Flu Pandemic Statistics

This is a completely senseless post.

If you've been vaccinated, why are you worried about being around people who haven't been vaccinated? Either way you're safe, right?

So either you're safe from us nutters and have nothing to worry about ...or you don't believe the vaccine works.

Which one is it?

There won't be enough vaccine to vaccinate everybody before H1N1 starts to massively spread. You put us all at risk when you send your kid to school with "only the sniffles," when he may in fact be carrying H1N1, as there is a 3-day incubation period before H1N1 symptoms hit full-force.

Deniers ruin the effectiveness of mitigation efforts by ignoring recommendations and breaking quarantines.
 
Well let us look at some simple facts ok folks?

Here is a typical article from Bloomberg, raising alarms etc. - this is from today...


Swine Flu Deaths Take 90% of Toll Among Young People (Update3) (Frightening, yes?)

By Pat Wechsler and Tom Randall

Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Almost 90 percent of 292 deaths related to swine flu in the U.S. since Sept. 1 were in people younger than age 65, contrary to the pattern for seasonal flu, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. ..


____

Ok, let's stop right there.

The entire United States has had 292 deaths related to swine flu since September 1st. Let's just call that a six week time period shall we? Of course, the article headline is stating how the swine flu appears to be targeting a younger subset than regular flu - in this case, "nearly 90%" of those are "under the age of 65". Ok, we will set aside the rather humorous assertion that being less than 65 makes one "young", and jus stick with those basic figures.

Nearly 90% of 292 equals out to 265 deaths from swine flu for those under the age of 65 since September 1st. That is approximately 44 deaths per week from swine flu under the age of 65.

Simple enough, right? -And it does sound rather bad. Really, it does.

But guess what?

2006 statistics show that there were 6,977 deaths from the flu in America for those under the age of
65. That works out to an average of 134 deaths per week under the age of 65. There were no dire warnings of a flu going after the youth at that time - even though those numbers are over a 100% higher than the swine flu deaths in that same age group now being heralded as some new and awful threat. Now perhaps as the flu season continues, and possibly more deaths occur, that gap will narrow - but it will most likely not be an significant difference in total numbers of death from the flu between 2006 and 2009/2010.

We can get even more age specific.

In 2006, there was a total of 432 flu related deaths in the United States for kids aged to 10 years. That is over 8 deaths per week from the flu for kids under 10 or younger in 2006. Guess what? According to the CDC's latest update, there has been 43 pediatric deaths from swine flu since August 30th of this year. Again using a six-week format, that works out to just over seven pediatric deaths from swine flu during this period - lower than the 2006 average for the 0-10 age group who died from the flu. Ah, but it gets better! Pediatric deaths means that those numbers include kids up to around age 18 - perhaps even 21 (the CDC did not define a specific age group in their update). Let's just stick with the age of 18 then.

So we have had 43 deaths to swine flu for kids up to around the age of 18 in the last six weeks - or just over 7 per week.

In 2006, we had well over 500 deaths for the age group up to 18 years of age, or nearly 10 per week - or about 30% more deaths in that same age group over the same time period as have died from swine flu. Again, that gap may narrow as flu season progresses - but it also may widen. What we do know at this time, is there is not out of control pandemic. There is no widespread death - even for those subgroups most vulnerable to viral infection.

The numbers just don't lie folks...


2006 flu deaths per week under the age of 65 = 134

2009 swine flu deaths per week under the age of 65 = 44 (based on latest CDC update)



But by all means - do what you must to get you through this emotional trauma, and then rest up for the next in a long long line of public health hysteria episodes... :)


WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports

Swine Flu Deaths Take 90% of Toll Among Young People (Update3) - Bloomberg.com

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/
 
Last edited:
BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- How much could Donald Rumsfeld make from this swine flu panic, anyway?

I put a call into his office, but the former Secretary of Defense doesn't want to comment. (His staff says Rummy is hard at work on his memoirs. Ominous news for the GOP: The book is penciled in to hit the bookstores next fall -- just around the time of the mid-term elections).

Rumsfeld is the highest profile figure associated with Gilead Sciences Inc. /quotes/comstock/15*!gild/quotes/nls/gild (GILD 45.10, -1.02, -2.21%) , the California biopharma behind the Tamiflu vaccine. He is the company's former chairman, and at the last disclosure a few years back still held a stake in the company worth somewhere up to $25 million.


