@apolutrosis:

First let me just say I didn't intend my disclaimer to suggest I am an expert on anything- I apologize if it came off that way. Sometimes I worry that my posts sound as though I am championing everything the CDC does- which I certainly dont intend to; and I merely mentioned my background in virology for context of my interest- NOT knowledge. My previous virology interest were in DNA & RNA tumor viruses, which, quite frankly have taught us more about oncogenesis than anything else- but thats another topic for another day.

I won't fault your math, and I hope I never argued that H1N1 was a huge life threat for the global population or anything. Sometimes in medicine, we also try to alleviate suffering where possible and when risk is low; which, I hope has been my thesis all along here- that risks for the flu vaccine are low, benefits are reasonably likely for the population as a whole. I will also have to agree with Fuzzy that even the WHO (and CDC- let me look for the quote from them) admit that their tracking is poor, and is limited to people who show up clinically. But forgetting the prospects of viral proliferation & recombination, even if we prevent a couple thousand deaths, but a few hundred thousand unnecessary illnesses, is that not a worthy goal?

All these number gambits aside- I agree that the flu is not going to be the number one cause of death just yet...we could save more lives by buckling seat belts and enforcing motorcycle helmet laws. Me, I try not to swing large copper poles during thunderstorms. But as I understand the goals and mission of the CDC to be, they do often contemplate "worst case scenarios" and paint a bleaker picture than might be strictly necessary. Some of this may be CYA, some may be a bid for more funding/visibility, some may be for other reasons, I don't know. However, we kind of pay them to give us the worst case scenario- thats sort of their function in some ways.

As far as the level of hysteria surrounding this flu, I think 3 components are at play here. First, the CDC does paint a black picture, and those condensing these data to the general public need to be more clear about this. Second, the media needs to be a little more circumspect in their reporting, but as I have said many times, talking heads and field reporters are ill-equipped to do this. Lastly, we have a population whose science education is abominable, and whose ability to understand things beyond binary answers (right/wrong, black/white, etc) is all but non-existent. Of these, I think only the first is something we can change

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion everyone.

Paniced parents are opting out of immunization.
[/url]

Please note that N1H1 is highly contagious and is particularly fatal to children.

This makes me angry. Angry in a quiet, useless way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2009 07:19PM by dreamerm.

pragmatica posted:

Wow, that was a lot of number crunching Apolutrosis did. I'm glad to see it confirms my earlier point that the risk is relatively low. From my perspective, the 10 legal sick days Canadians are entitled to each year is all I need to deal with the flu. I don't mind taking the days off to recover from colds and flus. That's what our yearly sick day allocation is FOR - these types of inconvenient, tiring, but not generally fatal not disabling illnesses.

fair enough, but in GENERAL (whether or not this can realistically occur with seasonal flu is not yet clear), immunization programs are meant to create herd immunity. Read the Wired article, you might enjoy it.

pragmatica posted:

I spend my days worrying about dying from the TOP causes of death like cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, or cancer. Not the fucking flu which the media has turned into a complete circus (including up here in Canada). Sometimes I wonder how many people have even seen the top causes of death and the huge numbers of deaths they are responsible for each year in developed societies.

As the Wired article points out, we had to make laws to force people to wear their seatbelts. We have put labels on all food, and required fast food produces to publish their nutritional content. Short of that, we can't force people to eat healthily. Whats more, WE HAVE had media efforts to educate people about cardiovascular disease, cancer (WHAT MONTH IS IT? OH YEAH, BREAST CANCER MONTH), and diabetes. If you want links for these efforts, yikes. Google has to be loaded with them. But the news doesnt cover these, because they arent, well, new. There isnt anything new to report. "And in other news, people continue to die of cancer and stroke, just like last year".

I wholeheartedly agree the H1N1 was overblown by the media, but it WAS and IS different from other influenza, in WHO was dying. We've been over this all. Stop CNN and the media from reporting on health, which they have no expertise in, if you want to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

pragmatica posted:

Also, Apolutrosis I agree it's stupid that they don't separate flu from pneumonia in their reporting, as it's pneumonia that causes almost all the deaths in that category. In any case, people are more likely to commit suicide than die from the flu. I wish people would wake up and read some stats.

