Medical Forum / General / General / June 2005
I dont understand
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Hedge - 25 Jun 2005 19:16 GMT WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Half a million Americans could die and more than 2 million could end up in the hospital with serious complications if an even moderately severe strain of a pandemic flu hits, a report predicted on Friday.
How do pharmaceutical companies get to have these types of advertisements (passed off as news stories) pull it off?
The "predictions" NEVER come to pass, Sigh* as my chiro says ...eat well exercise daily, sleep well and have the tension adjusted out of your body...
Howard McCollister - 25 Jun 2005 22:27 GMT > WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Half a million Americans could die and more > than 2 million could end up in the hospital with serious complications [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > well exercise daily, sleep well and have the tension adjusted out of > your body... Heh...nice troll...
HMc
bae@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu - 25 Jun 2005 23:47 GMT >WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Half a million Americans could die and more >than 2 million could end up in the hospital with serious complications [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >How do pharmaceutical companies get to have these types of >advertisements (passed off as news stories) pull it off? Well, the 1918-19 flu pandemic killed half a million Americans, and the total population was a good deal smaller then, too. The 1957-58 pandemic killed 70,00 in the US, and 1968-69 one killed 34,000. These totals would have been much higher if antibiotics to control secondary pneumonias hadn't been available.
Last season was a moderate flu year, yet about 8% of the adult death rate during the worst of it was due to influenza and pneumonia.
>The "predictions" NEVER come to pass, Sigh* Never, eh? Ignorance is such bliss.
You may not be aware of extensive efforts to prevent the ongoing epizootic of avian flu in east Asia from turning into a human pandemic of appalling mortality rate, comparable to the 1918-19 one. So far, human-to-human spread has been minimal, but a minor mutation or recombination in a person co-infected with a human flu could change that. The mortality rate in people infected with this virus has been 20-30%, and the victims were mostly young healthy people. Btw, this strain is resistant to the antivirals most commonly used against influenza.
>as my chiro says ...eat >well exercise daily, sleep well and have the tension adjusted out of >your body... And you'll live forever and die in perfect health, right.
Well, young healthy people seldom die or require hospitalization for the flu. It's infants and young children, the elderly and the chronically ill who can get seriously ill or die from it. Once you're eighty, or have cancer or CHD or COPD, diet, exercise, sleep and chiropractic are no guarantee of protection. But maybe you and your chiro don't think sick or old people matter.
(Btw, the 1918-19 epidemic, which killed at least 50 million people worldwide, killed many within a few days after infection, and about half were young healthy adults. Nobody knows why. I don't think chiropractic would have saved them.)
Howard McCollister - 26 Jun 2005 00:12 GMT > You may not be aware of extensive efforts to prevent the ongoing > epizootic of avian flu in east Asia from turning into a human pandemic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > strain is resistant to the antivirals most commonly used against > influenza. My God!! The Big Pharma conspiracy apparently goes much deeper than we thought...
HMc
Twittering One - 26 Jun 2005 01:00 GMT Hedge, or leap a privet ledge ~ ?
Or, O, you say ~ THEY hedge, they lie ~ ?
Twittering One - 26 Jun 2005 01:06 GMT To heal, a priviledge. To hurt, to abuse a life, to harm, a crime.
Bob - 26 Jun 2005 02:25 GMT >WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Half a million Americans could die and more >than 2 million could end up in the hospital with serious complications [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The "predictions" NEVER come to pass, bae has given you an excellent response to the flu issue. The view expressed in the Reuters item you quote is, more or less, a predominant view in medical and public health circles. Flu kills many people now, it changes regularly, and moves swiftly.
Given the history of flu pandemics, it is almost inevitable that new and serious ones will occur. They may not occur each time we "predict" one, but it is inevitable that major flu will strike again. With luck, taking heed of the warnings, we will take some precautions to reduce the damage when it happens.
bob
Twittering One - 26 Jun 2005 03:12 GMT Intervention, before crisis ~ Don't be Penny wise, poun foolish.
CALL ~ Back ~ !
Twittering One - 26 Jun 2005 03:14 GMT Border violations endanger patient safety ~ ! Erosion of the therapeutic alliance endanger A patient ~ !
