Swine flu has finally come to near where I live. Has anyone here had it already? What was it like? The way its spreading, quite a few of us would be able to contribute to this thread.
For what I heard my friend is just a simply flu but if you get it with low defenses(like any other flu) could be dangerous,so eldery and children are in most of the cases the victims.
Over-hyped - basically, there has not been a higher incidence of death from this strain than what is typically seen in a typical flu season (yes, every year people die from the flu). Don't lose sleep over it.
I agree to an extent. On the other hand, it's not flu season...yet. Hopefully a vaccine is on the way. Recent numbers of a million projected U.S. cases don't strike me as correct though. That number comes from this session- http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090626.htm and I think the calculations are faulty. There were only about 50 confirmed cases in NYC in May. Saying ALL flu there and then was H1N1 is weird.
Way, way, overhyped. Just like West Nile a few years back. A lot more people die from the standard flu virus. And malaria. And car accidents.
'nuff said! The hype is nothing more than an attempt of pharma-companies to sell more of their stuff...
I think the hype has come more from government agencies than pharma-companies. The pharma-companies have said from the beginning that the vaccines that were used would not work against this strain. And there really isn't any medication for flu. It is kind of like a cold - get lots of rest, drink fluids, take tylenol/ibuprofen to keep fever down. Nah, I think the blame for this lies primarily with the CDC and the WHO.
Well, I don't know. Who made billions and billions of dollars when the whole chicken-flu thing went around the world? One single company - and you can bet on it that they pulled the strings so that every government and every household bought as much Tamiflu as they could get their hands on. I think they tried to do the same thing when the swine flu came along. But, of course, that's just pure speculation.
It may have been overhyped, but two students in the Buffalo (NY) Public Schools (an 8th grader and a 4th grader) died from complications that stemmed from confirmed H1N1 flu.
Well, ya know, thousands of people (young and old) also die every year from "regular" flu. It's sad, but that's the way it is.
Well, they provided the public with something they wanted. I don't see a problem with them wanting to earn a profit off of something they have likely spent millions to develop. It is incredibly time consuming and expensive to bring any kind of drug or vaccine to market. Consider how many different vaccines and antibiotics come out yearly - it isn't very many. Right now, my quality of life as a diabetic is greatly increased thanks to the work of pharmaceutical companies. Why is is wrong to want to earn a profit in this sector? Food is also a necessity for survival, just like many medicines, but we don't view farmers with such skepticism and cynicism, like we do with drug companies. Government and its agencies are more than capable of hyping a scare without any outside influence - it justifies their existence. Having had interactions with the CDC in my line of work, I am not surprised in the least that they were so off on this issue. Part of it is also the post-Hurricane Katrina hysteria - government agencies are so afraid they might be caught unprepared for any kind of disaster that they decide that being overly cautious is the better option - better to be seen as overzealous in protection of the public than asleep at the wheel. So they jumped in front of this one to make sure everybody knew they were prepared for a flu pandemic.
I'm not saying it's wrong to make a profit, it's the way they get people/governments to buy their stuff so they make a profit that I don't agree with. I know I can't prove it but my gut says they had a hand in scaring the whole world about that bird flu so they could sell their stuff. At least over here in Europe pharmaceutical companies are amongst the dirtiest players when it comes to pushing their stuff on the market and getting doctors to prescribe their drugs. That's just the way it is.
Sometimes the redundancy of products that they produce, and their pushing the "new" products that cost more can be ridiculous. However, I do know that, at least here in the U.S., they are often at the mercy of the government regarding how long of a patent they can receive for a drug that cost millions to produce. The shorter the patent, the less time they have to earn back the money they spent to produce it before generics can be made by other companies who spent nothing to develop the drug, so they can sell it cheap. In addition, drugs produced here in the U.S. that are shipped overseas are often at the mercy of foreign government price regulation, and they often must sell them there at much lower prices than are profitable, so the prices in the U.S. are raised to regain those lost profits. That is one of the reasons you see so many different erectile dysfunction drugs out there - drug companies can make those and make more profit because they aren't (yet) deemed essential, so they can generally get a much longer patent. Same goes for the numerous allergy medications. As a general rule, the more necessary the drug is, the less time the companies have to earn a profit. As an interesting side note, much of what you describe is also very much at play from the other end of the spectrum. A great deal of unfounded fear has been generated regarding genetically modified crops and animal research - especially in Europe - to drive government policy away from allowing those things. I suspect that many in the "organic" business have a hand in driving the hysteria. And if they make a profit in the process, all the better. Additionally, is it not a little bit of a conflict of interest that Al Gore has financial interests in many companies that sell "carbon offsets" and "green technology" and stands to be made even more wealthy than he already is by more government intervention to reduce greenhouse gases?
Yeah, you're right about the companies having to earn a profit with short patents. I was referring to companies paying/bribing doctors so they prescribe their (more expensive than similar products from other companies) medications. In the end the taxpayer (who pays for the public health insurance) has to pay the higher bill. That's only a very small (and compared to others also a very simple one) example of many many tricks in the book of the pharma companies. Ah well, I certainly see your points as far as the GM debate is concerned but I dare to disagree. The main problem here is the patenting of genetic material and this is just a generally very very bad idea. Life itself belongs to nobody. No company and no individual should be able to say "I own the patents to the genetic code of pigs". Bad, bad idea. What was the main argument 20 years ago to support GM crops? Ah yes, to nourish all people in the world. 20 years later, has this changed? Not at all - the thing rather backfired and created even more hunger by making farmers in developing countries dependent on the big corporations. Just think about the failed cotton crops in India when they switched to GM seeds. Another very, very bad idea. There is simply no advantage at all in planting GM crops - quite to the contrary, it has worsened/lessened many things like biodiversity and independence. It's not about organic companies making more money - it's about stopping GM companies from owning patents to life, destroying certain parts of the life in our world and driving millions of people into dependencies they can't get away from.
I don't know that i'm overly concerned. I think it has been over-hyped. But, I do wonder about the following: This strain does not seem to weaken over the summer months, what will happen when the weather turns cooler and more people are inside with one-another? When regular flu comes back,, what are the possibilities of the various "normal" flu strains mixxing with this one to create something even stronger? As I said, i'm not overly concerned,,, but just wondering.
Well, the concerns you have are significant ones - but are present every flu season. In fact, this particular strain is also present nearly every flu season. Sometimes it is more virulent than others. Is this one more virulent than in years past? Only time will tell. Thus far there does not seem to be more flu-related deaths than average, so it seems rather premature for so many to discuss it in terms of pandemic. In terms of the virus "mixing" with other strains, though - that tends to happen in other animals - pigs, birds, etc. - not in humans. That would have more implications for future flu seasons. But a general word might be helpful here regarding such changes in the virus. In terms of evolution and mutations and such in viruses, generally the ultimate goal of the virus is to survive longer to produce more progeny. It is not in the best interest of the virus to kill the host quickly, because that tends to limit its ability to spread. That is one of the main reasons we don't have Ebola pandemics - the virus kills the host too quickly to allow for wide dispersion. In general, the longer the host lives, the better for the virus. At this point, I wouldn't worry. Take your normal precautions. Wash your hands frequently, avoid people with obvious symptoms, keep yourself healthy. And remember that the vast majority of people who catch this virus are not going to die.