AAARRRRGGGGGGGGG. You CANNOT feasibly separate these things on large populations, and whats more, pneumonia is the MEDICAL CONDITION from which you die, a condition CAUSED BY influenza virus, amongst others. When someone is brought in, dying from pneumonia, they dont always find out the primary cause. So, all these deaths are put together. The seasonal change in these deaths, when they correlate with flu season, are reported as such by the CDC.

pragmatica posted:

I find it funny how every morning the majority of people get up and drive to work in their "rolling suicide machines" (cars) and chow down on greasy "heart attacks on a bun" (cheeseburgers) for lunch day after day in the caf, and sit on their asses in sedentary lifestyles, all contributing to their main risks of death, yet they're worried about the friggin' flu, of all things. If only the media would put the relative risk of things into perspective for a change so that our entire populations weren't so misinformed and misguided.

well duh. The same thing is true of lots of issues, such as budgetary spending, economic trends, or middle east peace; lack of perspective. But the media NEVER does that. Ever. So, big shocker, again the media reports something in utter ignorant sound-byte style, aimed to get audiences, and it works. Woah. Alert the...media?

But if youre going to go there, then why don't we just go ahead and point out the relative risks (a) of ill-effects from getting the vaccine (almost non-existent) compared to (b) the relative risk of spending several days feeling like utter shit and out of work (significantly greater than zero), a risk which can be decreased by at least 50% (also significantly greater than zero) by getting the vaccine.

No, the flu probably wont kill you. And, whats more, there isnt enough of the vaccine to go around anyway, so you can't have any. There, see, problem all solved.

Gah, I cant believe I fell for the neo-luddite bait again. Crap.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2009 05:05PM by animalpipes.

animalpipes posted:

Gah, I cant believe I fell for the neo-luddite bait again. Crap.

Busted! And you know it's beating a dead horse when you try to help. Just let it go and let people believe what they want to believe on this issue...especially the ones who don't have children to immunize. The only way they will learn is when they do have a child, don't immunize and they die an agonizing, preventable death.

FuzzyDunlop posted:

pragmatica posted:

Also, Apolutrosis I agree it's stupid that they don't separate flu from pneumonia in their reporting, as it's pneumonia that causes almost all the deaths in that category. In any case, people are more likely to commit suicide than die from the flu. I wish people would wake up and read some stats.

Animalpipes discussed this in depth a few posts ago. To summarize, when people die of "pneumonia", they usually mean "fluid build up and inflammation", which of course is caused by the flu. So its the same thing in the vast majority of cases.

Agreed. Pneumonia is usually a complication caused by another illness, whether flu or what-not. There has to be a cause for inflammation/fluid build up in the lungs...it just doesn't happen magically in otherwise healthy lungs. Therefore, flu can lead to pneumonia.

You have to understand the illness before you can spout off info. Pneumonia.

Also, there are certain populations of people who are more at risk of developing pneumonia...smokers, etc. I've had my fair share of flu/colds/etc...but have never developed a case of bronchitis or pneumonia...ever. I never get lower respiratory infections...always upper.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2009 08:54PM by OMS.

Regarding pneumonia, I think that pipes adequately educated me on the matter. I don't think I ever considered it a conspiracy, I was just questioning the practice of calling flu-induced pneumonia deaths "Influenza-related deaths" on all the soundbytes, while listing them separately on the CDC stats pages on its site. I didn't understand that pneumonia isn't necessarily a virus or a bacteria, but is a physiological condition. I asked for an explanation, and pipes gave me a good one. I now understand its a bit like dying from internal bleeding the day after being in a car crash. You may have technically died from internal bleeding, but obviously the car crash is the reason you got the internal bleeding, ergo the reason that you died. 'Twere silly to separate the two. I won't question the practice at all, but I do have to wonder at least a little bit how a hospital calls a death a flu-related pneumonia death without proving it by your typical PCR screen and is right 100% of the time (I mean, its not like ALL deaths from internal bleeding are due to car crashes). But that is fine because no group of epidemiological stats are perfect and no can expect them to be. I'll just assume that the CDC is right for the most part, as best as they can be, and leave it at that.

I do however share Prag's frustration in how many people will look at a 1 in a million case and assume that the chance that they are personally affected will be 1:1. It is the complete absence of reason and logic. Imagine if other industries of chance (take insurance for instance) were run by people thinking that way. Fortunately the fact that where one's health is concerned, people may be addled in general, but where one's money is concerned, people get sharp in a big hurry.

