Swine flu and Torchwood
 

Anyone think that after watching Torchwood no way are the government going
to innoculate them against swine flu?

Ron

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

ronald wrote:

Anyone think that after watching Torchwood no way are the government going
to innoculate them against swine flu?

Ron

heh, yeah, I didn't even watch the prog properly but when the news
came on today I just went, oh yeah, and we believe them after
torchwood!
--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:06:36 GMT, "ronald" wrote:

Anyone think that after watching Torchwood no way are the government going
to innoculate them against swine flu?

Despite being in at least two 'higher risk' groups I decided several
weeks ago that I don't want the vaccination.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6694046.ece:

----- Begin Quote -----

Swine flu vaccine rushed through safety checks

A vaccine against swine flu will be fast-tracked for use in Britain in
just five days, with 130 million doses on order.

----- End Quote -----
--
Martin Jay

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

"Martin Jay" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:06:36 GMT, "ronald" wrote:

Anyone think that after watching Torchwood no way are the government
going
to innoculate them against swine flu?

Despite being in at least two 'higher risk' groups I decided several
weeks ago that I don't want the vaccination.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6694046.ece:

----- Begin Quote -----

Swine flu vaccine rushed through safety checks

A vaccine against swine flu will be fast-tracked for use in Britain in
just five days, with 130 million doses on order.

----- End Quote -----
--
Martin Jay

Unless your a doctor, you will not be getting it in the first wave.. If a
lot of doctors die then you know it's something to pass up, if they dont
keel over then you should probably take it ;P.

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

In article , Martin Jay wrote:
Anyone think that after watching Torchwood no way are the government going
to innoculate them against swine flu?

Despite being in at least two 'higher risk' groups I decided several
weeks ago that I don't want the vaccination.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6694046.ece:

----- Begin Quote -----

Swine flu vaccine rushed through safety checks

A vaccine against swine flu will be fast-tracked for use in Britain in
just five days, with 130 million doses on order.

----- End Quote -----

Never mind the aliens, apparently the total death toll, yes the *total* death
toll so far from this disease has been less than one day's carnage on the
roads. It may be infectious, and it may be "unstoppable", but putting it in
perspective it doesn't seem very harmful, so why all the panic?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

Well, I've not watched it, but I've no intention of getting it done. Its
just not a good idea in my view.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"ronald" wrote in message
m...
Anyone think that after watching Torchwood no way are the government going
to innoculate them against swine flu?

Ron

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Martin Jay wrote:
snip
Never mind the aliens, apparently the total death toll, yes the *total*
death
toll so far from this disease has been less than one day's carnage on the
roads. It may be infectious, and it may be "unstoppable", but putting it
in
perspective it doesn't seem very harmful, so why all the panic?
Rod.


Spanish Flu 1919 50 million dead, over double killed in the 1st world war

and that's before airline travel as a means of spreading the infection

That's why

Steve Terry

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

In article , Steve Terry
wrote:

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Martin Jay
wrote:
snip
Never mind the aliens, apparently the total death toll, yes the *total*
death toll so far from this disease has been less than one day's
carnage on the roads. It may be infectious, and it may be
"unstoppable", but putting it in perspective it doesn't seem very
harmful, so why all the panic? Rod.


Spanish Flu 1919 50 million dead, over double killed in the 1st world war

and that's before airline travel as a means of spreading the infection

That's why

but antibiotics hadn't been invented then. Yes, I know they don't actually
help with the 'flu virus, but they deal with most of the secondary
infections (such as pneumonia) which result.

There have been other major flu outbreaks since - Asian flu 1957 (which I
had) and Hong Kong flu 1968. Nothing like the Spanish flu deathtoll has
resulted

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

In article , Steve Terry
wrote:

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Martin Jay
wrote:
snip
Never mind the aliens, apparently the total death toll, yes the
*total* death toll so far from this disease has been less than one
day's carnage on the roads. It may be infectious, and it may be
"unstoppable", but putting it in perspective it doesn't seem very
harmful, so why all the panic? Rod.


Spanish Flu 1919 50 million dead, over double killed in the 1st world war

and that's before airline travel as a means of spreading the infection

That's why

Ah. So the key point you are making is that our government are so dimwitted
and ignorant that they think any flu with a common name that starts with
'S' must be deadly, and they have to spend millions of pounds (of our
money) on that basis?

