Pandemic
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
asspanker said:
No, but it's killing different people than an ordinary flu. An ordinary flu usually kills old or sick people who are already weak.
This one has been killing mostly people who are young and apparently healthy, who would normally shake off a flu.
So while the overall numbers look similar to an ordinary flu, it is actually worse, although it is not (yet) a 1918 style killer.
Remember that even the 1918 pandemic only killed about 5% of the people who caught it--it's just so many people caught it that 5% was huge. This one is only killing 0.2% or so (0.5% in countries with poor public health systems) which is similar to a normal flu, but unlike a normal flu those 0.2% are younger, healthy people.
fuji said:
How do we know that they are healthier? Obviously there must be a reason they cannot fight off a bug that some 65 year old can.
Nature finds ways to thin the herd.
pandemic
it has killed 141 folks...... more died of auto accidents today alone...... all this means is the bug is being found in many countries. if the public health folks were doing the job correctly they would find that flu is everywhere, all the time....but now it is newsworthy !!!
relax and wash your hands.
it has killed 141 folks...... more died of auto accidents today alone...... all this means is the bug is being found in many countries. if the public health folks were doing the job correctly they would find that flu is everywhere, all the time....but now it is newsworthy !!!
relax and wash your hands.
Compromised said:
According to WHO and CDC they are, I just take their word for it. The theory is that older people are fighting it off because of some left-over immunity from a previous flu outbreak that younger people never experienced.
Younger people on the other hand have no immunity whatsoever to H1N1 so it kills more of them.
Jacques_Offe said:
Out of 27737 cases, or roughly 1 death per 200 cases.
That number, 27737, is going to grow. If the flu is not somehow contained it will likely grow to be about a quarter of the people on the planet. One person in 800 in the world is still millions of people. In Canada it would amount to around 42k people--most of them healthy and young.
However in countries with strong public health systems the kill rate has not been 0.05% it has been only 0.02% so that would add up to only around 17000 Canadians.
Again, 17000 who are mostly young, healthy people as opposed to the normal flu that would kill around that many who were old or sick already.
No it's not the end of the world but it would be wholly irresponsible for WHO not to alert about and incredibly negligent for national public health authorities to sit around doing nothing: Those are 17000 otherwise healthy Canadians whose deaths might have been prevented, not 17000 who were about to die from something else already.
Last edited:
You cannot take those numbers as gospel. Most people who get this flu are cases so mild that they do not even get checked. The true ratio is far lower than even reported.
The unusual death pattern applies to about 50% of the deaths, so we are talking 70 people in the WORLD.
The sky is not falling.
The ability to mutate is not as strong as originally feared for this virus, it is staying relatively stable so it is not a strong candidate for a deadly pandemic.
Don't forget that the WHO pandemic levels only describe the ability to infect, not the consequences of the infection. This strain was initially of concern due to it's unknown nature and effect, more is now known.
The unusual death pattern applies to about 50% of the deaths, so we are talking 70 people in the WORLD.
The sky is not falling.
The ability to mutate is not as strong as originally feared for this virus, it is staying relatively stable so it is not a strong candidate for a deadly pandemic.
Don't forget that the WHO pandemic levels only describe the ability to infect, not the consequences of the infection. This strain was initially of concern due to it's unknown nature and effect, more is now known.
DistantVoyeur said:
I'm amazed at how innumerate people are. You seem like a smart person, how is it you make such an innumerate claim?
The "WORLD" (your caps) is irrelevant here. The proper frame of reference is the total case load, not the total world population. It is 141 cases out of 27k, not 141 cases out of 6.7 billion people. Basic math people, basic math.
At 141 deaths out of 27k cases it's only a little more severe than a regular flu, so you are right, the sky is not falling.
However a significant fraction of those cases are people who would otherwise NOT DIE. They are not people on the edge of death that get pushed over by a flu--which is most of the deaths from ordinary influenza.
In other words they are PREVENTABLE DEATHS.
Here is a really key statistic: 0.02% kill rate in countries with strong public health systems, versus 0.05% in countries with shitty public health systems.
You know what the difference of 0.03% represents?
Those are the people who we will either save or lose based on the actions that public health authorities take. If we wind up with an infection rate of 1/3rd in Canada that difference of 0.03% represents around 33000 Canadian lives that are at stake.
