Swine Flu - WHO confirm pandemic status

[Woody1985]

Looks like it wasn't just the media making a big deal out of nothing eh....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8094655.stm

[Don Giovanni]

Maybe...

The truth is that this particular strain is still quite mild. The announcement of pandemic status simply means that the spread has met certain criteria.
The world is 'due' a pandemic 'flu but the current version is not as nasty as previous ones. This virus may develop (mutate) into a virus that will spread even more easily and cause more severe symptoms. If it's not this particular version of the virus there'll be another similar one along shortly, whether that's later this year, next year or a couple of years away yet.

Health organisations (WHO, NHS, etc.) have been expecting a pandemic to strike for a few years now. It's very much a case of 'when' not 'if' this will hit the population.

The worrying thing, from a purely selfish point of view, is that while 'normal 'flu' is more likely to affect the old, the young and immuno-compromised individuals, pandemic influenza tends to affect otherwise fit, health adults.
And whilst the above may sound pretty grim the world has never been so well prepared for a pandemic to hit and in any case there is nothing much we can do about it other than hope for the best...

[BravestHibs]

Looks like it wasn't just the media making a big deal out of nothing eh....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8094655.stm

You sound like you're easily scared.

(of a disease) prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or the whole world; epidemic over a large area.

I reckon the dictionary definition of pandemic doesn't quite allay itself with what's happening realistically. If you can name one country where swine flu is prevalent. I'd like to know which one it is. Swine flu is about as prevalent as terrorism. Not very.

1.widespread; of wide extent or occurrence; in general use or acceptance.2.having the superiority or ascendancy.

[Woody1985]

You sound like you're easily scared.

(of a disease) prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or the whole world; epidemic over a large area.

I reckon the dictionary definition of pandemic doesn't quite allay itself with what's happening realistically. If you can name one country where swine flu is prevalent. I'd like to know which one it is. Swine flu is about as prevalent as terrorism. Not very.

1.widespread; of wide extent or occurrence; in general use or acceptance.2.having the superiority or ascendancy.

:LOL:

I'm not easily scared of getting disease. People on here were criticising the media for their coverage. However, you could argue that if it wasn't for the media there would be a lot more people affected as people wouldn't be taking as many precautions as they are through hightened awareness i.e washing hands more etc.

It's irrelevant if one country has a lot of people infected. The virus had to start with one person and now look how many are affected across the globe and if/when it changes a lot of people will die.

Re the terrorism point, I don't want to get into a big debate but don't use it so flippantly, tell that to the people who were just killed / affected by a truck driving through the gates of a hotel and blowing them up. These things are never a big deal unless they affect you eh.

[BravestHibs]

:LOL:

I'm not easily scared of getting disease. People on here were criticising the media for their coverage. However, you could argue that if it wasn't for the media there would be a lot more people affected as people wouldn't be taking as many precautions as they are through hightened awareness i.e washing hands more etc.

It's irrelevant if one country has a lot of people infected. The virus had to start with one person and now look how many are affected across the globe and if/when it changes a lot of people will die.

Re the terrorism point, I don't want to get into a big debate but don't use it so flippantly, tell that to the people who were just killed / affected by a truck driving through the gates of a hotel and blowing them up. These things are never a big deal unless they affect you eh.

No they're not a big deal unless blown out of all proportion by the media in order to further a completely seperate and altogether more sinister agenda that actually does affect everyone, not just here, but in countries that most of us know little or nothing about. And it's not just me terrorism won't affect, it'll affect less people in this country than winning the jackpot in the lottery will.

People die all the time. Sometimes in worse circumstances than others. This is part of life. You'll have to excuse me if one way of dieing doesn't fill me with any more or any less fear than another. I'm wierd that way.

[Jack]

No they're not a big deal unless blown out of all proportion by the media in order to further a completely seperate and altogether more sinister agenda that actually does affect everyone, not just here, but in countries that most of us know little or nothing about. And it's not just me terrorism won't affect, it'll affect less people in this country than winning the jackpot in the lottery will.

People die all the time. Sometimes in worse circumstances than others. This is part of life. You'll have to excuse me if one way of dieing doesn't fill me with any more or any less fear than another. I'm wierd that way.

Never been on a plane in the last couple of years? :confused:

[BravestHibs]

Never been on a plane in the last couple of years? :confused:

I don't follow you.....