Is this flu significantly more 'deadly' that the typical types we get most
winters?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Terry
wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Martin Jay
wrote:
snip
Never mind the aliens, apparently the total death toll, yes the *total*
death toll so far from this disease has been less than one day's
carnage on the roads. It may be infectious, and it may be
"unstoppable", but putting it in perspective it doesn't seem very
harmful, so why all the panic? Rod.

Spanish Flu 1919 50 million dead, over double killed in the 1st world war

and that's before airline travel as a means of spreading the infection
That's why

but antibiotics hadn't been invented then. Yes, I know they don't
actually
help with the 'flu virus, but they deal with most of the secondary
infections (such as pneumonia) which result.

Fit young persons were dead in 48 hours, before secondary bacterial
infections could get started.

There have been other major flu outbreaks since - Asian flu 1957 (which I
had) and Hong Kong flu 1968. Nothing like the Spanish flu deathtoll has
resulted


Luck, sheer luck that they weren't as deadly

Steve Terry

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

Steve Terry wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Terry
wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message
.myzen.co.uk...
In article , Martin Jay
wrote:
snip
Never mind the aliens, apparently the total death toll, yes the *total*
death toll so far from this disease has been less than one day's
carnage on the roads. It may be infectious, and it may be
"unstoppable", but putting it in perspective it doesn't seem very
harmful, so why all the panic? Rod.

Spanish Flu 1919 50 million dead, over double killed in the 1st world
war

and that's before airline travel as a means of spreading the infection
That's why

but antibiotics hadn't been invented then. Yes, I know they don't
actually
help with the 'flu virus, but they deal with most of the secondary
infections (such as pneumonia) which result.

Fit young persons were dead in 48 hours, before secondary bacterial
infections could get started.

There have been other major flu outbreaks since - Asian flu 1957 (which I
had) and Hong Kong flu 1968. Nothing like the Spanish flu deathtoll has
resulted


Luck, sheer luck that they weren't as deadly

Steve Terry

Well, yes - lucky indeed. But this strain of "swine flu" is pretty benign
as far as flu goes. If it mutates into something far more pathogenic, and
causes lots of deaths, then we will have great cause for concern. The
trouble is, if it mutates, then there is a high probability that the new
vaccine will have little or no effectiveness against it.

And why the necessity for two doses? Current flu vaccines only require a
single dose. It suggests that the new vaccine has low immunogenicity
compared to the current vaccines (rushed production, maybe?). If that is
so, it will have even less effectiveness against a mutated virus.

--
Jeff

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Terry
wrote:

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Martin Jay
wrote:
snip
Never mind the aliens, apparently the total death toll, yes the *total*
death toll so far from this disease has been less than one day's
carnage on the roads. It may be infectious, and it may be
"unstoppable", but putting it in perspective it doesn't seem very
harmful, so why all the panic? Rod.


Spanish Flu 1919 50 million dead, over double killed in the 1st world war

and that's before airline travel as a means of spreading the infection

That's why

but antibiotics hadn't been invented then. Yes, I know they don't
actually
help with the 'flu virus, but they deal with most of the secondary
infections (such as pneumonia) which result.

There have been other major flu outbreaks since - Asian flu 1957 (which I
had) and Hong Kong flu 1968. Nothing like the Spanish flu deathtoll has
resulted



I recently heard a virologist say that the biggest problem with flu is the
sudden and unexpected ways in which it can mutate into new strains, in fact
she said that it was the one disease above almost all others that gave
scientists the most cause for concern. Whilst on the subject, does anyone
know if it's at all possible for the AIDS virus to mutate from being a
sexually transmitted disease into an airborne disease that could be as
easily spread as common flu?

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:35:41 +0100, charles
wrote in
:

but antibiotics hadn't been invented then. Yes, I know they don't actually
help with the 'flu virus, but they deal with most of the secondary
infections (such as pneumonia) which result.