Everyone and their aunt will probably be crowding into emergency rooms at the first sign of a runny nose this winter, demanding treatments, regardless of any effectiveness.

One thing we know for certain: Flu times are good times at Gilead. No stockholders anywhere stand to make as much from flu panic.

"The biggest beneficiary to the world's dilemma with the H1N1 virus is Gilead Sciences," says a report from research firm BWS Financial, Inc. Gilead will be in a sweet spot if swine flu turns into mass panic, it says. "We believe (Gilead) remains the true investment on the H1N1 theme."

Gilead licensed its Tamiflu vaccine to pharmaceutical giant Roche back in 1996, but gets lucrative royalties on sales. Gilead's revenue from Tamiflu came to about $400 million during the bird flu panic in 2006-2007, BWS estimates.

An analysis by Deutsche Bank predicts Gilead will get about $195 million revenue from Tamiflu just in the fourth quarter of this year, and another $137 million in the first quarter of next year. Deutsche argues that Wall Street has so far underestimated the likely gains. (Deutsche's analysis is based on results from Roche, which has just reported its third quarter figures. Gilead gets its cut from Roche's sales one quarter later.)

Tamiflu is only one part of the business. Gilead is a broad biotech company. But Wall Street loves a story, and if the H1N1 virus, commonly known as swine flu, causes a stampede this winter Gilead could get a lot of attention.

The irony about flu vaccines is that they may not even work. A very plausible takedown on the flu vaccine business was published recently in The Atlantic. Read here. But don't expect that to hurt demand. Everyone and their aunt will probably be crowding into emergency rooms at the first sign of a runny nose this winter, demanding treatments, regardless of any effectiveness.

In the so-called home of the brave, the easiest thing to sell is fear.

Gilead stock was only about $16 four years ago. But in 2005 it took off, after the Bush administration responded to the bird flu panic by ordering large quantities of Tamiflu. It has since tripled to about $46.

On the advice of government counsel at the time, Mr. Rumsfeld recused himself from all decisions about Tamiflu and pandemic preparedness. But the rules should really forbid him, or any Secretary of Defense, from owning shares directly at all.

Gilead's booming stock price has generated a lot of windfalls at the company. According to the most recent public filings, executives and staff are sitting on share and option awards that may be worth about $1.6 billion at current levels. That would be, remarkably, an average of $400,000 per person for the 4,000-employee firm, although of course the benefits are hardly distributed equally. Chairman and Chief Executive John Martin made $11 million a year in each of the last two years, and booked a personal profit of $28.5 million by exercising stock options just in 2008.

The Tamiflu connection is proving good news for left-wing conspiracy theorists. In his last financial disclosure as defense secretary, more than two years ago, Donald Rumsfeld revealed he still owned a stake in Gilead worth somewhere between $5 million and $25 million. Since then Gilead shares have risen by nearly a half. Of course, we don't know what -- if anything -- he holds now.

Is it too late to get in on the action? Maybe. Gilead shares, at around $46, look pretty reasonably priced at 17 times next year's forecast earnings. But call options offer a leveraged bet on further swine flu hysteria: For $3 a share you can buy a $50 call good at any point between now and next May.



Look who's profiting from the flu pandemic - MarketWatch


No conspiracy - just big potential profits off of public hysteria... :)
 
Holy Crap. As if I haven't been panicked enough the last week and a half over H1N1.
Liquifies the lungs? I should NEVER have read this thread. People should probably go buy stock in Lysol, because I'll be continuing to boost their bottom line at this rate. My spouse and fully half of my employees have had the flu for the last week and a half. I've sprayed and disinfected pretty near everything you can think of to disinfect trying to make sure my youngest child ( he's on immune suppressants ) doesn't catch it.
 
Holy Crap. As if I haven't been panicked enough the last week and a half over H1N1.
Liquifies the lungs? I should NEVER have read this thread. People should probably go buy stock in Lysol, because I'll be continuing to boost their bottom line at this rate. My spouse and fully half of my employees have had the flu for the last week and a half. I've sprayed and disinfected pretty near everything you can think of to disinfect trying to make sure my youngest child ( he's on immune suppressants ) doesn't catch it.

_____

With your child's condition, you have reason for concern. Take adequate precautions.

