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

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

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.

"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.

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

"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.

"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?

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

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.

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 |
\================================================= ================/