[Jack]

I don't follow you.....

If you have been on a plane recently you will have been held up by all the extra security checks you will have had to have gone through. That’s because of the terrorist threat and that’s time you'll never get back. Also when you fly to certain countries, particularly the USA, and Oz, getting in is a nightmare – more time you'll never get back, again because of the threat of terrorism. So if you've flown anywhere you have been affected by terrorism.


Here’s an interesting wee bit of rithmitic about the flu! :greengrin

The flu hit the UK around 60 days ago and the average daily increase to the number infected since then has been around 10%. :agree:

Should that continue, in 60 days time the UK infected figure will be nearly a quarter of a million and 60 days after that (October ish this year!!!), at the same rate of increase, everyone in the UK will have had it! :agree:

So it certainly coming along and other countries are being affected / infected more than us.

Don’t worry though its not expected to happen like that and it’s a mild flu and responding to well to treatment. And if the death rate in the UK continues as it has done up till now no one will have died! :greengrin

Now BravestHibs, my new best pal, where did you put that lottery ticket! :faf:

[BravestHibs]

If you have been on a plane recently you will have been held up by all the extra security checks you will have had to have gone through. That’s because of the terrorist threat and that’s time you'll never get back. Also when you fly to certain countries, particularly the USA, and Oz, getting in is a nightmare – more time you'll never get back, again because of the threat of terrorism. So if you've flown anywhere you have been affected by terrorism.


Here’s an interesting wee bit of rithmitic about the flu! :greengrin

The flu hit the UK around 60 days ago and the average daily increase to the number infected since then has been around 10%. :agree:

Should that continue, in 60 days time the UK infected figure will be nearly a quarter of a million and 60 days after that (October ish this year!!!), at the same rate of increase, everyone in the UK will have had it! :agree:

So it certainly coming along and other countries are being affected / infected more than us.

Don’t worry though its not expected to happen like that and it’s a mild flu and responding to well to treatment. And if the death rate in the UK continues as it has done up till now no one will have died! :greengrin

Now BravestHibs, my new best pal, where did you put that lottery ticket! :faf:

With regards to your bit in bold I'l refer you to my earlier post; "blown out of all proportion by the media in order to further a completely seperate and altogether more sinister agenda"

I would class this as a direct result, not of terrorism but rather of the sinister agenda I referred to in my earlier post. Terrorism is the excuse they needed to inflict much greater levels of control, not just in airports but in everyday life. That is pecisely the thing that worries me. Not the threat of being exploded in mid air.

The US is a nightmare and so is Oz but for different reasons, the main issue in Oz seemed to be unwanted flora and fauna rather than bombs and guns. Granted the US is an absolute nightmare but the security services over there are unique in their overzealous approach in my experience.

I was oblivious to the figures regarding swine flu or whatever it is they call it nowadays but as you said the death toll continues to stay at the zero mark, so why all the scaremongering in the media up til now? There's a fine line between making sure people are ready for something and creating a full blown panic, and the media have their own agenda to adhere to as well so forgive me for not taking every little thing I hear as gospel.

Call me a cynic but I would refer to myself more as a staunch realist.

[Jack]

I was oblivious to the figures regarding swine flu or whatever it is they call it nowadays but as you said the death toll continues to stay at the zero mark, so why all the scaremongering in the media up til now? There's a fine line between making sure people are ready for something and creating a full blown panic, and the media have their own agenda to adhere to as well so forgive me for not taking every little thing I hear as gospel.

Call me a cynic but I would refer to myself more as a staunch realist.

I wouldn’t go as far as describing it as scaremongering by the media, rather reporting the figures provided by the World Health Organisation who are in turn fed the numbers by health organisations around the world, if you know what I mean.

Governments around the world, on the advice of WHO and their own health and planning folk, have estimated around 30% of the population could be off sick during a pandemic and have asked businesses etc. to plan with that figure in mind.

Think of what it would be like with a third of the workforce off sick; public transport, a third fewer drivers and therefore a third fewer buses/trains. Folk will have difficulties getting, or may not be able to get, to work. What about food production, distribution and shops? A third of the workforce off! Utilities, emergency services and all the other folk that make the country tick over? A third of them lying in their pits feeling sorry for themselves. :jamboak:

And while 30% have the flu and are unwell who is going to look after them? When the schools are shut who is going to look after the kids? When Granny and Granddad are unwell who is going to be looking after them? Probably the mother types, so industries with a high proportion of women in their workforce are likely to be worse hit.