But don't freak out - this thing is not nearly so bad as is being hyped...
___

Well let us look at some simple facts ok folks?

Here is a typical article from Bloomberg, raising alarms etc. - this is from today...


Swine Flu Deaths Take 90% of Toll Among Young People (Update3) (Frightening, yes?)

By Pat Wechsler and Tom Randall

Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Almost 90 percent of 292 deaths related to swine flu in the U.S. since Sept. 1 were in people younger than age 65, contrary to the pattern for seasonal flu, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. ..


____

Ok, let's stop right there.

The entire United States has had 292 deaths related to swine flu since September 1st. Let's just call that a six week time period shall we? Of course, the article headline is stating how the swine flu appears to be targeting a younger subset than regular flu - in this case, "nearly 90%" of those are "under the age of 65". Ok, we will set aside the rather humorous assertion that being less than 65 makes one "young", and jus stick with those basic figures.

Nearly 90% of 292 equals out to 265 deaths from swine flu for those under the age of 65 since September 1st. That is approximately 44 deaths per week from swine flu under the age of 65.

Simple enough, right? -And it does sound rather bad. Really, it does.

But guess what?

2006 statistics show that there were 6,977 deaths from the flu in America for those under the age of
65. That works out to an average of 134 deaths per week under the age of 65. There were no dire warnings of a flu going after the youth at that time - even though those numbers are over a 100% higher than the swine flu deaths in that same age group now being heralded as some new and awful threat. Now perhaps as the flu season continues, and possibly more deaths occur, that gap will narrow - but it will most likely not be an significant difference in total numbers of death from the flu between 2006 and 2009/2010.

We can get even more age specific.

In 2006, there was a total of 432 flu related deaths in the United States for kids aged to 10 years. That is over 8 deaths per week from the flu for kids under 10 or younger in 2006. Guess what? According to the CDC's latest update, there has been 43 pediatric deaths from swine flu since August 30th of this year. Again using a six-week format, that works out to just over seven pediatric deaths from swine flu during this period - lower than the 2006 average for the 0-10 age group who died from the flu. Ah, but it gets better! Pediatric deaths means that those numbers include kids up to around age 18 - perhaps even 21 (the CDC did not define a specific age group in their update). Let's just stick with the age of 18 then.

So we have had 43 deaths to swine flu for kids up to around the age of 18 in the last six weeks - or just over 7 per week.

In 2006, we had well over 500 deaths for the age group up to 18 years of age, or nearly 10 per week - or about 30% more deaths in that same age group over the same time period as have died from swine flu. Again, that gap may narrow as flu season progresses - but it also may widen. What we do know at this time, is there is not out of control pandemic. There is no widespread death - even for those subgroups most vulnerable to viral infection.

The numbers just don't lie folks...


2006 flu deaths per week under the age of 65 = 134

2009 swine flu deaths per week under the age of 65 = 44 (based on latest CDC update)


But by all means - do what you must to get you through this emotional trauma, and then rest up for the next in a long long line of public health hysteria episodes...


WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports

Swine Flu Deaths Take 90% of Toll Among Young People (Update3) - Bloomberg.com

CDC - Seasonal Influenza (Flu) - Weekly Report: Influenza Summary Update
 
Last edited:
Well let us look at some simple facts ok folks?

Nearly 90% of 292 equals out to 265 deaths from swine flu for those under the age of 65 since September 1st. That is approximately 44 deaths per week from swine flu under the age of 65.

You are making a fool of yourself, because you made an obvious error. You are incorrectly assuming that flu cases increase linearly, and comparing that projection with the total cases during a given year.

The problem with your assumption is that disease spreads exponentially. As clearly indicated in my OP, the vast majority of hospitalizations occur at the end of the flu season, not at the start.

You are looking at the seed, and comparing it to a full-grown tree. "This tree is so much larger than this seed, how could this seed ever be larger than this tree?"

This is why you need a PhD to be a epidemiologist...
 
Last edited:
Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Almost 90 percent of 292 deaths related to swine flu in the U.S. since Sept. 1 were in people younger than age 65, contrary to the pattern for seasonal flu, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. ..

