Now in New Zealand [Swine Flu]

[Wolf Rider2]

A friend of mine said that somebody at her work came down with it, and now they all have to be careful. Also read that it has now killed someone, a small boy.

[Bungleau]

Actually, it's now killed someone in the US. All the other deaths were in Mexico.

[Memnoch]

Originally Posted by Eagle eye Health officials have announced that three of a college party that arrived back from their field trip to Mexico have tested positive for swine flu. more. I had convinced that this would all blow over and it would be found that the students would have only common flu. The hype here is similar to the bird-flu outbreak several years ago which many people took precautions for, though it never made it to New Zealand. There are still 56 suspected cases in NZ and up to 70 in Australia. 40 confirmed in the US. Is it not that big a deal in the states? I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up already.. anyone taking extra precaution?

It's a big deal in the States mate. The media's been talking it up for the past week. We've had a couple of confirmed cases here in MA as well.

Thing about this is that things are changing so rapidly that people don't fully understand the scope yet. There's been one fatality, a 2yo kid in Texas. According to unconfirmed reports from Mexico there have apparently been 150+ deaths, but only 7 confirmed due to swine flu. Probably because the remaining 143 haven't been tested/autopsied yet.

The media has been beating it up, but on the other hand flu is highly contagious and can be transmitted aerially, and this is a new strain that people's immune systems haven't seen yet. The risk is minimal, but it is there. But will it wipe the world out the way the Black Death did? Don't think so. Unless it starts moving to poorly developed countries in Africa where sanitation is poor and barrier nursing is not well practiced, and antiviral drugs are unavailable, then you're going to see a lot more fatalities (which is the case with influenza and other pathogens like malaria, typhoid etc anyway). In rich, well developed countries like the US, Western Europe, Australia and Middle-Earth, you probably won't see a lot.

From a personal point of view I'm not taking any additional precautions at this stage though. If a few more cases are found close to home/work I might!

[SpiritWarrior]

I want to clarify something. This is not downplaying the outbreak but for some reason, what is underreported by the media and government is that the swine flu is not a fatal disease. People are terrified, because on some level they think if they catch it, they will die or be hospitalized. No, it is just the flu - a new strain with the same symptoms. New strains are identified every so often (Bird flu). If you treat it you will recover, if you don't it could lead to complications but understand these are the same complications that the "regular" flu can lead to and are no different, in essence.

The danger issue is mainly this: The new form cannot be stopped by vaccines or shots, so older and very young (or otherwise weakened) people can have issues. Typically, elderly people cannot handle a bad flu the same way us youngens can. It can lead to pnuemonia etc. But younger, healthy people can catch this and shake it off with the usual bedrest and attention and thus their bodies have assimilated the latest strain of the flu and beaten it. It is a new form of flu, but the flu nonetheless.

[Chewbacca]

Be calm, the hype is more dangerous than reality. Once again the media fails us with a bunch of useless sensationalizing. Anybody remember bird flu? Well they may as well play the same tapes as when that appeared. I'd make a bet that more people died from regular flu last year than will die from pig flu this year.

[Memnoch]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But younger, healthy people can catch this and shake it off with the usual bedrest and attention and thus their bodies have assimilated the latest strain of the flu and beaten it. It is a new form of flu, but the flu nonetheless.

Interestingly enough, most of the fatalities that have been attributed to swine flu in Mexico (these have not been confirmed by the Mexican health agencies as definitively swine flu related deaths btw) are of young, healthy people.

CNN: Sanjay, one question that we haven't gotten to ... most of the people who died from swine flu in Mexico were in the prime of their lives really, and this usually hits infants or the elderly. What does that say to you as a doctor? Gupta: This is interesting. And the same thing happened in sort of a nonintuitive way when we were talking about SARS and when we were talking about avian flu. Think about it like this: Typically, you think of someone who has a weakened immune system, who's going to be most adversely affected by an infection. Their immune system simply can't fight it. But in these cases, it's the immune system itself that reacts robustly, and it's the immune system in that reaction to the virus that is causing death in these patients. So the virus starts that cascade, but all that fluid builds up in the lungs, and all those inflammatory cells throughout the body -- that's what's causing the problem. We saw the same thing with SARS and with avian flu as well. Which is why exactly as you said ... [people in their] 20s and 30s and 40s, this hospital behind me, they say that's been the bulk of their patients with regard to swine flu. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/27...nda/index.html

[SpiritWarrior]

Well, many of these were indeed young people with immature immune systems or elderly or otherwise sick/ not taking care of themselves. More than 1000 in mexico are infected with it but only a hundred or so have died. This is mostly to do with Mexico's healthcare system and poverty level. A flu can be a big issue if you can't afford meds. The first death in the US was a 23 month old child. I say again, the flu is the flu. It is no more deadly in itself than all the other strains, but people who aren't vaccinated against it and cannot afford to get sick are susceptible to this one.

Understand, the regular flu can do all this. People die from flu every single year due to lack of treatment, mistreatment, complications, immune system disorders, etc. but is is not reported because it is considered commonplace by now. The media is doing us a disservice by playing up the fear here. It is a pandemic but it is no different than any other strain. Next year, this strain will be in vaccinations. The previous swine outbreak actually had the vaccines causing more damage than the virus.