Now where's that nurse? :confused:

30% of people not at work could be a bit conservative!

[hibsbollah]

What hasnt been properly explained (to me, anyway), is what difference does the WHO declaring it make? If 'pandemic' is just a word, surely what they call it is just semantics anyway?:confused:

Seems a fairly minor piece of news to be making so many front pages:confused:

[BravestHibs]

I wouldn’t go as far as describing it as scaremongering by the media, rather reporting the figures provided by the World Health Organisation who are in turn fed the numbers by health organisations around the world, if you know what I mean.

Governments around the world, on the advice of WHO and their own health and planning folk, have estimated around 30% of the population could be off sick during a pandemic and have asked businesses etc. to plan with that figure in mind.

Think of what it would be like with a third of the workforce off sick; public transport, a third fewer drivers and therefore a third fewer buses/trains. Folk will have difficulties getting, or may not be able to get, to work. What about food production, distribution and shops? A third of the workforce off! Utilities, emergency services and all the other folk that make the country tick over? A third of them lying in their pits feeling sorry for themselves. :jamboak:

And while 30% have the flu and are unwell who is going to look after them? When the schools are shut who is going to look after the kids? When Granny and Granddad are unwell who is going to be looking after them? Probably the mother types, so industries with a high proportion of women in their workforce are likely to be worse hit.

Now where's that nurse? :confused:

30% of people not at work could be a bit conservative!

I clearly haven't been following this as closely as you, but from my understanding when it hit the headlines a while ago was that the planet was under attack by a lethal strain of the flu virus contracted from pigs. That's scaremongering. Pictures of shut shops and people with masks on in mexico. That's scaremongering. I don't even know but has anyone actually died from this yet anywhere in the world? Like I say I haven't been following it particularly closely as there's not really much you can do about it, you either get ill or you don't, but I distinctly remember there being alot of talk about the particular deadliness of this strain and then lo and behold a few weeks down the line it turns out its less deadly than normal flu which kills a number of people, usually the elderly, every year anyway.

I don't know where they're getting this 30% figure from but if they're merely speculating I'm willing to merely speculate that 30% will turn out to be a wild overestimation.

[Jack]

What hasnt been properly explained (to me, anyway), is what difference does the WHO declaring it make? If 'pandemic' is just a word, surely what they call it is just semantics anyway?:confused:

Seems a fairly minor piece of news to be making so many front pages:confused:

Governments around the world rely on folk like WHO to analyse and monitor what's happening around the place and governments, not wanting to waste money, make plans according to the seriousness of the situation as declared by the likes of the WHO.

Take the vaccines and Tamiflu for example. Even if it was as cheap as a tenner a shot for each of them (Tamiflu is closer to £150 - £250 a course). The government wont want to spend 70,000,000 times £10 if it doesn’t need to. So the government will only use the plans and pre-contracts it has in place to buy this stuff if it seems necessary.

By declaring Phase 6 the WHO now think it necessary, the contracts the government have in place will automatically kick in ahead of the other governments who have not made such arrangements. The drugs companies can only make so much so quickly. We will get our vaccines other countries will not!


I clearly haven't been following this as closely as you, but from my understanding when it hit the headlines a while ago was that the planet was under attack by a lethal strain of the flu virus contracted from pigs. That's scaremongering. Pictures of shut shops and people with masks on in mexico. That's scaremongering. I don't even know but has anyone actually died from this yet anywhere in the world? Like I say I haven't been following it particularly closely as there's not really much you can do about it, you either get ill or you don't, but I distinctly remember there being alot of talk about the particular deadliness of this strain and then lo and behold a few weeks down the line it turns out its less deadly than normal flu which kills a number of people, usually the elderly, every year anyway.

I don't know where they're getting this 30% figure from but if they're merely speculating I'm willing to merely speculate that 30% will turn out to be a wild overestimation.