[2006 data] Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality*:

As of August 6, 2007, among persons aged <18 years, a total of 68 deaths associated with influenza infections occurring during October 1, 2006-May 19, 2007, were reported to CDC. These deaths were reported from 26 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin), Chicago, and New York City. All patients had laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection. Age-specific information was available on all 68 cases. Of these, 10 were <6 months, 10 were 6-23 months, 9 were 2-4 years, and 39 were 5-17 years of age. Of the 63 cases for which the influenza virus type was known, 47 were influenza A and 16 were influenza B viruses. Of the 53 cases 6 months of age and older for whom the vaccination status was known, 50 (94%) were not vaccinated against influenza. Influenza-associated pediatric mortality was first made a nationally notifiable condition for the 2004-05 influenza season.

During October 1, 2006 to April 28, 2007, the preliminary laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalization rate reported by the EIP for children 0&#8211;17 years old was 0.81 per 10,000. For children aged 0-4 years and 5-17 years, the rate was 1.62 per 10,000 and 0.23 per 10,000, respectively.
-------------

[2009]

During week 40 (October 4-10, 2009), influenza activity increased in the U.S.

All subtyped influenza A viruses being reported to CDC were 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses.

The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) was above the epidemic threshold.

Eleven influenza-associated pediatric deaths were reported. Ten of these deaths were associated with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection and one was associated with an influenza A virus, for which subtype is undetermined.

Pneumonia and Influenza Hospitalization and Death Tracking:

This new system was implemented on August 30, 2009, and replaces the weekly report of laboratory confirmed 2009 H1N1-related hospitalizations and deaths that began in April 2009. Jurisdictions can now report to CDC either laboratory confirmed or pneumonia and influenza syndromic-based counts of hospitalizations and deaths resulting from all types or subtypes of influenza, not just those from 2009 H1N1 influenza virus. To allow jurisdictions to implement the new case definition, counts were reset to zero on August 30, 2009. From August 30 &#8211; October 10, 2009, 4,958 laboratory-confirmed influenza associated hospitalizations, 292 laboratory-confirmed influenza associated deaths, 15,696 pneumonia and influenza syndrome-based hospitalizations, and 2,029 pneumonia and influenza syndrome-based deaths, were reported to CDC. CDC will continue to use its traditional surveillance systems to track the progress of the 2009-10 influenza season.

IPD40_small.gif


Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality
Eleven influenza-associated pediatric deaths were reported to CDC during week 40 (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana [2], North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee [2]). Ten of these deaths were associated with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection and one was associated with an influenza A virus for which the subtype is undetermined. These deaths occurred between August 30 and October 10, 2009. Since August 30, 2009, CDC has received 43 reports of influenza-associated pediatric deaths that occurred during the current influenza season (three deaths in children less than 2 years, five deaths in children 2-4 years, 16 deaths in children 5-11 years, and 19 deaths in individuals 12-17 years). Thirty-nine of the 43 deaths were due to 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infections. A total of 86 deaths in children associated with 2009 H1N1 virus have been reported to CDC.

image402.gif


So far, a total of 86 pediatric deaths associated with H1N1; for the entire 2006 flu season, it was 68. Now go back and read the above post again.

Now, tell us again how the 2006 flu season was so much worse than what this year's is developing into...
 
Last edited:
Well let us look at some simple facts ok folks?

Nearly 90% of 292 equals out to 265 deaths from swine flu for those under the age of 65 since September 1st. That is approximately 44 deaths per week from swine flu under the age of 65.

You are making a fool of yourself, because you made an obvious error. You are incorrectly assuming that flu cases increase linearly, and comparing that projection with the total cases during a given year.

The problem with your assumption is that disease spreads exponentially. As clearly indicated in my OP, the vast majority of hospitalizations occur at the end of the flu season, not at the start.

You are looking at the seed, and comparing it to a full-grown tree. "This tree is so much larger than this seed, how could this seed ever be larger than this tree?"

This is why you need a PhD to be a epidemiologist...
I'm sorry I can't rep you again.
 
Well let us look at some simple facts ok folks?

Nearly 90% of 292 equals out to 265 deaths from swine flu for those under the age of 65 since September 1st. That is approximately 44 deaths per week from swine flu under the age of 65.

You are making a fool of yourself, because you made an obvious error. You are incorrectly assuming that flu cases increase linearly, and comparing that projection with the total cases during a given year.