When you have any flu you do the following. Do not go to work and overwork yourself if you have the flu, drink lots of fluids, take at least 3 proactive medications and get plenty of fresh air (the last one people don't practice much). If you ignore these, you open yourself up to complications and even death, as your body pushes itself to the limit while fighting the virus.

Mr. Gupta is talking fear here. There are no new crazy symptoms with the swine flu. He is not lying per se, but what he's doing is making it seem like swine flu causes new and crazy symtoms with fluid in the lungs caused by an autoimmune response. What he is describing are the complications that can arrive from any flu if you don't take care of it. This is well documented in medicine, and this is what happens to the elderly when they get it. Now, these people may well have these issues arising, but these are considered cases of complications arising. For him to almost suggest these are an integral part of the swine flu symptoms is BS, I just helped treat someone with it last week and they have fully recovered with nothing like this arising, simply because they took care of themselves and did what they needed to do.

[Wolf Rider2]

I'd still prefer not to get it. Stuff up my day, that would.

[JrKASperov]

Originally Posted by Memnoch But will it wipe the world out the way the Black Death did?

That never happened. As far as I know, the pandemic with the most casualties was the Spanish flu, and that one only managed to kill about 1-5% of the population. See, it's dangerous to use such highly suggestive formulations as "wipe out" when you don't even know the facts. Of course we have this idea that such pandemics are dangerous but that's because we've been given that image through the media for since before I was born.

[Memnoch]

Originally Posted by JrKASperov That never happened. As far as I know, the pandemic with the most casualties was the Spanish flu, and that one only managed to kill about 1-5% of the population. See, it's dangerous to use such highly suggestive formulations as "wipe out" when you don't even know the facts. Of course we have this idea that such pandemics are dangerous but that's because we've been given that image through the media for since before I was born.

According to Wikipedia, the Spanish flu of 1918 killed between 20 - 100m people, more than died in WW1. The mortality rate was between 2.5 - 5%, and as you say approx. 5% of the world's population at the time died. Approximately 33% of Europe's population at the time was wiped out.

In comparison, bubonic plague killed approx. 75m people. According to Wikipedia the world's population reduced from 450m in 1350 to 350-375m in 1400. That's an overall reduction of 16 - 20% of the world's population at the time. 50-60% of Europe's population was "wiped out" (excuse the pun).

Obviously no plague or pandemic has totally wiped out the world' population if you take this literally, otherwise none of us would be here. But if you look at the impact the Black Death had on society in 1300 vs other pandemics that occurred either before or after, it was possibly the most significant. Why?

- medical knowledge in the 1400s was very different to 1918 - there were no antibiotics or antiviral drugs
- public health considerations were minimal as nobody knew of the nature of contagious disease at the time
- it significantly changed Europe's social structure - the Roman Catholic Church lost a lot of the power it had as they could not "save people from the Black Death"
- most of the dead were from lower classes of society ie. peasants, farmers, serfs etc. Their deaths had a significant impact on agriculture and the economy
- the feudal system that had been in place declined after the plague, as higher status jobs that had been lost (eg physicians, clergy, gravediggers) had to be replaced, freeing serfs and peasants from duties that the social status they had been born in had locked them into. See below:

Finally, the devastating and immediate impact of the Black Death prepared the way for a reconstruction of society. Deserted towns and vacant church and governmental positions had to be filled with new people. At first the demand was specific: more physicians, more clergy, and—of special urgency—more gravediggers were needed. The demand for new people to move into key positions throughout society opened the door for many who had been trapped in the ancient feudal system. It was also a rare opportunity for women to be accepted in positions of responsibility outside of the home (e.g., as witnesses in court proceedings). People who lacked "social connections" now could find more attractive employment; merit had started to challenge social class membership. These developments fell far short of equality and human rights as understood today, but they did result in significant and enduring social change. http://www.deathreference.com/Bl-Ce/Black-Death.html

- more people began to study medicine as medical texts began to be translated from Greek and Latin into local languages
- the mortality rate caused a lot of people to a ) lose their belief in God, as well as to b ) live in a more decadent manner, as death seemed inevitable

So maybe not "wiping out the world", but it certainly redefined society, particularly in Europe but also in the Middle East. Wiped out what had been there before and replaced it with something new - a new social structure, a new set of values, a new set of beliefs.

This is not to diminish the severity of the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, where more people died. However, I feel that the impact to society was less, because:

- the world's population was much greater at the time, and the social upheaval was not to the same extent as the Black Death
- the fact that WWI had just happened and devastated communities across the US and Europe minimised the societal impact of the Spanish flu pandemic

Of course, tell that to the 20-100m people who died in 1918 and they would likely disagree with me.

In fact, if I were to look at plagues that significantly changed the course of human history, right alongside the Black Death I would put Justinian's Plague in the mid 500s. It prevented Justinian and the Byzantine Empire from ultimately retaking Italy and re-forming the Western Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire never reached such heights after it.