Regarding the statement that if you don't get your child immunized, they will die, I would like to point out the gross ignorance of such thinking. I'll go ahead and reference some CDC stats for the second time, in two parts.

(1) Regarding regular old seasonal (Strain b) flu, about 50 kids (0-18 years old) died from it in the 38 weeks prior to my earlier post. Out of 76,000,000 such kids. Let me say that again. About 50 out of 76,000,000. And about 20% of those kids had a concurrent staph infection. It is a very sad story, and the life of every child should be taken seriously, but that is a very low probability for your child. I think its pretty clear that the VAST majority of deaths from the flu, in the case of pneumonia, are attributed to the elderly. Which makes perfect sense, and if you are old, you should seriously consider getting the shot. Your chances are still pretty low of both getting it and dying from it, about 30,000/229,000,000, or about a .013%, but its something to think about.

(2) Regarding swine flu, the data is still rolling in. As I stated earlier, if 1/3 of the Country gets it, then your child has about a .12% chance of both getting it and dying from it, based on the very limited data that was available in the 38 weeks prior to my stats post. According to those stats (with pretty low sample numbers), this is definitely something to put a little thought into, which I'm glad to see is happening occasionally in this thread.

OMS, if I can just make an observation without you getting all pissed off about it, and if you can accept the fact that I will be the first to admit I could be wrong since I don't know anything about you, but in my opinion, your thinking on this thread is the worst form of intelligence. You are obviously an intelligent person, but you are throwing reason and logic away at the drop of a hat, because you have been convinced that your children are in danger, when there is no proof of that. To say something like "The only way they will learn is when they do have a child, don't immunize and they die an agonizing, preventable death" is incredibly mean-spirited, is completely fallacious, is grossly ignorant, and represents unrepentant fear. Fear I might add that you mock in the same post by accusing people who have a different way of thinking of "fearing" vaccines. So I think I'll go ahead and tack on hypocrisy in my assessment of your thoughts on this matter. I don't fear vaccines, my children and I are the beneficiaries of several. If you want to mock a fear of mine, you can't mock my fear of vaccines, only my fear of their abuse and their potential - and yet unstudied - effects on children. As an aside, I believe you have made some claims to be a scientist if I remember correctly? I hope to God you are clinical and aren't in research, because I find your complete lack of objectivity to be troubling.

I'll say it again - the preservative aspect of vaccines, and autism, and all that stuff aside as several studies have disproven specific links - no one really understands the long term effects, most especially with regard to children, of using multitudes of vaccinations on a human's long term abilities of immunologically fighting off infection. Nobody. Especially with these lately cropped up influenza vaccines. At least not yet, since so many people are getting their children vaccinated these days, scientists should have a pretty good idea on where thing stand in 20-30 years. And when it comes to science guessing with recent theories and a few months of testing, or trusting hundreds of millions of years of evolution, I'm going to trust the immune systems of my children regarding the flu.

Now, with things like Polio, MMR, Tetanus, those are illnesses that history and science have effectively proven have a MAJOR chance of ruining your life upon contraction. Advantage: Vaccines. I think that it is OK to be situational regarding vaccines, and not be an all or nothing person.

But what I will always do regarding long-term immunologically unproven and untested vaccines (in the case of h1n1, I don't consider 3 months of animal testing to be sufficient), is understand that people have to make their own choices for their own bodies and their own children. I know my friends that have vaccinated their own children have done it out of concern and love for their kids, and even though I don't believe in it myself, I respect their methods - even if I personally find them to be a bit hysterical - because I know they have the best intentions in mind. I however expect the same treatment, and get it from people who are being reasonable and logical. I am an educated person making an educated guess. As a parent, one must constantly do that, whether it is regarding the flu vaccine or whether to let your 16 year old drive the car to his friend's house. I don't assume that my friends have destroyed the immune systems of their children, because I have no proof whatsoever that will happen (and I certainly hope it doesn't). I suspect (based upon measurable statistics), that all of our children will be just fine regarding these vaccines. But when you are attacking other parents for making decisions that countermand your own, while providing NO data and nothing other than the MEDIA as your defense, you are only trying to justify your own decisions out of uncertainty regarding the matter. Uncertainly that stems from a lack of personal experience and long-term epidemiological data.