Not to be too unfair on Mexico, or the 5-year-old boy, Edgar Hernandez, who was allegedly the first to get it, but its public health system [monitoring and reporting] isn’t really cutting edge. What Mexico thought it had it found out too late it hadn't and had something else instead. :confused:

The figures, including the 30%, are based on the experience of, and analysing flu pandemics of the past. Although the world has never been better prepared (and the UK better than most) to deal with a pandemic, such as this one, the figures from the past are pretty scary.

These death figures are taken from Wiki

Asiatic (Russian) Flu 1889–90 1 million possibly H2N2
Spanish Flu 1918–20 40 million H1N1 (this is the type doing the rounds now, although it doesn't seem to be as deadly at the moment)
Asian Flu 1957–58 1 to 1.5 million H2N2
Hong Kong Flu 1968–69 0.75 to 1 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic_flu

2-3,000 folk die in the UK each year from normal flu related stuff.

[Jay]

This may sound stupid but I know loads of people are thinking the same! How do you know if you have it? There are so many bugs on the rounds just now that you cant run to the docs everytime someone is ill. How do you differentiate (sp) one from the other?

What are the symptoms? I've had one child with raging temps and vomiting but the doc had no concern, I had one with severe stomach pains - no concern. Runny noses, sore throats and headaches are par for the course this week. Thats all fine as I trust my doc and I am sure they are all very aware of the possibilities and are more than prepared but I just want to know what the signs are.

I never received one of those leaflets we were all promised.

[lyonhibs]

Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey really have taken their inflated sense of self-importance a bit too far this time.

Not even Bono would go this far :grr::bitchy:

[Jack]

This may sound stupid but I know loads of people are thinking the same! How do you know if you have it? There are so many bugs on the rounds just now that you cant run to the docs everytime someone is ill. How do you differentiate (sp) one from the other?

What are the symptoms? I've had one child with raging temps and vomiting but the doc had no concern, I had one with severe stomach pains - no concern. Runny noses, sore throats and headaches are par for the course this week. Thats all fine as I trust my doc and I am sure they are all very aware of the possibilities and are more than prepared but I just want to know what the signs are.

I never received one of those leaflets we were all promised.

Symptoms (I couldn't get the links to work :grr:from this page but I suspect its temporary )
http://www.nhs.uk/AlertsEmergencies/Pages/Pandemicflualert.aspx



Print this off and pop it through your door :greengrin

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/924/0080955.pdf (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/924/0080955.pdf)

[Darth Hibbie]

This may sound stupid but I know loads of people are thinking the same! How do you know if you have it? There are so many bugs on the rounds just now that you cant run to the docs everytime someone is ill. How do you differentiate (sp) one from the other?

What are the symptoms? I've had one child with raging temps and vomiting but the doc had no concern, I had one with severe stomach pains - no concern. Runny noses, sore throats and headaches are par for the course this week. Thats all fine as I trust my doc and I am sure they are all very aware of the possibilities and are more than prepared but I just want to know what the signs are.

I never received one of those leaflets we were all promised.

We got an email at work about this today. You have to contact a dr if your temp is over 38 and you have at least two of the other symptoms: Sore throat, runny nose, cough or aching/pains in bones/joins. Think that was about it.

[Sir David Gray]

I'm no more concerned about swine flu than I was a couple of months ago, when it first kicked off.

There's only 18 countries that have more than 100 confirmed cases of the virus and there have been less than 200 confirmed deaths worldwide.

By declaring a pandemic, the WHO has created, in my opinion, an unnecessary amount of fear. A pandemic gives the sense of panic and makes people think about a possible high death toll, when in reality a pandemic has only been announced because of how widespread the virus has become.

I don't think pandemics should be getting declared unless dozens of people are dying every day.

[Phil D. Rolls]

See this swine flu, it's just the flu really isn't it?

[Flynn]

I'm really scared. If I contract this virus there is only a 99.9999% chance I'll live.

:grr::rolleyes:

[GlesgaeHibby]

First UK death from Swine Flu just confirmed. Patient was being treated in hospital in Glasgow.

[Woody1985]

First UK death from Swine Flu just confirmed. Patient was being treated in hospital in Glasgow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8099832.stm

[BravestHibs]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8099832.stm

Taken from the article.

"The patient had underlying health conditions"

[Andy74]

Taken from the article.

"The patient had underlying health conditions"

Lots of people die from normal flu as well, particularly those with underlying conditions or who are vulnerable.

