]

One theory about the Douglas versus Blackrock exchange is that Blackrock rejected Douglas' advances. Hell hath no fury like a budding gigolo scorned

But isn't the debate about H1N1 over? Isn't it clear by now that those objecting to the shot either lack the ability to grapple with the claims of immunologists, or are simply ostriches who think no hazard is applicable to them and that anyone telling them otherwise is really just out to get them (the daddy issue types). What's interesting is the alacrity with which the ostrich/daddy issue types dress up their objections with the veneer of science, when in reality they have political (ethical?) objections. The middle ground here might be people like Train, who appear (possibly) capable of tackling the science, even if their interpretations of it are not well supported. If we consider, for arguments sake, that the terb membership has a high proportion of educated and gainfully employed men, then it's kind of scary to see so many of them confusing their knowledge-lite objections to the shot with technically reasonable objections.

 

[blackrock13]

One theory about the Douglas versus Blackrock exchange is that Blackrock rejected Douglas' advances. Hell hath no fury like a budding gigolo scorned

But isn't the debate about H1N1 over? Isn't it clear by now that those objecting to the shot either lack the ability to grapple with the claims of immunologists, or are simply ostriches who think no hazard is applicable to them and that anyone telling them otherwise is really just out to get them (the daddy issue types). What's interesting is the alacrity with which the ostrich/daddy issue types dress up their objections with the veneer of science, when in reality they have political (ethical?) objections. The middle ground here might be people like Train, who appear (possibly) capable of tackling the science, even if their interpretations of it are not well supported. If we consider, for arguments sake, that the terb membership has a high proportion of educated and gainfully employed men, then it's kind of scary to see so many of them confusing their knowledge-lite objections to the shot with technically reasonable objections.

I had to read it a couple of times, especially the second part, but you're not far off the mark.

 

[DouglastheBFE]

One theory about the Douglas versus Blackrock exchange is that Blackrock rejected Douglas' advances. Hell hath no fury like a budding gigolo scorned

I think it's the other way around... He so badly wants me to get the vaccine, because that way he can put the full court press on me...

Maybe when he says, 'Just get the fucking vaccine!!!'...

He really means...

'I'm so fucking horny Douglas!! Just get the vaccine already!!!' (sorry blackrock, women only)

But isn't the debate about H1N1 over? Isn't it clear by now that those objecting to the shot either lack the ability to grapple with the claims of immunologists, or are simply ostriches who think no hazard is applicable to them and that anyone telling them otherwise is really just out to get them (the daddy issue types). What's interesting is the alacrity with which the ostrich/daddy issue types dress up their objections with the veneer of science, when in reality they have political (ethical?) objections. The middle ground here might be people like Train, who appear (possibly) capable of tackling the science, even if their interpretations of it are not well supported. If we
consider, for arguments sake, that the terb membership has a high proportion of educated and gainfully employed men, then it's kind of scary to see so many of them confusing their knowledge-lite objections to the shot with technically reasonable objections.

Well put...

A couple questions...

What is wrong with political and ethical objections??

And...

Doesn't this...

Relax though, death rate is currently running at 0.3 per 100,000 persons in Canada. (quoted from Lurker)

...fall within the veneer of science.

-Douglas

 

[blackrock13]

DBFE;

I knew it. One of the shortest retirements on TERB; 1hr. 45 mins., but hey!

 

[DouglastheBFE]

One theory about the Douglas versus Blackrock exchange is that Blackrock rejected Douglas' advances. Hell hath no fury like a budding gigolo scorned

----------------------------------
ha!...but...

I think it's the other way around... He so badly wants me to get the vaccine, because that way he can put the full court press on me...

Maybe when he says, 'Just get the fucking vaccine!!!'...

He really means...

'I'm so fucking horny Douglas!! Just get the vaccine already!!!' (sorry blackrock, women only)

 

[fuji]

Can you come down with it again? Not likely this year. This subtype hasn't yet mutated. If it does, then all the current vaccines that are being injected into people are useless.

There was a study in the NEJM recently that there is likely to be significant cross immunity even if it mutates, and that there is a pretty good chance people who get the vaccine for this strain would fare better when faced with the mutated strain.

Plainly no guarantees though, it depends on exactly what sort of mutation occurs. However the last several H1N1 pandemic/epidemics to go around showed cross immunity effects versus the previous bout including now--people over 60 fare better for exactly this reason.

The numbers above are estimated crude mortality rate based on actual deaths that are attributed to pH1N1 post mortum. Want the link? Public Health Agency of Canada.

Yes, my issue with train is he conflates this number, which is confirmed cases, with a different number, which is estimated impact on total mortality.

When you hear things like "3000 people died from flu" (train quoted that figure from CDC for seasonal) that means there were 3000 deaths in which flu was a suspected factor at some level. In many, even most, of those deaths the other problems were plainly the primary cause and often there is not even a test for flu performed. Hence it is an "estimate" not a "count".

That's where the larger numbers come from attributing many thousands of deaths to flu. The actual number of deaths where the flu is the *direct* cause (or P&I) is always a much, much lower number.

 

[nolabel]

Well put...