Regarding the early returns, according to several family physicians I have spoken to, h1n1 infection is presenting as a mild fever for 3-5 days and some coughing (in children). On a personal experience note, it turns out that I unintentionally took my kids to a swine flu party. Our family went to a friend's house to watch a football game 3 weeks ago, and one of the kids there had h1n1 (no one knew at the time, 8 kids in total were there, all of which ended up getting it). In parenting terms, this is definitely a Situation Normal, as when you get a bunch of kids together almost certainly one of them has at least a cough or runny nose. But anyway, my oldest (7) had a 102 fever for about 36 hours, and then ran about 100 for 3 more days. He also had a mild cough. He laid around watching movies and playing games, with constant bitching about being bored and several pleas for going back to school the 4th and 5th days (which we of course didn't let him do). Then his younger brother (3) got it, and had a cough for a day or two, and a 100 temp for about 2 days. Next was my wife, whose symptoms mirrored our youngest son's. I remain unaffected. It was more or less the same story for the other 6 kids. Now these are all healthy kids, so my following statement involves healthy children and not health-compromised ones, who I have neither the expertise nor desire to speak for, but regarding h1n1:

BIG FUCKING DEAL.

After all of the hype, I had expected more, although I am glad it was mild. Yes, this is a very small sample size, and 2 of the kid's parents ended up getting REALLY sick for 4-5 days (shockingly they are still alive and back to normal though after their immune systems went to work!). And it is certainly noteworthy that ALL of them ended up getting it, although now that I think about it perhaps not so noteworthy as I'm suddenly remembering a recorder that they were all playing (damn it!!!).

So anyway, as I've said from the beginning, I'm not too frightened by being incovenienced by the flu for a few days. I personally prefer a natural approach to fighting infections that are not statistically significantly lethal. I have concerns of a child's growing immune system having non-lethal or non-disfiguring viral challenges (and subsequent learning experiences) removed from its path left and right. I think that the balance of the push of flu vaccinations is GREATLY disproportionate to its statistical lethality. And I am concerned that there is something to be concerned about with the psychology of fearing illness, which is apt to make children grow into unhappy adults, as viral and bacterial illness is an imminent aspect of life.

This of course may be moot for the most part, as vaccine deployment is incredibly lagging behind h1n1 infection. Where I live, it was recently reported that 30% of the kids in the district (thousands of kids), each of the last 2 weeks, are out with flu-related illness. Given that h1n1 runs about 60% of all flu cases, and that the h1n1 vaccine is currently only available for the at risk population, we can rest assured that in our district almost everyone will have been exposed within the month. Not much point in taking a vaccine for a virus that you have already been exposed to. Unless you are one of the vaccine-nazis above who would drink the stuff if CNN told them to.

Now pipes, regarding your luddite comment, I think you need to be a bit more fair. At some point, unless we just want to create AI and wipe out all life on this planet, we must reject certain aspects of technology. Of course the ideal scenario is to have a perfect balance between indigenous life and the technology that we create. Perhaps someday we will get there, but there will be tugging and course corrections along the way. While an imperfect understanding of what pneumonia isn't ideal, neither is the absolute hysteria that our society has surrounded h1n1 with. Even associating the concept of neo-luddite to people such as Prag (who once treatised on teledildonics, a word unfortunately burned into my mind) or myself (well versed in technology and much like yourself I suspect a utilizer of molecular and biochemical wonders that most people will never get to enjoy) such rubbish is really quite comical. And I don't mean that in a bad way toward you. In fact, your comments about maybe taking the flu vaccine(s), not out of the insanely ludicrous fear of death, but out of preventing a few days of mild suffering, are perhaps the most sensible words I've read by a an influenza vaccine supporter.

Oh come on, the neo-luddite comment was hyperbolic on purpose, in the hopes that sarcasm was evident. Again I failed. My bad, I'm just naturally sarcastic in my daily communication, and forget that it doesnt translate well into written words.

I know neither you nor prag are neo-luddites, I've read the posts.

I've said before several times in this thread i dont believe the hysteria surrounding H1N1 is warranted. Unfortunately, though, while you and others with your education level (and patience for otherwise boring stats! O.O ) can distinguish shades of gray, and understand that not all vaccines are one thing, and that it is not, in fact, magic, most of our fellow citizens are not so well equipped (including, as I have said, the MEDIA). We are in a period where we have people like Jenny McCarthy trying to stop ALL vaccinations, everywhere, and enough parents are listening to such sage medical advice (see, there is sarcasm again) that things like pertussis are making a strong comback.

