Does anyone else think that the mass hysteria about swine flu is unwarranted

[MadameCastafiore]

Or do I just have my head in the sand?

I just don't understand all the ranting and raving about the fact that you MIGHT get it!

I don't care if the media is hypeing it all up, my boss has just told me I can drive to work and have a free parking space if I want to (am pg) Happy days! No more standing on a sweaty tube for me!

Well 0.5% in my mind means one in 200 people. So, we all know 200 people - a lot more in fact. How do you feel about being told one of those will die in the next few months? Unless they are 98 and have led a long and happy life, I think perhaps you might be feeling a little unhappy about that. Most of the hundreds of people I know are younger than 50 and should have decades in front of them.

It's the same hysteria we had about Bird Flu too, if memory serves me correctly it just all very quiet one day & no-one seemed to mention it again.

NormasKnockers, the threat from Bird Flu still exists. In fact, tbh, it may be worsened by the mass spread of Swine Flu because a highly virulent strain could mutate with the less virulent but more dangerous Bird Flu virus and become a nightmare.

At the moment BF doesn't spread easily in humans but kills many of the humans who get it direct from birds. SF doesn't kill so many humans at all, but as we can see, spreads easily and quickly. One of the reasons (for example) the Far Easterns govts are so much more tetchy about containing SF (children quarantined etc) is because they know that the two viruses spreading freely and mutating together is a huge threat I think. Disclaimer: not a biological scientist or medic so scientific understanding waiting to be corrected my Musukebba or someone who really knows. I have read a fair bit of the scientific commentary though.

But they did the same thing they're doing now, whipped everyone up into a media frenzy & sent everyone into a panic.

It's still a risk yes but you rarely hear it mentioned anymore.

Still, at least it makes a change from reading about MJ!

There are only 32 people in Sydney ICU from SF? That seems much lower than I would have expected from the hype. What would the normal running total be for winter flu in Sydney, I wonder? Probably at least 12, I'd guess. 32 is a teeny amount for a large regional centre like that, given the hype.
So yanbu to OP.

One of the main problems is the disruption it causes. yes, in general it's a mild illness, but if you get it and are off for (say) 2 weeks, then your kids get it and you have to be off for anotehr 2 weeks because they can't go to school, that's a month off. Assuming an infection rate of (say) 30%, that's a hell of a lot of people not into work for a few weeks.

Most govt and institution planning is focussed on this, rather than death or severe illness rates.

as I understand it the risks are no different to seasonal flu. it just has a "better" name. dh (of scientific bent) has been shouting rather a lot at the tv recently, as the media exhibits its scientific and mathematical ignorance.

can two strains of flu combine together and mutate into a super-flu like that VW? i know nothing about such things, but it sounds unlikely.

what annoys me is that according to R4 a few minutes ago, NHS direct and doctors phone lines are still getting clogged with perfectly healthy people panicking, regardless of the fact that most of them have few or no symptoms at all.

I agree the media are directly responsible for whipping this rather ordinary, but quite contagious strain of flu up into a leviathan.

I think what is needed is a public announcement across all media saying:

'THE ONLY TIME YOU SHOULD WORRY ABOUT SWINE FLUS IS IF YOUR TEMPERATURE EXCEEDS 38.8 AND DOESN'T RESPOND TO REGULAR DOSES OF PARACETAMOL, OR YOUR BREATHING BECOMES LABOURED. OTHERWISE CHILL THE FECK OUT AND GET ON WITH LIVING' Is that really asking too much?

also, when people started quoting the projected figure of 65,000 deaths around they tempered it with with the phrase 'between 3,000 and...' but this first figure was later subtley dropped, probably because it was less dramatic.

and they also stopped saying 'of course this figure isn't based on any real scientific evidence, because it doesn't exist yet as the disease is so new.' which is quite important, i think. So only the hysteria inducing bit of the origninal statement remains - not exactly balanced journalism.

only one "healthy" person has died, and that wasn't the six year old.

If you have an underlying health condition then yes, it is worrying.

If not then it is mass hysteria.

More people have died on the roads since the onset of swine flu, where is the response to that?

also, there was a piece in the papers yesterday about a boy who was diagnosed with swine flu over the phone and turned out to have scarlet fever and who is now fighting for his life in hospital.

So this hysteria may well end up costing lives, as gp's are under pressure to diagnose everyone with more than two symptoms with swine flu.