A couple questions...

What is wrong with political and ethical objections??

And...

Doesn't this...

Relax though, death rate is currently running at 0.3 per 100,000 persons in Canada. (quoted from Lurker)

...fall within the veneer of science.

-Douglas

There's nothing wrong with political and ethical objections. Indeed, where uncertainties and unavoidable ignorance persist in a technical area, it's entirely reasonable to add some political and ethical context to decision-making. The trouble arises when one presumes there's no distinction between one's political/ethical views and the technical claims of specialists. This conflation encourages the view that having a political/ethical view is sufficient grounds to either reject or accept some technical claim. It's not sufficient in either case, even if it remains an important dimension of a problem. So while the statistic you note above is quoted by the vaccine sceptic, it's doubtful that statistic is anything but a veneer of science, in the sense that the sceptic is typically just tipping their hat to anything that appears to technically justify their pre-formed view. Why not just say "I have no science, but I do have this political/ethical view"? My complaint is about those who don't know the difference.

 

[lurkerjoe]

There was a study in the NEJM recently that there is likely to be significant cross immunity even if it mutates, and that there is a pretty good chance people who get the vaccine for this strain would fare better when faced with the mutated strain.

Thing about virii is that we don't know what we're facing until we're facing them. Sure, one can can use statistical modelling as a predictor on the various mutations but my attitude is "Meh, que sera, sera." After all, modelling didn't really work out the last two flu seasons, when we ended up having a mismatch between vaccine and predominate flu subtypes. We just have to be ready to beat back the next little fucker when it comes, which includes hygiene (directed at you bastards who don't wash your hands after hitting the can or are still coughing/sneezing into your frickin' hands) and infection control measures. Vaccine alone isn't the magic bullet IMHO.

That's where the larger numbers come from attributing many thousands of deaths to flu. The actual number of deaths where the flu is the *direct* cause (or P&I) is always a much, much lower number.

Yup - fact is mortality rate for pH1N1, direct or contributory, is much, much lower than hyped up by media. I just saw a CTV or CBC (whatever both are crap when it comes to reporting on pandemic flu) which says certain people are 20 times more likely to be hospitalized or die (again I can't remember which because I tune out) Question is: 20 times what? 20x 1%? 20x .000003%?

Having said that, I'm going to get the shot when my turn comes. I'm just not going to freak out and get all hysterical about it.

 

[blackrock13]

There's nothing wrong with political and ethical objections. Indeed, where uncertainties and unavoidable ignorance persist in a technical area, it's entirely reasonable to add some political and ethical context to decision-making. The trouble arises when one presumes there's no distinction between one's political/ethical views and the technical claims of specialists. This conflation encourages the view that having a political/ethical view is sufficient grounds to either reject or accept some technical claim. It's not sufficient in either case, even if it remains an important dimension of a problem. So while the statistic you note above is quoted by the vaccine sceptic, it's doubtful that statistic is anything but a veneer of science, in the sense that the sceptic is typically just tipping their hat to anything that appears to technically justify their pre-formed view. Why not just say "I have no science, but I do have this political/ethical view"? My complaint is about those who don't know the difference.

Your points are well made and mirror similar points made by others a couple of months back, me included in a rather lengthy post. If I can locate it, I'll repost.

It's easy to understand flawed accusations from someone whose only been on this forum under DBFE's handle for approximately 5 weeks and apparently hasn't been able to get a grip on posters' history long term because of that.

LJ;

Your points are good ones. Reports from TV media are flawed a tad as they have to fit into 30 second sound bites followed by 'find more info on our web site' and that a major bug of mine.

 

[fuji]

Yup - fact is mortality rate for pH1N1, direct or contributory, is much, much lower than hyped up by media. I just saw a CTV or CBC (whatever both are crap when it comes to reporting on pandemic flu) which says certain people are 20 times more likely to be hospitalized or die (again I can't remember which because I tune out) Question is: 20 times what? 20x 1%? 20x .000003%?

It's impossible to know the answer because public health agencies stopped testing for H1N1 in all but the most serious cases. As a result we simply don't know how many people have been infected.

We do know that in Chicago so far roughly 1 in 19000 people in that city have been hospitalized for confirmed H1N1. What we don't know is what percentage of the city was infected, was it 1% or was it 10% or some other number? We don't know because testing has stopped.

We do know that H1N1 is over-reported because, due to the media attention, right now everybody who gets sick with anything assumes it is H1N1. When testing stopped 90% of samples submitted as possible H1N1 turned out not to be. MOST people who think they have had H1N1 in reality have not even had a flu--it was just a garden variety common cold.

The combination of the over-diagnosis and the under-testing makes it damn near impossible to say anything other than so far around 1 per 19000 people out of the non-senior adult population have been hospitalized by it, calculated as total confirmed hospitalized infections divided by census population.

Was that out of 1% total pop infected? Then it's 1 in ~200 that are serious. Was it 5%? Then it's 1 in 1000. Was it 10% of the population infected? Then it is only 1 in 2000 that require hospitalization.

 

[basketcase]

Get the shot if you want. If you don't want to that is your choice but please don't use fictional pseudoscience while attempting to convince people that the shot is bad for you.

