Advertisement

loader

Talk

Advanced search

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

Sorry, I know, but I have a question re swine flu and none of the literature answers it......

(15 Posts)
CrushWithEyeliner Thu 09-Jul-09 17:24:23

Can one come into contact with it and simply not catch it, like when a cold just passes through and you don't get infected for some reason although you have been in close contact with someone who does, perhaps if you are in super health and fight it?

Also re. immunity are some people just naturally immune to this virus and would this immunity pass on to a child?

TIA anyone who can help

I would have thought so, in a similar way that my dh has had a flu before but I didn't catch it from him. I can't see it been different from ordinary flu in that respect.

littlerach Thu 09-Jul-09 17:37:30

Dd2 has been told she has it, tjhough is better now.

None of us caught it from her.
Whilst we were obvioulsy careful woth handwashing etc, I shared a bed with her (she had v high temp and delirious) so would have been in v close contact.

My sister was told you needed ot be in close contcat for an hour to cathc it (her school wa shut a few weeks ago for it) but not sure of they are still saying this.

sarah293 Thu 09-Jul-09 17:40:46

Message withdrawn

CrushWithEyeliner Thu 09-Jul-09 17:53:35

It makes sense but there is little written about this and natural immunity, suppose we are doing the right thing by taking vits and eating well......?

clarej80 Thu 09-Jul-09 18:11:40

My son had it and the rest of us didn't get it, and i shared a bed with him when he had a fever.

Hulababy Thu 09-Jul-09 18:13:24

Yes, you can - I am sure.

There are two children in the class I work in who have had it. Rest of class haven't had it, nor me or the teacher.

Millarkie Thu 09-Jul-09 18:44:06

Our neighbours have had it - 3 out of 4 of them have anyway, the Mum didn't catch it.

PerfectPrefect Thu 09-Jul-09 18:46:58

Yes you can come into contact and not catch it.

I don't think there is any evidence that anyone is naturally immune (but Idon't think that there is any evidence that there isn't either).

I am not sure there is any disease which is 100% virulent (i.e. makes 100% of the people that come into contact ill). Some are very very virulent though.

PerfectPrefect Thu 09-Jul-09 18:48:08

You don't necessarily have to be "immune" in the clasical sense to no catch it. Some peoples innate immunity will clear it as a sub-clinical infection. This would not class as being "immune".

CrushWithEyeliner Thu 09-Jul-09 20:25:24

so someone with innate immunity would not catch it or would catch it and it would pass unnoticed (is this what you mean by sub-clinical?

PerfectPrefect Thu 09-Jul-09 21:03:04

Eberyone has innate immunity. Your skin is part of the inate immunity. It is the innate immunity capable of dealing low level bugs of all types.

It all depends on how big the innoculum is, how fit you are at the time, how much else your immune system is dealing with. Some may deal with the original innoculum without it multiplying. Others may deal with it as a sub-clinical infection which can be transmitted. There really is a complete spectrum of possibilities. What will be will be and for the majority of the population it will just be a dose of flu that we would rather not have...but that you will get over it.

CrushWithEyeliner Thu 09-Jul-09 21:22:14

that is facinating - sorry but does "deal with the original innoculum without it multiplying" mean as I said, like pass through the body without showing symptoms. Therefore after this process one would be immune. That is quite complex and would mean that more people have had it that we would think....

I know this is quite complex if you can be bothered to expand if not I will understand grin

PerfectPrefect Thu 09-Jul-09 21:36:56

OK.

You get a couple of bugs which go into teh body. The inate immune system may be able to destroy them before they become 10's of bugs and before they cause coughs and sneezes. This would't actually be classed as an infection. Immunity as a result would be unlikely. Probably not particularly infectious (although not impossible.

OR

The bugs get in and multiply to tens of bugs before the immune system throws them out. I would class this as a sub-clinical infection (although the former is probably strictly speaking also a sub-clinical infection). you may develop immunity in this circumstance. You may be infectious.

OR the bugs get in, and before the innate immunity kicks them out they get out of control and trigger a full blown immune esponse - including immunity. At this stage you are almost certainly symptomatic and infectious.

If you think about it the appearance of symptoms and severity is related (in part) to how many bugs there are. The more bugs the more poorly. Symptoms will tend to appear within a certain range. If your immune system can keep them below this then you will remain asymptomatic. If not you get poorly.

The same is true about being infectious. The more viral particals you have in your respiratory tract the more likely you are to sneeze them out and the more likely you are to be infectious. It is also about how may you sneeze out. You only need to sneeze out 1 viable particle to give the infection to someone else (which could occur with scenario 1 above). BUT you are much much much more likley to infect someone else if you throw out a million particles when you sneeze.

So the level of contaiousness is crudely related to where you are on the spectrum of infection. But it is also highly related to how susceptible the person picking up the bugs is too.

<hope i have not just added confusion>

CrushWithEyeliner Fri 10-Jul-09 13:29:40

Thank you for explaining that that does actually make sense and answers my question brilliantly!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now