Those who have studied the 1918 pandemic in detail are less optimistic.
See http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-0979.htm:

===
Even with modern antiviral and antibacterial drugs, vaccines, and
prevention knowledge, the return of a pandemic virus equivalent in
pathogenicity to the virus of 1918 would likely kill 100 million people
worldwide. A pandemic virus with the (alleged) pathogenic potential of
some recent H5N1 outbreaks could cause substantially more deaths.
===

The H5N1 "bird flu" they were concerned about at the time never achieved
significant human-to-human transmission to make it a problem.

"Swine flu" is being transmitted human-to-human.

There have been other major flu outbreaks since - Asian flu 1957 (which I
had) and Hong Kong flu 1968. Nothing like the Spanish flu deathtoll has
resulted

Perhaps the concern is that the current "swine flu" is H1N1 like the
1918 virus, spreading in humans like the 1918 virus, affecting young and
healthy people like the 1918 virus, we have a mild wave in June/July
like the 1918 virus.

Actually, it is not so mild - according to WHO figures there have been
429 deaths from 94512 cases in total (just under 0.5%) but in the latest
reporting period 47 deaths from 4591 cases (over 1%). Sources I have
found class Asian flu and Hong Kong flu as category 2 (up to 0.5% deaths
per reported case) so we are already facing something that appears to be
more deadly. If, as seems likely, it spreads at least as far as Asian
flu or Hong Kong flu current figures suggest it will kill more people
than those two put together. If, as in 1918, it is followed by a second
wave that peaks at a death rate five times the rate of the first wave
then it could be worse than 1918.


Those who get their health information from TV entertainment programmes
may see all this as conspiracy of course.

--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

"Ivan" wrote in message
...

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Terry
wrote:

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message
.myzen.co.uk...
In article , Martin Jay
wrote:
snip
Never mind the aliens, apparently the total death toll, yes the
*total*
death toll so far from this disease has been less than one day's
carnage on the roads. It may be infectious, and it may be
"unstoppable", but putting it in perspective it doesn't seem very
harmful, so why all the panic? Rod.


Spanish Flu 1919 50 million dead, over double killed in the 1st world
war

and that's before airline travel as a means of spreading the infection

That's why

but antibiotics hadn't been invented then. Yes, I know they don't
actually
help with the 'flu virus, but they deal with most of the secondary
infections (such as pneumonia) which result.

There have been other major flu outbreaks since - Asian flu 1957 (which I
had) and Hong Kong flu 1968. Nothing like the Spanish flu deathtoll has
resulted

I recently heard a virologist say that the biggest problem with flu is the
sudden and unexpected ways in which it can mutate into new strains, in
fact she said that it was the one disease above almost all others that
gave scientists the most cause for concern.

Indeed, it'll mutate into a more harmless to humans form,
or go the otherway. Fortunately as a result flu outbreaks are short

Whilst on the subject, does anyone know if it's at all possible for the
AIDS virus to mutate from being a sexually transmitted disease into an
airborne disease that could be as easily spread as common flu?


They're still arguing if retrovirus really exist.

One thing seems for sure there's no record of anyone catching HIV
from another who has been infected for more than a year.

So sufferers seem to safe from infecting others after a year,
just as well or it would be an epidemic.

Although i would hope that long term AIDS sufferers wouldn't put
the theory to the test by trying unprotected sex?

Steve Terry

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

On 2009-07-13, Owen Rees wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:35:41 +0100, charles
wrote in
There have been other major flu outbreaks since - Asian flu 1957 (which I
had) and Hong Kong flu 1968. Nothing like the Spanish flu deathtoll has
resulted
Perhaps the concern is that the current "swine flu" is H1N1 like the
1918 virus, spreading in humans like the 1918 virus, affecting young and
healthy people like the 1918 virus, we have a mild wave in June/July
like the 1918 virus.

But not (so far) killing young and healthy people.

Actually, it is not so mild - according to WHO figures there have been
429 deaths from 94512 cases in total (just under 0.5%) but in the latest
reporting period 47 deaths from 4591 cases (over 1%). Sources I have

But what value are the total case figures when many countries, including
the US and UK, have stopped bothering to count total cases? People with
mild cases will never visit a hospital to get tested, so only the serious
cases will count towards the total cases figure.