 

[Stoo]

If a person has a flu but the doctor can't tell if its a regular flu or h1n1
so once recovered should the patient go for the h1n1 flu shot ?

Yes. I had this very conversation yesterday with my Doctor. There is every expectation that H1N1 will be back again, and there's no harm in getting it, assuming you are fully recovered and you aren't a conspiracy theorist.

 

[DouglastheBFE]

There`s nothing wrong with political and ethical objections. Indeed, where uncertainties and unavoidable ignorance persist in a technical area, it`s entirely reasonable to add some political and ethical context to decision-making. The trouble arises when one presumes there`s no distinction between one`s political/ethical views and the technical claims of specialists. This conflation encourages the view that having a political/ethical view is sufficient grounds to either reject or accept some technical claim. It`s not sufficient in either case, even if it remains an important dimension of a problem. So while the statistic you note above is quoted by the vaccine sceptic, it`s doubtful that statistic is anything but a veneer of science, in the sense that the sceptic is typically just tipping their hat to anything that appears to technically justify their pre-formed view. Why not just say "I have no science, but I do have this political/ethical view"? My complaint is about those who don`t know the difference.

From another thread...

It appears that the plan to have every Canadian vaccinated against swine flu is not coming cheap. New estimates show that the vaccination program could cost more than $2 billion.
The vaccine has been available to Canadians for only about three weeks now, but according to a report in The Globe and Mail, $1.51-billion has already been spent.
That figure was reached after reviewing estimates from federal, provincial and territorial governments.
The actual figure might be even higher, because many provinces are still revising their costs, while others have yet to release total estimates.
In September, provincial and territorial health ministers predicted the cost of buying and delivering the vaccine at around $806-million, or about $16 per dose.
But based on these new estimates, the total cost is currently running at about $30 a shot --and climbing.
The cost of buying 50.4 million doses has been estimated by federal officials at $403 million. But there have been many extra costs incurred by Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Those agencies have racked up the bills by:
developing emergency and strategic plans
conducting surveillance and outbreak management
overtime and standby pay for regulatory and lab staff
conducting rapid research
Earlier this week, Treasury Board President Vic Toews released 2009-10 supplementary budget estimates and estimated those costs at about $78 million.
But related provincial costs were not included; those are sure to cost millions of dollars more.
**cough, cough**
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showpos...55&postcount=6

How can one not agree that this whole fiasco is a just a flat-out misuse of public money. A goddamn cash grab by GlaxoSmithKline, and medical professionals everywhere. How can one be so blinded by the bullshit??

Veneer of science??? Horseshit!!

I will flat out say that the medical `industry` is arrogant. Just because you payed tens of thousands of dollars for your education, doesn`t mean that your word is the Bible. I`m not saying all doctors and nurses are phonies...don`t get me wrong...but I`ve been involved in the `industry` long enough to know that a majority are greedy slimeballs.

Can`t wait for next year`s *insert new buzz word* influenza, so we can piss some more billions down the drain...good on ya medicine!!!

- Douglas

 

[fuji]

What's the cost of not doing it?

There are two questions embedded in that really:

a) What is the actual cost of not doing it this time?

b) What is the long-run cost of not doing this in general when there is a pandemic threat?

How many deaths equal $1.5 billion?

Also, a proper accounting of the cost would subtract the costs of treatment that we are NOT going to have to pay. So, even where people don't die, if they would have used an ICU for a week, what would that cost?

The cost of lives not lost and the cost of avoided ICU time need to be accounted.

 

[The Options Menu]

What's the cost of not doing it?

There are two questions embedded in that really:

a) What is the actual cost of not doing it this time?

b) What is the long-run cost of not doing this in general when there is a pandemic threat?

How many deaths equal $1.5 billion?

Also, a proper accounting of the cost would subtract the costs of treatment that we are NOT going to have to pay. So, even where people don't die, if they would have used an ICU for a week, what would that cost?

The cost of lives not lost and the cost of avoided ICU time need to be accounted.

There's also the potential costs from not having the national capacity to do this, and of not having delivery systems sorted out for the next (more) serious pandemic. Not to be alarmist, but say bird flu jumps next year, and had a 1% mortality rate and a 5% hospitalization rate across the infected population (of say 25 to 33% of the total population)... Without the vaccine capacity and delivery issues sorted out it would be utterly devastating at even those small percentages.

Mind you that's one degree of separation too far for the sort of accounting you're doing. But capacity matters even if you don't care too much about H1N1.

 

[DouglastheBFE]

Darwin baby!!!

What's the cost of not doing it?

There are two questions embedded in that really:

a) What is the actual cost of not doing it this time?

b) What is the long-run cost of not doing this in general when there is a pandemic threat?

How many deaths equal $1.5 billion?

Also, a proper accounting of the cost would subtract the costs of treatment that we are NOT going to have to pay. So, even where people don't die, if they would have used an ICU for a week, what would that cost?

The cost of lives not lost and the cost of avoided ICU time need to be accounted.

Let's let nature take it's course for once. Does Darwin not fall under the 'veneer of science'??

-Douglas