Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Swine Flu. Are we in big trouble with this then?

586 replies

Meglet · 25/04/2009 21:20

This sounds worse than the bird flu that thankfully never really happened.

news.bbc.co.uk/mobile/bbc_news/top_stories/801/80183/story8018356.shtml?

Sky news have a press conference on now about possible cases in new york. When do we start panic buying .

OP posts:
sarah293 · 27/04/2009 11:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

wannaBe · 27/04/2009 11:26

so what do you do? Ban all travel from any country where there has been an instance of swine flu?

So no travel in or out of Meccico, the US, Canada, Spane, New Zealand, ... that would include imports and exports too then?

If you think the economy is in freefall now, imagine what it would be like if you were unable to import goods from certain countries, or export your goods to certain countries.

It's a totally unworkable solution.

Ivykaty44 · 27/04/2009 11:34

Even without mass world wide travel flu would soon spread and has in the past, there have been several world wide flu epidemics

disease list

wannaBe · 27/04/2009 11:34

Oh add France, australia and Israel to the banned countries of travel...

We'd be more likely to die of famine than swine flu if we stopped importing from all these countries...

cherryblossoms · 27/04/2009 11:58

I'm sorry but I have to add my voice to that of expat and Ivykaty44 and others.

Yes, at some point there will probably be a flu epidemic. Yes, we may even fall to it ourselves/lose some of those we love.

But ... the UK IS well-prepared and ...

There is something just so wrong about worrying about this, now, when it isn't actually happening, when it is not even certain when it will happen, when other things ARE happening. The death-by-car epidemic springs forcibly to mind.

It's like a kind of selective vision, where you are simply not seeing the real and present in favour of some sort of ghost-vision. Surely it's more sensible to base your fears, and thus actions, on the here and now, rather than something that may not even affect you?

cherryblossoms · 27/04/2009 12:02

And I hate to get holier-than-thou but isn't it slightly indulgent that here we are in the well-equipped, well-nourished first world are angsting over this possible, future epidemic, when this is a reality, right now, in other parts of the world?

Seriously, go ahead and stockpile food, but take a moment to think about what it might be like to live in areas of the world that are not normally so comfortably insulated against the terrible ravage of disease.

And I'm sorry if I sound like a cow, it's just ... I don't know; it sort of does my head in.

Sorry. That is really inarticulate.

littlelamb · 27/04/2009 12:04
noddyholder · 27/04/2009 12:11

I am terrified I am immune suppressed and have shown in the past to have no viral fighting ability.

TwoIfBySea · 27/04/2009 12:27

Apparently you can add Scotland to your list of banned countries, are you going to build a big wall like in that film Doomsday?

Forth Valley as well, close enough for the Tibs household to be gubbed then! Oh well, sniff, cough, ahem.

tiredsville · 27/04/2009 12:28

Of course it's indulgent and possibly out of order when some areas of the world do not have access to a simple paracetamol, but as an asthmatic I do feel a sense of dread when hearing about a flu pandemic. Though I wish the media wouldn't thrive on contributing additional scaremongeing stories.

oneplusone · 27/04/2009 12:33

I think the media are bored with trying to scare us with the credit crunch and this is their new scaremongering idea. It is very real for a lot of people but not over here (yet and hopefully never); I agree with Cherryblossom, we should concentrate our energies on dealing with problems we are facing here and now, instead of worrying about something that might not happen to us. Think your own thoughts, not the thoughts the media want you to think.

frasersmummy · 27/04/2009 12:36

The headlines around this are really annoying me

if 17 people a day were dying of this can you imagine the widespread panic and disbelief ?

and yet every day in the uk alone 17 babies are stillborn or die shortly after birth. 17 Families losing their precious child every day

do we get headlines about that... no we get headlines about what might happen

not what is happening

sorry small rant there

ThePhantomPooer · 27/04/2009 13:00

The Swine flu panic is already affecting the stock market.

Grounding all Mexican flights wouldn't work, by now you'd have to ground American flights, Candian etc and if you're going down that route you need to close the shipping lanes to and from all infected areas and we'd die of starvation. They did that during the Great Plauge in the 1600s, it still managed to wipe out half the country.

This will be headline news for about 2 weeks before it goes the same way as bird flu and disappears to the archive pages of theSun.co.uk.

