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

"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?

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

"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

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.

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

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/

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

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.

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