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

On 2009-07-13, Paul Murray wrote:
On 2009-07-13, Owen Rees wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:35:41 +0100, charles
wrote in
Actually, it is not so mild - according to WHO figures there have been
429 deaths from 94512 cases in total (just under 0.5%) but in the latest
reporting period 47 deaths from 4591 cases (over 1%). Sources I have
But what value are the total case figures when many countries, including
the US and UK, have stopped bothering to count total cases? People with
mild cases will never visit a hospital to get tested, so only the serious
cases will count towards the total cases figure.

eg. Reported on 27th June, the US CDC estimate that the US has over a
million cases of swine flu, compared to only 27k confirmed or probable cases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8122262.stm

eg. Reported on 2nd July, Testing no longer being done on mild cases in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8130097.stm

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

In article , Steve Terry wrote:
Never mind the aliens, apparently the total death toll, yes the *total*
death
toll so far from this disease has been less than one day's carnage on the
roads. It may be infectious, and it may be "unstoppable", but putting it
in
perspective it doesn't seem very harmful, so why all the panic?
Rod.


Spanish Flu 1919 50 million dead, over double killed in the 1st world war

and that's before airline travel as a means of spreading the infection

That's why

This isn't Spanish Flu.

Even *with* air travel, seventeen deaths out of a population of sixty-odd
million isn't even in the same league. Probably more people have died from
falling down the stairs.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Ah. So the key point you are making is that our government are so dimwitted
and ignorant that they think any flu with a common name that starts with
'S' must be deadly, and they have to spend millions of pounds (of our
money) on that basis?

I'll be pleasantly surprised if you can point me at the science graduate
on the cabinet. (Brown, for example, has a PhD in the history of the
Labour party...)

Is this flu significantly more 'deadly' that the typical types we get most
winters?


It appears exceptionally mild so far.

Andy

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:14:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Probably more people have died from falling down the stairs.

Bloody Hell. When are we going to get a vaccine that will prevent this
happening? It's outrageous.

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

In message , Owen Rees
wrote


Those who get their health information from TV entertainment programmes
may see all this as conspiracy of course.


So far , on it's own, it appears to have killed less than 0.000002% of
the UK population!

The only reason that the Government are announcing vaccinations etc. is
because they are hiding another bad news story.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:14:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Probably more people have died from falling down the stairs.

Bloody Hell. When are we going to get a vaccine that will prevent this
happening? It's outrageous.

Not a vaccine as such, but I'm sure there'll be an H&S directive soon that we
should only reside in bungalows.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

In article , Andy
Champ
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Ah. So the key point you are making is that our government are so
dimwitted and ignorant that they think any flu with a common name that
starts with 'S' must be deadly, and they have to spend millions of
pounds (of our money) on that basis?

I'll be pleasantly surprised if you can point me at the science graduate
on the cabinet. (Brown, for example, has a PhD in the history of the
Labour party...)

That may explain a lot. Are they also clueless about the difference between
energy and power?... Maybe they think the difference is "We are in power
but the opposition haven't got the energy to get rid of us." :-)

Is this flu significantly more 'deadly' that the typical types we get
most winters?

It appears exceptionally mild so far.

The early reports about Mexico seemed to tell us it had a very high
mortality rate. But since then the reports I've read from closer to home
seem to indicate a rate of the order of 1:1000. That is serious on the
basis that if a million people catch it, then around a thousand would die.
But the BBC TV news yesterday say that, typically, around 3,500 die each
winter from 'seasonal flu'.

That said, I have no objection to the government 'erring on the side of
caution' and developing the vaccines, etc. Better to save lives if we can.
But people do seem to get risks out of persepctive. As Brian (IIRC) pointed
out, we seem to take road 'accident' sic deaths as being 'normal'.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

Alan wrote:
In message , Owen Rees
wrote


Those who get their health information from TV entertainment
programmes may see all this as conspiracy of course.


So far , on it's own, it appears to have killed less than 0.000002% of
the UK population!

The only reason that the Government are announcing vaccinations etc.
is because they are hiding another bad news story.

Perhaps they're hiding the fact they publicised only a few days ago that
they expect the rate of new infections in the UK to reach 100,000 cases per
day come the end of August.

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy
Champ
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Ah. So the key point you are making is that our government are so
dimwitted and ignorant that they think any flu with a common name that
starts with 'S' must be deadly, and they have to spend millions of
pounds (of our money) on that basis?