The problem with your assumption is that disease spreads exponentially. As clearly indicated in my OP, the vast majority of hospitalizations occur at the end of the flu season, not at the start.

You are looking at the seed, and comparing it to a full-grown tree. "This tree is so much larger than this seed, how could this seed ever be larger than this tree?"

This is why you need a PhD to be a epidemiologist...

And I suggest he look closely at these graphs:

Number of Influenza-Associated Pediatric

Percentage of Visits for Influenza-like Illness Reported by Sentinel Providers, National Summary, 2008-09 and Previous 2 Seasons


In the graphs, note the peaks in the previous years (generally around week 7-8). We've already surpassed those numbers and have yet to hit the peak of the flu season.
 
It's not a conspiracy. It's not a bio warfare. The flu vaccine is a low-profit product for the manufacturers. The vaccine does not have preservatives in it that will harm you. The chances of dying from (or even having adverse reactions to it) the vaccine are thousands-fold less than dying from the flu.

The flu spreads exponentially (just even think about it and that will make sense).

Get the vaccine and keep others safe.

If you're too hard-headed in the face of facts, then for craps sake; if you even have the sniffles quarantine yourself - not half-assed quanrantine, either - for the safety of the rest of us.
 
That's just it. These numbnuts will simply go on about their business and increase the level of infection among the rest of us.

And then they wonder why states are considering mandatory quarantine and vaccination.
I'm trying to keep out of these threads because it truly makes. Me. Mad.

I have to accept that there will be numbnuts and there is little I can do to change that. So, now I hope that they will be responsible enough to the rest of us and at least quarantine themselves for all sniffles. And, do the quarantine right - don't get pizza delivery to your house, for example.

It's a guaranteed facepalm moment when I read these threads.
 
That's just it. These numbnuts will simply go on about their business and increase the level of infection among the rest of us.

And then they wonder why states are considering mandatory quarantine and vaccination.
I'm trying to keep out of these threads because it truly makes. Me. Mad.

I have to accept that there will be numbnuts and there is little I can do to change that. So, now I hope that they will be responsible enough to the rest of us and at least quarantine themselves for all sniffles. And, do the quarantine right - don't get pizza delivery to your house, for example.

It's a guaranteed facepalm moment when I read these threads.
I know how you feel...my blood's been boiling.

It sometimes makes me wish we were in a police state, where we could force vaccination and quarantines easily. It'd better ensure the survival of the species...
 
That's just it. These numbnuts will simply go on about their business and increase the level of infection among the rest of us.

And then they wonder why states are considering mandatory quarantine and vaccination.
I'm trying to keep out of these threads because it truly makes. Me. Mad.

I have to accept that there will be numbnuts and there is little I can do to change that. So, now I hope that they will be responsible enough to the rest of us and at least quarantine themselves for all sniffles. And, do the quarantine right - don't get pizza delivery to your house, for example.

It's a guaranteed facepalm moment when I read these threads.
I know how you feel...my blood's been boiling.

It sometimes makes me wish we were in a police state, where we could force vaccination and quarantines easily. It'd better ensure the survival of the species...
And, I'm getting the impression that the vaccinophobes are actually convincing others who normally would get a shot, not to do so - when it's more necessary than past years.

I've gotten mine and now I have to worry about there being more of a chance of getting sick from a mutant this year because of the mass number of folks who are just being so stubborn.
 
That's just it. These numbnuts will simply go on about their business and increase the level of infection among the rest of us.

And then they wonder why states are considering mandatory quarantine and vaccination.
I'm trying to keep out of these threads because it truly makes. Me. Mad.

I have to accept that there will be numbnuts and there is little I can do to change that. So, now I hope that they will be responsible enough to the rest of us and at least quarantine themselves for all sniffles. And, do the quarantine right - don't get pizza delivery to your house, for example.

It's a guaranteed facepalm moment when I read these threads.
People like that piss me off to no end.

I quarantined myself. I don't know for certain it is H1N1, but that's what I was exposed to and the first thing I did when I got off the phone with my manager (who called to tell me of my exposure) was make arrangements to get my grandson to his other grandma's that very night. And for my daughter to stay with friends for the week. I've not left the house and or had any contact with anyone for 7 days (except to go to doc's this afternoon--- and I brought a mask to wear in the waiting room). He said I'm likely not infectious at this point and daughter moved back in but is staying away from me. Depending upon what point I'm afebrile >24 hours, he'll come home later this week. I realize they could still come down with this, but I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure it doesn't come from me.
 