One more thing to note here- the H1N1 vaccine, unlike seasonal flu vaccines, isn't a "guess". Its the actual 100% deal, since they have a specific serotype to shoot for.

At any rate, yes, more children in the developed countries will die from other causes. In developing countries, upper respiratory infections are the #2 killer, at 18%. Sadly, in African countries, the number 1 cause until very recently has been HIV/AIDS, at a whopping 60%. Obviously, these should occupy our attention more.

Regarding the long term safety of vaccines, I would have to point to the 5 decades of vaccine use as reasonable evidence for long term safety. As far as trusting to your child's immune system, I say hell yes! By all means. How about starting with not dispensing antibiotics like they are candy, and cutting down on putting useless antibiotics in everything from milk to toys. The true epidemic we will face in the developed world will be superbugs, as Calderon mentioned. I didn't bring them up until now, as that wasnt the topic at hand. Should we want to discuss that, I can give you detailed molecular mechanisms on how we make those nice little guys tougher.

Anyway, here I am, posting when I should be working. Yes OMS, I am going back to work now.

jayetheartist posted:

OMS posted:

I don't want my children (two of which are young adults) to hurt at all.

I love you, Lisa, but good luck with that.

I know it isn't feasible...but I am not gonna wish them harm or illness. I'm surely not going to promote anything that will help them to get sick and tell them to "suck it up" for a few days.

::sigh::

For most mothers, when their child hurts they hurt. For most...not all, I suppose.

See, all you have to do is post it in the forum...then I will watch it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2009 08:31PM by OMS.

LisaM. posted:

dreamerm posted:

My mom has got the swine flu. I am either getting vaccinated tomorrow or moving into the van.

Go for the van--I got the regular flu shot (per order of my doctor) and it didn't do me a damn bit of good because I've been sick since last Monday. I'm sure partly it's because I'm immunocompromised, being on chemotherapy for breast cancer, but my gut feeling all along was to not get one, since I've always taken my chances each year and have been fine without it. So in an effort to not contradict the healthcare professional in me, I won't say "don't friggin' bother", but still, make your own choice as to the vaccine. While I have never not believed that it is helpful to some, for me, I wish now I hadn't gotten the flu shot--seems a little ironic that the first time I ever get one, I get sick right after--cancer or no cancer. Blah!

We were vaccinated at work few days ago and half of us have fevers.....so I'm with you. For years I haven't gotten vaccinated for flu and never got it..now I get the shot for H1N1 and am now sick....wtf

The point that she is saying and I agree is that if she never got the shot she wouldn't be feeling like shit.

jesus christ lisa get over yourself

Please stop with your baiting and trolling. Thanks

OMS posted:

Please stop with your baiting and trolling. Thanks

So I am not allowed to post my thoughts, and pose questions relevant to the discussion (medical expertise or lack thereof being significant)?

Apolutrosis posted:

OMS posted:

Apolutrosis

Bottom line...if you don't immunize then prepare for the consequences..... As a mother and a healthcare professional, I just don't understand why anyone would not want to do everything possible to protect their child. (once again, not directing it at you)

The consequences were a few days of mild inconvenience. I think you can put the Darth Vader music away now.

I've read your posts, and I would guess that you are a clinical lab tech. I would go ahead and be a bit more specific than "healthcare professional", as it comes across as trying to claim more expertise than one has. I work at Mayo. Does that mean that I have extra intuitiveness on medical matters? Certainly not.

The trolling comment was not meant for you.

Also, your children getting sick was a "mild inconvenience" to whom? You? Or can you actually feel your children's pain and suffering from an illness? Interesting.

I've been way more than a clinical lab tech...but thanks for sharing your short comings eventho you work at Mayo. A place of employment means nothing to me and no reflection of who a person is and their education....and better yet, if they are any good at their job. Working at Mayo doesn't impress me...it's what a person contributes that does. Sorry, barking up the wrong tree there bud.

Also, I find that once people get flustered they start making personal attacks...on say, oh...their background. You are now the second person to do this...interesting for someone who is a professional to do.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2009 07:35PM by OMS.