I'll be pleasantly surprised if you can point me at the science graduate
on the cabinet. (Brown, for example, has a PhD in the history of the
Labour party...)

That may explain a lot. Are they also clueless about the difference
between
energy and power?... Maybe they think the difference is "We are in power
but the opposition haven't got the energy to get rid of us." :-)

Is this flu significantly more 'deadly' that the typical types we get
most winters?

It appears exceptionally mild so far.

The early reports about Mexico seemed to tell us it had a very high
mortality rate. But since then the reports I've read from closer to home
seem to indicate a rate of the order of 1:1000. That is serious on the
basis that if a million people catch it, then around a thousand would die.
But the BBC TV news yesterday say that, typically, around 3,500 die each
winter from 'seasonal flu'.

That said, I have no objection to the government 'erring on the side of
caution' and developing the vaccines, etc. Better to save lives if we can.
But people do seem to get risks out of persepctive. As Brian (IIRC)
pointed
out, we seem to take road 'accident' sic deaths as being 'normal'.



However Jim, the thing with road accidents and falling down the stairs is
that the annual numbers are reasonably predictable, and which we do at least
have some degree of control over, I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:07:17 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy
Champ
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Ah. So the key point you are making is that our government are so
dimwitted and ignorant that they think any flu with a common name that
starts with 'S' must be deadly, and they have to spend millions of
pounds (of our money) on that basis?

I'll be pleasantly surprised if you can point me at the science graduate
on the cabinet. (Brown, for example, has a PhD in the history of the
Labour party...)

That may explain a lot. Are they also clueless about the difference
between
energy and power?... Maybe they think the difference is "We are in power
but the opposition haven't got the energy to get rid of us." :-)

Is this flu significantly more 'deadly' that the typical types we get
most winters?

It appears exceptionally mild so far.

The early reports about Mexico seemed to tell us it had a very high
mortality rate.

Mexico does not have a national health service. It has some excellent
hospitals but not all the population can afford them. Also it seems to
be possible to get antibiotics from pharmacists without a prescription.
Someone who is sick with a fever will buy the pills "that worked
before". That might be useful if the person has a bacterial infection
but it is no help against a virus. Other people will go to "traditional
healers". The overall effect is that people died in Mexico without any
professional help and, in particular, no professional scientific
diagnosis. This makes some of the figures guesswork.

But since then the reports I've read from closer to home
seem to indicate a rate of the order of 1:1000. That is serious on the
basis that if a million people catch it, then around a thousand would die.
But the BBC TV news yesterday say that, typically, around 3,500 die each
winter from 'seasonal flu'.

That said, I have no objection to the government 'erring on the side of
caution' and developing the vaccines, etc. Better to save lives if we can.
But people do seem to get risks out of persepctive. As Brian (IIRC)
pointed
out, we seem to take road 'accident' sic deaths as being 'normal'.



However Jim, the thing with road accidents and falling down the stairs is
that the annual numbers are reasonably predictable, and which we do at least
have some degree of control over, I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

Yes.

What is distinctive about this "Swine Flu", A(H1N1)v, is that it is not
following the normal seasonal pattern in which flu outbreaks occur
during the colder half of the year in each hemisphere (Northern and
Southern).[1] The outbreak in Mexico started during the last few weeks
of the normal Northern hemisphere flu season and then continued rather
than dying down. It is also affecting different age groups from those
normally at risk from the seasonal flu.

These are very good reasons to study it closely and to prepare for the
worst.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_flu

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

"Ivan" wrote in message
...
, I think the major fear with flu is that it could very quickly mutate and
become a completely different and much more deadly ball game within a very
short space of time.


I agree this seems to be the major worry - that this easily spread, but
currently mild infection becomes a lot less mild.
It's also widely said that infections will inevitably rise as we approach
the Autumn - I heard a prediction of 100K a day by the end of August?

Isn't there therefore a certain logic to catching the virus as early as
possible - before the weather gets cold - before it (possibly) becomes more
deadly?

- assuming the mild virus infection makes an individual immune to a more
deadly version.

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

"Martin" wrote in message
...

"Ivan" wrote in message
...
, I think the major fear with flu is that it could very quickly mutate and
become a completely different and much more deadly ball game within a very
short space of time.