I'd like to see that public announcement on the lunch time news totalmisfit

I don't know the answer to the combined 'superflu' question if I'm honest. I know the WHO are concerned about both viruses circulating together but I may have misinterpreted that concern (reading too many blogs and stirring panic ).

I agree there has been stirring in some sections of the media. But some of the stirring is necessary. For the first time, our nursery has had better hand hygiene than it has EVER had.

And of course the 'projected potential deaths' are projections. How could they be anything else except after the fact?

Epidemiologists work on past experience until they have actual data. Planning is all about preparing for the worst and hoping for the best.

Don't forget it was the WHO which declared a global pandemic. And then they went 'oops, since this flu seems to be quite mild, perhaps we'd better consider a severity index as well as a spread index in future'.

And the last case of an H1 virus was 1918. In which millions of healthy young people died globally. Some scientists argue that even taking into account the poverty and poor nutrition issues, there were millions of unexpected deaths.

I really really hope you are right that it is all a media stew. In any case, as others have said, death isn't the only or even main worry - it is mass disruption and economic blight because of absenteeism.

I have been trying to find out a bit more about scarlet fever also, as it is what was proposed for my kids when they had SF symptoms. It is a streptoccal (a bacteria) infection as I understand it. Which can also be one of the complications of flu. Whether this strep and this flu I don't know not being a medical type.

Sorry not last case of an H1 virus; H1N1...

Of course it is unwarranted. But look what they did with Michael Jackson's death, and that was even more absurd.

Wannabe - I was wondering how long it would be before a tragedy like that. The symptoms of Swine Flu are very similar to those of other illnesses. The plan for dealing with a pandemic should have included ways for all children or babies with high temperatures to see a doctor, even if it is thought to be only Swine Flu.

"And the last case of an H1 virus was 1918. In which millions of healthy young people died globally. Some scientists argue that even taking into account the poverty and poor nutrition issues, there were millions of unexpected deaths."

But that was before antivirals and antibiotics were widely available. Before modern HDUs had been developed. There was also a reason that the young people of 1918 were especially vulnerable.

But the recommendation IS for all children under 5 with symptoms to see a doctor. It is an awful nightmare that worried well may be clogging things up.

But I am not surprised at people's reaction. FGS why don't the govt employ a few social scientists to help them work out what the collateral will be from the public information campaigns?

Vulpusina

we all have to turn into health researchers you know, it's where all the research money is.

(totally off thread there, sorry, just responding to that last post).

I am aware it could get a lot nastier than it currently is, and that would be horrible.

Vulpine

Maybe Misfit could run the public information campaign:

'THE ONLY TIME YOU SHOULD WORRY ABOUT SWINE FLUS IS IF YOUR TEMPERATURE EXCEEDS 38.8 AND DOESN'T RESPOND TO REGULAR DOSES OF PARACETAMOL, OR YOUR BREATHING BECOMES LABOURED. OTHERWISE CHILL THE FECK OUT AND GET ON WITH LIVING' Is that really asking too much?

IIRC the actual goverment leaflet was unhelpful.

Can anyone explain to me how just washing your hands is going to protect you from swine flu? i mean you could lather yourself in antibac gel everytime you touch anything outside your own home ,but if you are in a train carriage and the person next to you sneezes and has sf well you are going to breath in the aerosol particles in the air arnt you ,so rushing home to wash your hands wont make the slightest bit of difference

Obviously if someone with sf sneezes in your face you have a pretty high chance of getting it, however I think the handwashing theory is that if someone with sf has sneezed or coughed in to their hands and then touched a handrail or something, the virus could live on that for a while, so you're recommended to keep your hands clean to get rid of any virus you might pick up that way.

Found an actual, reasonably credible answer to totalmisfit's question:

From a WHO press briefing, 17 June 2009:

Is there a concern that the new influenza A(H1N1) virus may mutate and reassort with avian Influenza virus H5N1 which is already circulating in some countries?

It is possible. The virus could mutate at any time and it could reassort with other influenza strains like H5N1.

But I suspect the key word to note here (lest you run screaming for your bunker) is possible. Still unlikely at this stage.

Bumpsoon, I understand that flu viruses can survive on hard surfaces for approximately 20 minutes so it will give some protection but obviously cannot protect you from airbourne virus.