Statistics are easily doctored and they all do it anyway.
I don't give a damn if you bet your life against the statistics, but don't gamble my family's and my health, as well.

Every un-vaccinated person can serve as a breeding ground for H1N1, enabling the virus to mutate resistance against any vaccines and become more lethal.
 
Well let us look at some simple facts ok folks?

Here is a typical article from Bloomberg, raising alarms etc. - this is from today...


Swine Flu Deaths Take 90% of Toll Among Young People (Update3) (Frightening, yes?)

By Pat Wechsler and Tom Randall

Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Almost 90 percent of 292 deaths related to swine flu in the U.S. since Sept. 1 were in people younger than age 65, contrary to the pattern for seasonal flu, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. ..


____

Ok, let's stop right there.

The entire United States has had 292 deaths related to swine flu since September 1st. Let's just call that a six week time period shall we? Of course, the article headline is stating how the swine flu appears to be targeting a younger subset than regular flu - in this case, "nearly 90%" of those are "under the age of 65". Ok, we will set aside the rather humorous assertion that being less than 65 makes one "young", and jus stick with those basic figures.

Nearly 90% of 292 equals out to 265 deaths from swine flu for those under the age of 65 since September 1st. That is approximately 44 deaths per week from swine flu under the age of 65.

Simple enough, right? -And it does sound rather bad. Really, it does.

But guess what?

2006 statistics show that there were 6,977 deaths from the flu in America for those under the age of
65. That works out to an average of 134 deaths per week under the age of 65. There were no dire warnings of a flu going after the youth at that time - even though those numbers are over a 100% higher than the swine flu deaths in that same age group now being heralded as some new and awful threat. Now perhaps as the flu season continues, and possibly more deaths occur, that gap will narrow - but it will most likely not be an significant difference in total numbers of death from the flu between 2006 and 2009/2010.

We can get even more age specific.

In 2006, there was a total of 432 flu related deaths in the United States for kids aged to 10 years. That is over 8 deaths per week from the flu for kids under 10 or younger in 2006. Guess what? According to the CDC's latest update, there has been 43 pediatric deaths from swine flu since August 30th of this year. Again using a six-week format, that works out to just over seven pediatric deaths from swine flu during this period - lower than the 2006 average for the 0-10 age group who died from the flu. Ah, but it gets better! Pediatric deaths means that those numbers include kids up to around age 18 - perhaps even 21 (the CDC did not define a specific age group in their update). Let's just stick with the age of 18 then.

So we have had 43 deaths to swine flu for kids up to around the age of 18 in the last six weeks - or just over 7 per week.

In 2006, we had well over 500 deaths for the age group up to 18 years of age, or nearly 10 per week - or about 30% more deaths in that same age group over the same time period as have died from swine flu. Again, that gap may narrow as flu season progresses - but it also may widen. What we do know at this time, is there is not out of control pandemic. There is no widespread death - even for those subgroups most vulnerable to viral infection.

The numbers just don't lie folks...


2006 flu deaths per week under the age of 65 = 134

2009 swine flu deaths per week under the age of 65 = 44 (based on latest CDC update)



But by all means - do what you must to get you through this emotional trauma, and then rest up for the next in a long long line of public health hysteria episodes... :)


WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports

Swine Flu Deaths Take 90% of Toll Among Young People (Update3) - Bloomberg.com

CDC - Seasonal Influenza (Flu) - Weekly Report: Influenza Summary Update

___

The numbers don't lie folks.

As I said, as the flu season progresses, the gap between 2006 and present may close - and 2009 might even prove a more difficult flu season overall, but based upon preliminary numbers from the CDC, that is not going to be the case - there will be little difference between the two.

The swine flu is no worse than the "regular" flu - in fact, if you are older, it is far more mild.

Now if you have a child with serious medical issues, the flu season will pose increased risk and you should take precautions.

Bill Mahar agrees this issue should be open to far more debate than has occurred. He is quite leary of the whole flu pandemic scare, as well as the rush to vaccinate.

Not that I give much weight to Bill Mahar - but my liberal friends seem to take his musings with a certain degree of importance...:)
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top