I agree this seems to be the major worry - that this easily spread, but
currently mild infection becomes a lot less mild.
It's also widely said that infections will inevitably rise as we approach
the Autumn - I heard a prediction of 100K a day by the end of August?

Isn't there therefore a certain logic to catching the virus as early as
possible - before the weather gets cold - before it (possibly) becomes
more deadly?

- assuming the mild virus infection makes an individual immune to a more
deadly version.



That was my thoughts as well, but presumably that won't be any good if the
virus mutates and I presume that also applies to any vaccine against the
existing strain?

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

In article , Peter
Duncanson
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:07:17 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

That said, I have no objection to the government 'erring on the side
of caution' and developing the vaccines, etc. Better to save lives if
we can. But people do seem to get risks out of persepctive. As Brian
(IIRC) pointed out, we seem to take road 'accident' sic deaths as
being 'normal'.


However Jim, the thing with road accidents and falling down the stairs
is that the annual numbers are reasonably predictable, and which we do
at least have some degree of control over, I think the major fear with
flu is that it could very quickly mutate and become a completely
different and much more deadly ball game within a very short space of
time.

Yes.

The snag is that if it *does* "quickly mutate and become completely
different" then the vaccine currently being produced for distribution and
use may be of little benefit. Better to spend the time, money, and effort
in other ways, perhaps.

What is distinctive about this "Swine Flu", A(H1N1)v, is that it is not
following the normal seasonal pattern in which flu outbreaks occur
during the colder half of the year in each hemisphere (Northern and
Southern).[1] The outbreak in Mexico started during the last few weeks
of the normal Northern hemisphere flu season and then continued rather
than dying down. It is also affecting different age groups from those
normally at risk from the seasonal flu.

These are very good reasons to study it closely and to prepare for the
worst.

I agree in general terms. However...

The snag is that - for the above reasons - the current production and
distribution of vaccine may be 'monkey motion'. i.e. activity that appears
to onlookers like being useful and productive, but in reality may be time
and effort wasted which could be put to better uses. I have no idea if this
*will* be the case as I've not seen evidence dealing with the point. But it
is a classic behaviour pattern of government to be 'seen to be doing
something', just for good PR.

IIRC Sir Humpfrey was always pleased to be *seen* to be "doing something' -
provided the reality was otherwise. :-)

I'm an ex-academic and am always happy to conclude that 'further research
is urgently needed', so welcome recommendations to "study it closely". But
I am currently doubtful that the new vaccine *is* a useful part of
"planning for the worst" if that means a virus that will mutate into
something quite different and far worse. It may well be useful against the
current virus, though, and as such, welcome. But that brings us back to the
way people get relative risks out of perspective. How much worse is the
*current* 'Swine Flu' than typical seasonal types? Is that enough to
justifiy thowing resources at it now, rather than applying them to some
other acitivity that might lower mortalities?

I'm not asking the above because I know the answers. But because I have
doubts that the arguments we have been presented with are really sensible.

The snag of vaccine production against ailments like flu that change so
much is that you tend to lag behind the changes in the virus.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_flu

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:21:27 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
...

"Ivan" wrote in message
...
, I think the major fear with flu is that it could very quickly mutate and
become a completely different and much more deadly ball game within a very
short space of time.


I agree this seems to be the major worry - that this easily spread, but
currently mild infection becomes a lot less mild.
It's also widely said that infections will inevitably rise as we approach
the Autumn - I heard a prediction of 100K a day by the end of August?

Isn't there therefore a certain logic to catching the virus as early as
possible - before the weather gets cold - before it (possibly) becomes
more deadly?

Of course even the present "mild" version might kill you.

Mutation of the virus occurs inside the cells of an infected person or
animal. The more people who catch the virus the more likely it is that a
mutated version will appear.

- assuming the mild virus infection makes an individual immune to a more
deadly version.



That was my thoughts as well, but presumably that won't be any good if the
virus mutates and I presume that also applies to any vaccine against the
existing strain?

It depends how far the virus mutates. A vaccine may give some immunity
against a slightly mutated version.

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

Peter Duncanson wrote:

The early reports about Mexico seemed to tell us it had a very high
mortality rate.

