Five months into the swine flu here there was no rapid test for H1N1 and the tests they had were only 10-70% accurate depending on the test.-
How well can these tests detect the flu?
Rapid tests vary in their ability to detect flu viruses. Depending on the test used,
their ability to detect 2009 H1N1 flu can range from 10% to 70%. This means that some people with a 2009 H1N1 flu infection have had a negative rapid test result. (This situation is called a false negative test result.) Rapid tests appear to be better at detecting flu in children than adults. None of the rapid tests currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are able to distinguish 2009 H1N1 flu from other flu viruses.
Will my health care pr
www.cdc.gov
Are you aware that H1N1 killed about the same amount of people in a year as COVID-19 did in a couple of months before it even takes off?
Why, I remember a time when you guys were calling Obama a failure because of it. That was cute. What was H1N1's mortality rate anyway?
We never had exact figures. They extrapolated the total number of deaths from H1N1. Today, we have exact death counts. Studies indicate the deaths could have been as high as 18,000 deaths. There wasn’t even reliable testing.
To calculate the burden of 2009 pandemic influenza A (pH1N1) in the United States, we extrapolated from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Emerging Infections Program laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations across the entire United States, and then corrected for underreporting. From...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Abstract
To calculate the burden of 2009 pandemic influenza A (pH1N1) in the United States, we extrapolated from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Emerging Infections Program laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations across the entire United States, and then corrected for underreporting. From 12 April 2009 to 10 April 2010, we estimate that approximately 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (8868-18,306) occurred in the United States due to pH1N1. Eighty-seven percent of deaths occurred in those under 65 years of age with children and working adults having risks of hospitalization and death 4 to 7 times and 8 to 12 times greater, respectively, than estimates of impact due to seasonal influenza covering the years 1976-2001. In our study, adults 65 years of age or older were found to have rates of hospitalization and death that were up to 75% and 81%, respectively, lower than seasonal influenza. These results confirm the necessity of a concerted public health response to pH1N1.
It wasn’t until June of
2010 there was a test that was 96% accurate! A year and a half after the first case here.
Confirmed diagnosis of pandemic H1N1 flu requires testing of a
nasopharyngeal, nasal, or
oropharyngeal tissue swab from the patient.
[70] Real-time RT-PCR is the recommended test as others are unable to differentiate between pandemic H1N1 and regular
seasonal flu.
[70] However, most people with flu symptoms do not need a test for pandemic H1N1 flu specifically, because the test results usually do not affect the recommended course of treatment.
[71] The U.S. CDC recommend testing only for people who are hospitalized with suspected flu, pregnant women, and people with weakened immune systems.
[71] For the mere diagnosis of influenza and not pandemic H1N1 flu specifically, more widely available tests include
rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDT), which yield results in about 30 minutes, and
direct and indirect
immunofluorescence assays (
DFA and IFA), which take 2–4 hours.
[72] Due to the high rate of RIDT
false negatives, the CDC advises that patients with illnesses compatible with novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection but with negative RIDT results should be treated empirically based on the level of clinical suspicion, underlying medical conditions, severity of illness, and risk for complications, and if a more definitive determination of infection with influenza virus is required, testing with rRT-PCR or virus isolation should be performed.
[73] The use of RIDTs has been questioned by researcher Paul Schreckenberger of the
Loyola University Health System, who suggests that rapid tests may actually pose a dangerous
public healthrisk.
[74] Nikki Shindo of the WHO has expressed regret at reports of treatment being delayed by waiting for H1N1 test results and suggests, "[D]octors should not wait for the laboratory confirmation but make diagnosis based on clinical and epidemiological backgrounds and start treatment early."
[75]
On 22 June 2010, the CDC announced a new test called the "CDC Influenza 2009 A (H1N1)pdm Real-Time RT-PCR Panel (IVD)". It uses a molecular biology technique to detect influenza A viruses and specifically the 2009 H1N1 virus. The new test will replace the previous real-time RT-PCR diagnostic test used during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, which received an emergency use authorization from the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration in April 2009. Tests results are available in four hours and are 96% accurate.
[76]
en.wikipedia.org
So, we don’t know for sure how many were killed, and it was killing children predominantly.