Were the government to allow 33k otherwise healthy people to die preventable deaths--well, that is practically criminal.
Those people WON'T die, and the reason why they won't is because the public health authorities are reacting appropriately to the situation and taking steps to deal with the oncoming pandemic. As a result we will see a death rate of 0.02% rather than 0.05% and that is a lot of lives saved.
Correct, and one reason why it is not falling is that WHO, CDC, and others, have responded appropriately to the situation and as a result appropriate measures will be taken to contain the damage.
With all due respect no-one knows that for sure.
The math is this:
rate-of-infection * rate-of-death = total casualties
Even the 1918 flu only killed around 5% of the people who got it. This one is going to kill 10 times fewer people, but when they are preventable deaths it is the duty of the public health system to prevent them.
Fuji, I think his point was that the actual cases of this flu are a lot higher than the 27,000 confirmed cases, making the actual death rate lower than stated (because of the higher denominator). As to unusual deaths in healthy young people, there have been none in Canada; all have had other issues compromising their health.
I'm with Sheik, wash your hands. I can't tell you how many times I'm in a bathroom and some guy comes out of the crapper or steps away from a urinal and just leaves. And I see it everywhere, across all types of socio-economic groups. Drives me freaking nuts.
I'm with Sheik, wash your hands. I can't tell you how many times I'm in a bathroom and some guy comes out of the crapper or steps away from a urinal and just leaves. And I see it everywhere, across all types of socio-economic groups. Drives me freaking nuts.
moresex4me said:
That comment, though, applies equally to regular infuenza: The data for H1N1 is comparable to the data for regular flu because they both suffer this same undercounting of the cases. Equally when WHO/CDC predict the number of eventual cases they will have of H1N1 that undercounting applies there too.
So when they say 1 in 4 will get the disease in reality it might be 1 in 2 for example due to the same undercounting.
The best way to interpret the number then is something like "the kill rate among cases serious enough to draw the attention of public health authorities", and that applies to both H1N1 and regular influenza.
There haven't been enough cases in Canada yet for Canadian statistics in isolation to be meaningful versus a kill rate of around 0.02% so it's better to combine with the data from other countries with equivalently good public health systems.
fuji said:
You know this is factually incorrect. Seasonal flu kills over 3,000 people annually in Canada. In the US seasonal flu hospitalizes 200,000 and kills 30,000 people. Every single year.
The swine flu has killed 4 in Canada, yes 4. Two of those had serious previous health problems. In other words West nile kills more, the common cold kills more, lightening will kill more. Figures in the US are less than 30. That's 30 compared to 30,000. Many of those also had serious previous health problems. So if you are going to catch a flu consider yourself fortunate if its the swine variety.
The nomenclature "pandemic" refers only to how far it has spread in terms of reported cases throughout the world and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEVERITY OF THE DESEASE. This flu is not particularly dangerous in its present form, in fact less dangerous than the common cold. It will not be dangerous unless it mutates at some later date. Canadian scientists think that is not likely given that in Alberta it has gone back and forth between pigs and humans there without mutating so far.
Fuji you should know this and stop spreading the drama. So far you are batting 1,000 in terms of being incorrect with your misleading health threads (including the oral chemo of a few months back). Why do you persist in doing this?
train said:
You are plainly innumerate. Basic math escapes you.
Out of how many cases?
Whoops you missed the denominator. Guess you need to go back to school and brush up on fractions.
Out of how many cases?
Whoops you missed the denominator. Guess you need to go back to school and brush up on fractions.
Wrong. Your failure to grasp fractions has led you to make incorrect claims.
Try and think this one through, even for an innumerate person like you it ought to be possible for you to comprehend the math if you really try hard:
Casualties = infections times kill-rate.
So far we have had very few infections and an 0.2% kill rate. Unless something is done we are going to have a LOT more infections than we have seen so far. It may be that will be avoided--by developing a vaccine perhaps--but if it is avoided it will be avoided because of public health intervention.
It may also not be avoided. It may go on to do what it will do if we do nothing, namely, infect practically everyone.
fuji said:
Fuji , stop showing your ignorance and do some of your own reasearch before you post crap. The numbers are on the CDC website . Read it. Maybe you will gain a basic understanding of what the term pandemic means.