Mexico does not have a national health service. It has some excellent
hospitals but not all the population can afford them. Also it seems to
be possible to get antibiotics from pharmacists without a prescription.
Someone who is sick with a fever will buy the pills "that worked
before". That might be useful if the person has a bacterial infection
but it is no help against a virus. Other people will go to "traditional
healers". The overall effect is that people died in Mexico without any
professional help and, in particular, no professional scientific
diagnosis. This makes some of the figures guesswork.

Also worth remembering that the press hype was working overtime
describing the situation in Mexico as well. The view from the ground
however seems a bit different:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Flu.shtml



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

In article , Peter
Duncanson
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:21:27 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:

Mutation of the virus occurs inside the cells of an infected person or
animal. The more people who catch the virus the more likely it is that a
mutated version will appear.

- assuming the mild virus infection makes an individual immune to a
more deadly version.



That was my thoughts as well, but presumably that won't be any good if
the virus mutates and I presume that also applies to any vaccine
against the existing strain?

It depends how far the virus mutates. A vaccine may give some immunity
against a slightly mutated version.

Alas, giving many people the vaccine for the current main strain could also
act as a driver to select mutations as having a greater 'survival value'
for the virus. In effect, it tends to weed out 'competition' by versions
close to the strain used for the vaccine and allow variations more scope to
grow.

So these issues can be far from simple, and what may seem a sensible option
can sometimes turn out to be a mistake. The problem is that it can be
impossible to do more than estimate this in advance.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would
this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?
Rod.


Chaos theory would say either way

Steve Terry

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much
more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would
this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?
Rod.


Chaos theory would say either way

Steve Terry



|
And I'm trying to avoid if I possibly can becoming part of the 'natural
selection' process!o)

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:11:23 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?

I think that would be better as "the relatively benign form that didn't
kill its host *immediately*".

A lethal form can exist and spread if the host is infectious for long
enough to infect other hosts before it dies.

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:11:23 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much
more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would
this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?

I think that would be better as "the relatively benign form that didn't
kill its host *immediately*".

A lethal form can exist and spread if the host is infectious for long
enough to infect other hosts before it dies.

|
Let's hope that our politicians have a master plan in place for the
eventuality of millions of key workers in potentially dangerous areas of
work, such as nuclear power stations, oil refineries, chemical works etc.
being abruptly taken out of the equation, IMV any industry representing a
serious hazard to the population or environment should be able to be very
quickly shut down and safely mothballed for 'at least' 6 months.

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:21:49 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Alas, giving many people the vaccine for the current main strain could also
act as a driver to select mutations as having a greater 'survival value'
for the virus. In effect, it tends to weed out 'competition' by versions
close to the strain used for the vaccine and allow variations more scope to
grow.

So these issues can be far from simple, and what may seem a sensible option
can sometimes turn out to be a mistake. The problem is that it can be
impossible to do more than estimate this in advance.

There is a similar problem with the use of the antiviral drug Tamiflu.
Experts in other countries are looking with raised eyebrows at the UK's
widespread use of the drug to simply shorten the length of illness
rather restricting its use to severe cases where it is necessary to save
life.

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:59:03 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:11:23 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much
more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would
this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?

I think that would be better as "the relatively benign form that didn't
kill its host *immediately*".

A lethal form can exist and spread if the host is infectious for long
enough to infect other hosts before it dies.

|
Let's hope that our politicians have a master plan in place for the
eventuality of millions of key workers in potentially dangerous areas of
work, such as nuclear power stations, oil refineries, chemical works etc.
being abruptly taken out of the equation, IMV any industry representing a
serious hazard to the population or environment should be able to be very
quickly shut down and safely mothballed for 'at least' 6 months.

It is not a simple situation owing to the "the fundamental
interconnectedness of all things"[1]

Closing down nuclear power stations, oil refineries, chemical works,
etc. would cut off or seriously reduce the availability of some
essential supplies to the population.

We live in the era of Just-in-Time and Continuous Flow in which buffer
stocks of goods are not maintained.

[1] "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency", by Douglas Adams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Gently

Swine flu and Torchwood
 

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:12:13 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

rather restricting its use

Oops. ... rather than restricting its use...