[BravestHibs]

Lots of people die from normal flu as well, particularly those with underlying conditions or who are vulnerable.

My point exactly.

[Woody1985]

My point exactly.

What is exactly is your point? Are you saying this woman's death is no big deal because she had an underlying condition which may have killed her anyway?

Some people on here seem to think because the UK is likely to be the best protected against the virus that it's no big deal, media blowing things out of proportion etc. What about the hundreds of other countries that have no protection and who will be a lot more suseptable (sp?) to catching the virus.

Medical experts have said that if/when the virus mutates it will become a lot more dangerous to people.

What did you call someone on another thread? Obtuse, yes, that was it.

I'm not concerned about the flu and only really think about it when I see / hear it mentioned on here but to constantly put it down as nothing is disrespectful of the people that have been killed by it IMO.

[BravestHibs]

What is exactly is your point? Are you saying this woman's death is no big deal because she had an underlying condition which may have killed her anyway?

Some people on here seem to think because the UK is likely to be the best protected against the virus that it's no big deal, media blowing things out of proportion etc. What about the hundreds of other countries that have no protection and who will be a lot more suseptable (sp?) to catching the virus.

Medical experts have said that if/when the virus mutates it will become a lot more dangerous to people.

What did you call someone on another thread? Obtuse, yes, that was it.

I'm not concerned about the flu and only really think about it when I see / hear it mentioned on here but to constantly put it down as nothing is disrespectful of the people that have been killed by it IMO.

Calm your shreeking. I'm glad to see that you're following my posts so closely perhaps you'll learn something. And I never called anyone obtuse, if you go back and read it properly you'll see I asked if they were being deliberately obtuse. Two different things altogether. Are these subtle nuances too much for you to take in?

All I'm doing by posting that she had underlying health conditions is putting it into perspective. You're the one saying that her death is no big deal. But if pushed I would say that her death is no big deal, TO ME. I don't know her or anyone else that knows her so her death won't affect me in the slightest in the same way that swine flu won't. Of course it's a shame for her family that she died but there were a million other people that died today as well. Is you not mentioning them in any of your posts not disrespectful as well if you follow your own logic.

FWIW I think it's sweet that you're looking out for all these people abroad when if it was up to you you'd turn them down at the border if they came over here looking for treatment and didn't speak any english.

This makes you a hypocrite.

If you want to put words into my mouth at least make them sound like I might have said them.

[Woody1985]

Calm your shreeking. I'm glad to see that you're following my posts so closely perhaps you'll learn something.

All I'm doing by posting that she had underlying health conditions is putting it into perspective. You're the one saying that her death is no big deal. But if pushed I would say that her death is no big deal, TO ME. I don't know her or anyone else that knows her so her death won't affect me in the slightest in the same way that swine flu won't. Of course it's a shame for her family that she died but there were a million other people that died today as well. Is you not mentioning them in any of your posts not disrespectful as well if you follow your own logic.

FWIW I think it's sweet that you're looking out for all these people abroad when if it was up to you you'd turn them down at the border if they came over here looking for treatment and didn't speak any english.

This makes you a hypocrite.

If you want to put words into my mouth at least make them sound like I might have said them.

You'll see that I asked if that's what you are saying, hence the question mark. I appreciate that you're putting it into perspective and rightly so but you don't appear to acknowledge that it could be exteremly serious for thousands / millions of people. We'll just need to wait and see but if people are so flippant then the chances of it spreading are greater.

Now, as for putting words in mouths. You will find out that I said I think that people should learn English if they want to live and work here.

[BravestHibs]

You'll see that I asked if that's what you are saying, hence the question mark. I appreciate that you're putting it into perspective and rightly so but you don't appear to acknowledge that it could be exteremly serious for thousands / millions of people. We'll just need to wait and see but if people are so flippant then the chances of it spreading are greater.

Now, as for putting words in mouths. You will find out that I said I think that people should learn English if they want to live and work here.

You are insinuating that that's what I was saying. Why ask the question about this woman as a direct response to my post when I hadn't even made the slightest mention of the fact that she had died?

I don't acknowledge it because I don't think it will be. That's been my point the whole time. Should I say what you want me to say even when I don't believe it to be the case?