There are 13,127 reported cases in the US. Various people have estimated that you can multiply by a factor of 10 because most cases are not even tested for because they are so mild.
Fractions are fairly meaningless when the numbers of deaths are so small.
train said:
You're an idiot. You actually have the correct numbers and if only you could do fractions by yourself you would have the answer, but you fail at fractions? Fuck, I knew you were dumb, but I didn't know you were that dumb.
Let me guide you through the math step by step. I will try and make it very easy for you.
There are 37 deaths out of 13217 cases. That is a fraction, 37/13217. What happens when you multiply that fraction by, say, 80 million cases?
Type this into a calculator:
37/13217 * 80000000 = 163426 deaths.
Now you point out that half the cases had other issues, so we are talking about something like 80,000 preventable deaths of healthy individuals.
That's if 1 in 4 come down with "detectable" cases. By the way that's another fraction: 1/4 times the population of America. See how useful fractions are?
As you point out the number of real cases is more than the number of detectable cases, but the statistics are all based on the number of detectable cases. The kill rate among detectable cases is 0.2%.
How many detectable cases will there be?
Some estimates are that 1 in 4 will wind up with a detectable case. Some estimates have it as 1 in 3. Some estimates have it as 1 in 10.
Do you have data on what it will be?
Train, here is another question for you:
At this moment in time how many Canadians are breathing only with the help of a ventilator because they suffer from H1N1?
How many ventilators do we have?
What happens to the kill rate when more people need ventilators than there are ventilators available?
The relatively small number of cases in Canada to date have put a fair number of people in hospital on ventilators. Most of those people recover and are eventually released from hospital--but what happens when there are too many cases to provide that level of treatment to everyone who needs it?
Here is the answer:
So far 138 people out of 2978 in Canada have required mechanical breathing assisatance to survive. What happens when there are 200,000 cases? Do we have 10k ventilators?
What happens when there are 500,000 cases?
At this moment in time how many Canadians are breathing only with the help of a ventilator because they suffer from H1N1?
How many ventilators do we have?
What happens to the kill rate when more people need ventilators than there are ventilators available?
The relatively small number of cases in Canada to date have put a fair number of people in hospital on ventilators. Most of those people recover and are eventually released from hospital--but what happens when there are too many cases to provide that level of treatment to everyone who needs it?
Here is the answer:
So far 138 people out of 2978 in Canada have required mechanical breathing assisatance to survive. What happens when there are 200,000 cases? Do we have 10k ventilators?
What happens when there are 500,000 cases?
On the good news front:
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_ExclusivesAndWins_MOLT/idUSTRE55B0VP20090612
There is a vaccine. How quickly and how much can be produced would be the obvious question but presumably that means that critical hospital workers can be immunized which makes a huge difference in the capacity of the public health system to deal with the outbreak.
That way you don't face hospital closures due to staff shortages right in the middle of an outbreak.
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_ExclusivesAndWins_MOLT/idUSTRE55B0VP20090612
There is a vaccine. How quickly and how much can be produced would be the obvious question but presumably that means that critical hospital workers can be immunized which makes a huge difference in the capacity of the public health system to deal with the outbreak.
That way you don't face hospital closures due to staff shortages right in the middle of an outbreak.
fuji said:
Fuji stick to the known facts please. Swine flu is less deadly than seasonal flu. End of story.
1 in 4 will catch this ? What are you smoking ?
Fractions aren't useful in the hands of those without the basic common sense of when and how to use them. Worldwide there have only been 30,000 reported cases - only another 2 billion according to that fraction. Think we will reach the 2 billion by September ?Do you even think the data to date is even statistically significant. No one has the slightest idea how many actual cases there have been because most are like catching a cold.
How many people get seasonal flu ? What fraction ? All we know is that more people die of it . C'mon there fraction boy work it out.
I'm shaking my head that you actually seem to believe this stuff.
Do you remember Avian flu ? Another major WHO pandemic warning. More deadly than swine or seasonal fraction -wise . (you can check the WHO stats on this fraction boy). Do you know how many people were killed ? In the last 5 years, worldwide, that's worldwide, there have been a grand total of 250 deaths.