Rhubarb · 27/04/2009 13:03

I was going to mention bird flu here too. Remember how everyone was warned not touch bird feathers? And that if you saw a sick bird you had to call the council? People in China was it? Going around with masks on?

This is no different.

Georgeous · 27/04/2009 13:08

It's a lot of BS in my opinion. The media just LOVE to report scare stories - remember SARS?! Remember Bird flu? Remember when we were all told to worry about receiving white powder in the post?

The fact is that the media create and perpetuate fear - children are no more likely to be abducted by a stranger now than they were in the 70's. And yet nobody lets their kids out to play anymore because we're bombarded with terrifying images on Sky News 24 hours a day......

My advice would be to turn off the news and buy a good News digest magazine containing the important/relevant stuff. Most of the so-called news is not news at all but human interest stories or scaremongering. Sorry for rant but this really gets my goat!

flossiemay · 27/04/2009 14:18

I reckon quite a lot of the scare mongering is effective as a public health measure. Arguably SARS (which affected 8000 and killed 800) didn't spread the way it was portented to precisely because people were terrified and so they washed their hands carefully, covered their mouths when they coughed and sneezed and crucially, didn't go into work or travel around when they weren't well. And that's pretty much all you can do. I don't know about you lot, but my mum always said washing your hands and not coughing on people etc are just good manners. If we are all hygenically responsible, there's no need to panic. As for work - perhaps the scaremongering is there to trump our warped work ethic. I was just thinking of a senior colleague of mine who came into work before Christmas with a stinking cold as if it was a Good Thing to do. Of course, a week later all the rest of us had it too, and our families. We all got sick just cos he didn't want to seem 'weak'.

Also the Spanish Flu pandemic was nearly a century ago! It's just not comparable. It was following on from a global conflict that had already stretched countries' resources to their absolute limit. Plus, medical understanding of public health was totally different. Just think, penicillin wasn't discovered till 1928. And this was the time when the treatment for a fever was to wrap you up warm, preferably by a roaring fire, so you could sweat till it 'broke'.

Ivykaty44 · 27/04/2009 14:52

noddyholder - you would most probably survive then, it is the young and fit between 20-40 that are going to be vulnreable to this flu.

sarah293 · 27/04/2009 15:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Ivykaty44 · 27/04/2009 15:18

riven your not a newspaper, stop scare mongering of course the hospitals will cope.

sarah293 · 27/04/2009 15:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

sachertorte · 27/04/2009 15:46

Isn´t the point that we just don´t know yet how much of a problem this may be? The 1918 epidemic killed more that WW1 didn´t it, and that is cause for concern. And while we may be alright there will be millions in the developing world who may not be.

The media may be scaremongering but there could be real reason for concern, we have to wait and see!

Hulababy · 27/04/2009 16:00

Apparently some EU bloke has advised against all travel to Mexico and the US. The FCO have no such warning or advise.

I am due to go to New York in 4 weeks. I want to be able to go on holiday!!! Grrr. I will not be happy should I not get to go

HuwEdwards · 27/04/2009 16:06

In the words of the immortal Corporal Jones...

"Don't panic, Mr Mannerin'!"

flossiemay · 27/04/2009 16:08

We don't know how much of a problem it will be, but we have the power to limit it (and all similar viral diseases) by simple precautions that will reduce the likelihood of transmission like handwashing, and staying home when ill. The virus needs hosts. If we reduce the likelihood of transmission, we reduce the number of hosts, we reduce the probability of it interacting with other viruses carried by the hosts and mutating, we reduce the risk of a pandemic.
Yes, 1918 killed more than the war itself, but I'm not sure it can be viewed in isolation from the war, and certainly not from the medical understanding of the time, which was much more limited than now.
I guess my point is that being panicked is never a good way to go into any situation and that there are practical things we can all do to make this more likely to be a 'oh do you remember when everyone got so panicked about swine flu...'. Basic hygiene is one way. Others may find stockpiling food calming (like my Dad who still has tins from his nuclear war panic of the 80s). Personally, I think building up a stash of chocolate is ALWAYS a good idea, and could prove a useful currency for those who don't smoke or drink. Lipstick and nylons too, I believe.

Hulababy · 27/04/2009 16:08

They'd best get their act together and hope it has blown over in next 3 weeks. I go on holiday in 26 days!!!