Counter panic
In the modern history where we've been able to really watch these things, flu pandemics have tended to come in "waves" several months apart, each containing some variation making it more or less virulent and more or less contagious.
This being the case, if the current flu, especially the version in the US, is, in fact, "mild," it might not be such a bad gamble to contract it now to establish some sort of partial immunity in case the next wave isn't so treatable.
This being the case, if the current flu, especially the version in the US, is, in fact, "mild," it might not be such a bad gamble to contract it now to establish some sort of partial immunity in case the next wave isn't so treatable.
posted by mikevotes at
7:41 AM
4 Comments:
This, I am told, is because the flu virus doesn't thrive in hot (summer) weather. So we see the spring wave. A recession during summer. Then a fall wave.
Note that "cold and flu" season is typically late winter/early spring.
By
-epm, at 8:17 AM
That makes sense.
By
mikevotes, at 8:47 AM
What I want to know is, how does the H1N1 virus differ from the run-of-the-mill flu virus, both in terms of communicability and lethality.
People get the flu all the time. It makes you sick. Some people (immune-weakened, elderly, kids) get very sick... and some of them die. So is H1N1 80% more virulent? 40%? 5%?...
From a public health perspective, I get that this is an issue. But from a life-and-death perspective, I just don't think this is going to be the George Romero, sci-fi horror movie that the media (and some right wing racist bigots) are selling it as.
My real fear is that I've just become too cynical of the media and politicians to actually be honest and competent.
By
-epm, at 10:27 AM
I'm not sure on communicability, I don't think anyone is at the moment, but, because of the different proteins, the "H1," nobody has any secondary immunity to the thing, because there hasn't been anything that looks like it in so long.
It looks like it's not more deadly, not necessarily more communicable, but more likely to cause disease in the people it reaches.
So, not more deadly, but alot more people may have to live through this version.
And I would add a couple bits.
1) This appears to be upper respiratory which is more contagious, but less likely to kill through pneumonia or fluids.
2) It doesn't seem to generate an extreme (dangerous) immune overreaction.
3)We haven't really had a major threat outbreak with modern information dissemination and treatment options.
So, it may be wide, but in the US and developed world, probably not unusually deadly on a percentage basis.
By
mikevotes, at 10:43 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home