[Woody1985]

You are insinuating that that's what I was saying. Why ask the question about this woman as a direct response to my post when I hadn't even made the slightest mention of the fact that she had died?

I don't acknowledge it because I don't think it will be. That's been my point the whole time. Should I say what you want me to say even when I don't believe it to be the case?

The link you quoted was about a woman who died.

No, but given your logical approach by putting things into perspective I would have thought you might at least acknowlege that there is potential for a serious outbreak.

I think we should just leave it there. :dizzy:

[lyonhibs]

This is ridiculous - is there not some sort of threshold of deaths/rate of spread that must be reached before the WHO can go slapping the hysterical tag of "Pandemic" on it?? Circa 200 people have died this year from it. Even if that number doubles or trebles between now and the end of the year, I'm sure a spot of research will reveal there will still be umpteen more people killed every year (as there are every other year I hasten to add) by other "less fashionable" diseases.

Am I just being too cynical or is anyone else of the opinion that if swine flu had broken out in sub-saharan Africa, the deaths it caused would be a footnote in the media and the figures folded into the heading of "treatable diseases" which continue to kill millions every year (especiallyy children and the elderly) instead of being "hyped up" to be this "pandemic" from which we all must - apparently - cower??

Now, that's not to say that notice must be taken of the deaths in the Americas and now Britain, and due measures taken, but the reality remains that in a vast majority of cases swine flu, if caught by someone in a country with a even remotely functional health system, is NOT fatal. It's a crying shame for those that died and their families of course, but on a world scale (and certainly on what I'd consider to be a scale worthy of attributing the term "pandemic" to) Swine flu is hardly noticeable on the "Richter Scale" IMO.

I feel I should add the suffix "yet" to this post, because its true that mutation of the disease carrying (insert biological name that I don't know here) and the potential for it to develop a resistance to common antibiotics make it - possibly - a greater danger in the future, but I can't see goverments and the W.H.O being so passive/careless as to actually let that happen, especially now that the W.H.O has slapped this big,scary "pandemic" term onto it.

[Sir David Gray]

It's a terrible tragedy for the woman's family, especially since she recently gave birth.

However, I still cannot get too concerned about Swine Flu.

It's still only been the cause for less than 200 deaths worldwide, and only one death outside of the Americas.

Yes, thousands of people have caught the virus but, in the overwhelming majority of cases so far, the symptoms being experienced are extremely mild.

This woman had other underlying health problems that probably attributed to her death.

Unfortunately death is a fact of life. As soon as we are born, we are all destined to die, usually at some point between the next 70-80 years.

That probably sounds very depressing but it's true.

In an ideal world, we would all die peacefully in our sleep as 85 year olds. But, unfortunately, some people pick up serious illnesses and fail to respond to treatment and they subsequently die much earlier in life.

People should be vigilant and adhere to normal hygiene measures but I do not believe that anyone should be worried or be in a state of panic over this.

If it returns in a more aggressive form in the autumn and winter and hundreds or thousands of people start to die all over the world on a regular basis, then of course we should worry about it.

But I think we should cross that bridge when we come to it and not worry about something which only might happen.

[Don Giovanni]

This is ridiculous - is there not some sort of threshold of deaths/rate of spread that must be reached before the WHO can go slapping the hysterical tag of "Pandemic" on it?? Circa 200 people have died this year from it. Even if that number doubles or trebles between now and the end of the year, I'm sure a spot of research will reveal there will still be umpteen more people killed every year (as there are every other year I hasten to add) by other "less fashionable" diseases.

Am I just being too cynical or is anyone else of the opinion that if swine flu had broken out in sub-saharan Africa, the deaths it caused would be a footnote in the media and the figures folded into the heading of "treatable diseases" which continue to kill millions every year (especiallyy children and the elderly) instead of being "hyped up" to be this "pandemic" from which we all must - apparently - cower??

Now, that's not to say that notice must be taken of the deaths in the Americas and now Britain, and due measures taken, but the reality remains that in a vast majority of cases swine flu, if caught by someone in a country with a even remotely functional health system, is NOT fatal. It's a crying shame for those that died and their families of course, but on a world scale (and certainly on what I'd consider to be a scale worthy of attributing the term "pandemic" to) Swine flu is hardly noticeable on the "Richter Scale" IMO.