Hedge - 27 Jun 2005 17:27 GMT They may not occur each time we "predict" one,
Bob, The report said half a million, which is whorescrap. The staggeringly inflated number is designed to scare generally healthy individuals into receiving government subsidized jabs.
Bev brayed about the 1918 number of 500,000 in a day where hygeine standards were non-existent, where secondary bacterial infections could not be managed etc. ...and I didn't say innoculations for the infirmed or elderly was a bad idea.
Let's revisit this topic a year from today and see what the number is shall we? I guarantee you it will be less than 50,000.
Hedge
Bob - 28 Jun 2005 02:12 GMT >They may not occur each time we "predict" >one, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >standards were non-existent, where secondary bacterial infections could >not be managed etc. none of which was of much impact in a flu pandemic.
The big factors that argue the coming pandemic could be worse are the ease of transmission (before you know you are ill), and the near lack of treatment.
If you dont think the half million is a reasonable number to have on the table, please tell us something about your background in epidemiology.
>...and I didn't say innoculations for the infirmed or elderly was a bad >idea. But perhaps you should. There is emerging evidence that the elderly respond poorly to the vaccine. It may be better to vaccinate little kids, where it would have the biggest effect on breaking transmissions. AFAIK, this is a new idea, with some data for it, and much room for discussion.
>Let's revisit this topic a year from today and see what the number is >shall we? >I guarantee you it will be less than 50,000. Why is the number a year from now of any relevance?
The basis of your number can only be that the flu situation will be "normal". Over the long term, we know that will not always be true. Maybe it will be true next year. So what? We know a flu pandemic is coming; it is worth spending some effort to see if we can predict it and reduce its consequences. When a bad new strain emerges, the death toll would be below half million if we have heeded the warnings.
bob
bae@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu - 29 Jun 2005 04:21 GMT >But perhaps you should. There is emerging evidence that the elderly >respond poorly to the vaccine. It may be better to vaccinate little >kids, where it would have the biggest effect on breaking >transmissions. AFAIK, this is a new idea, with some data for it, and >much room for discussion. It's well established that the elderly people don't usually develop as strong or persistent an immunity from flu shots as younger people do, but it's much better than nothing, and it's the frail elderly in nursing homes who often end up hospitalized or dead when they get the flu.
The Ontario government has had a policy for the past 5 years or so of vaccinating as much of the population as possible, to protect these very susceptible people by reducing the spread of the virus so they are less likely to be exposed to it. Every year, for several months, there are free flu shot clinics in convenient places like shopping malls, so you don't even have to go to your doctor for one.
This is one advantage of a single payer medical insurance scheme -- you can do global optimizations like this. It's cheaper to vaccinate the general population than to have the hospitals full of nursing home residents with pneumonia in the flu season, aside from the misery, disruption and loss of working time that flu causes to people whose lives aren't endangered by it.
IIRC, most Canadian provinces have similar policies now, and the reduction in emergency room visits, hospitalizations and deaths from flu and pneumonia among the elderly have apparently been significant. There's a big statistical study (another advantage is having all the data available in one place) at ICES (Institute for Clinical Evaluative Studies -- www.ices.on.ca) in progress right now. I don't know when the paper will be out.
Btw, anyone who would like to learn more about influenza, its biology, epidemiology, etc, might like to start at www.cdc.gov/flu. There's also a lot of good information at the WHO site (www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/en), including material about the avian flu epizootic in east Asia.
Bob - 29 Jun 2005 06:25 GMT >>But perhaps you should. There is emerging evidence that the elderly >>respond poorly to the vaccine. It may be better to vaccinate little [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >(www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/en), including material about the >avian flu epizootic in east Asia. Thanks for all that!
My "this" in "this is a new idea" was not clear. I meant the idea of emphasizing vaccinating children rather than the elderly -- break transmission. Of course, vaccinating everyone deals with this another way. But the US is a long way from that, for various reasons. The standard recommendation, until recently, has been vaccinating only the elderly (and some who are at risk for one reason or another)
bob
|
|
|