I feel I should add the suffix "yet" to this post, because its true that mutation of the disease carrying (insert biological name that I don't know here) and the potential for it to develop a resistance to common antibiotics make it - possibly - a greater danger in the future, but I can't see goverments and the W.H.O being so passive/careless as to actually let that happen, especially now that the W.H.O has slapped this big,scary "pandemic" term onto it.


You're bang on with the highlighted bit there, Lyon.
To put Swine Flu into perspective... how many more people will die from simple, preventable conditions such as starvation and dysentery?
Nevermind more complex conditions such as AIDS and malaria?
Swine flu would count as a tiny percentage of these killers.
Parhaps the above sounds a little cliche'ed but that makes it no less true.

And closer to home (and to be honest I don't have the figures to prove it) you are probably far more likely to be involved in some sort of road traffic accident than die from Swine Flu, at this time.

If/when a mutation occurs there is nothing we can really do to prevent widespread infection, so there is no point fretting about the inevitable.

P.S. Lyon, the cause of the infection is a virus which is treated with anti-viral medication. However, as the virus evolves (mutates) there is no guarantee that the currently effective anti-virals we are stock-piling will work well against what is essentially a 'new' virus.

[goosano]

Perhaps time for a bit of perspective

A big sigh of relief that swine flu is not a completely novel strain. However it is new and this autumn we will see a flu season ,the likes of which we have not had for 40 years

At present NHS Lothian is barely coping with normal emergency admissions. On several days in the last week or two, at what is the quietest time of year, folk are having to be admitted to St John's in Livingston because the ERI and WGH are full

One of the most important things about this virus is that it seems to hit the 30-50 age group hardest. As it is related to the Hong Kong virus that hit at the end of the 50's older people have some immunity. Case reports from the USA/Mexico/Australia suggest that some young people become ill very quickly with complications such as pneumonia

Most realistic projections suggest that GP surgeries will get overwhelmed with demand over the peak few weeks-and remember that NHS staff will be more exposed to the virus and a lot will be off sick at the times of peak demand. Many people who need hospital admission will have to be cared for at home

I don't mean to scaremonger but we should not underestimate the effects that a mild virus will have when it hits a large part of the population. Many kids will be ill (especially under 3's), many parents will have to be off to care for them-it will have a big effect on the economy generally

Underestimate H1N1 at your peril

[Andy74]

Perhaps time for a bit of perspective

A big sigh of relief that swine flu is not a completely novel strain. However it is new and this autumn we will see a flu season ,the likes of which we have not had for 40 years

At present NHS Lothian is barely coping with normal emergency admissions. On several days in the last week or two, at what is the quietest time of year, folk are having to be admitted to St John's in Livingston because the ERI and WGH are full

One of the most important things about this virus is that it seems to hit the 30-50 age group hardest. As it is related to the Hong Kong virus that hit at the end of the 50's older people have some immunity. Case reports from the USA/Mexico/Australia suggest that some young people become ill very quickly with complications such as pneumonia

Most realistic projections suggest that GP surgeries will get overwhelmed with demand over the peak few weeks-and remember that NHS staff will be more exposed to the virus and a lot will be off sick at the times of peak demand. Many people who need hospital admission will have to be cared for at home

I don't mean to scaremonger but we should not underestimate the effects that a mild virus will have when it hits a large part of the population. Many kids will be ill (especially under 3's), many parents will have to be off to care for them-it will have a big effect on the economy generally

Underestimate H1N1 at your peril

I'm sorry, but there's no indication that this flu virus will be as widespread as quickly as you suggest. As flu viruses go it's reach has been pretty minimal.

It's worth noting that 6,000 people a year, in the UK, die from normal seasonal flu.

[goosano]

I'm sorry, but there's no indication that this flu virus will be as widespread as quickly as you suggest. As flu viruses go it's reach has been pretty minimal.

It's worth noting that 6,000 people a year, in the UK, die from normal seasonal flu.

It's reach has been minimal because it is summer here-autumn will be the real testing time. As ever with novel strains the exact impact is hard to predict though all expert predictions suggest it will be much more widespread than normal flu. I don't expect it will kill a larger proportion than normal flu-but if many more people are infected than usual it could be a lot of deaths. The only good thing is that older people who often have several pre-existing illnesses seem less predisposed to the illness.

Time will tell.....