Swine Flu

[blurred]

No one is seriously predicting a global catastrophe.

The talk on Newsnight last night, and in the British media in general, is exactly predicting a global pandemic that could potentially kill millions worldwide (linking it to previous flu pandemics). Talk of 30 million doses of anti-virals, cancelling of international travel, closing of borders...

However, there is nothing wrong in attempting to limit the deaths through prudent action.

I agree, but that's what's happening already. Public events in Mexico have been cancelled (like people attending football matches), and schools and workplaces have been closed. The medical profession are aware of it, and so will be screening people for symptoms of the disease, and issue anti-virals accordingly. However, we've seen nowhere near the fatality rate of Mexico in any of the other countries in the world in which the disease has broken out (America, Spain, Britain, New Zealand, elsewhere in central America... I forget the others from the news reports)

SARS killed 44 people in Canada (mostly Toronto) by the way.

I knew there were deaths, but didn't know how many. Wasn't it the case, though, that the Toronto cases were all traceable back to the originally known 'carriers' (ie, the first cases) and that nobody else had contracted the disease outwith of those who'd had personal contact with them? I'm sure that many of the cases were actually contracted in hospitals. That didn't stop the WHO and other bodies 'needlessly' issuing advisories to not travel to Toronto, and the cancelling of events there which cost the local and national economies tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Answer me this - if we don't get our knickers in a twist about a couple of hundred Mexican dying, why do we bang on about Hillsborough year after year with less than 100 deaths?

I'll answer it if you can in any way show how the two are linked, or how comparison from one to the other is relevant, other than they both involve people dying. If you genuinely want to know the answer to the question and can't see the difference, then I'm quite shocked as I held you to have some sort of intelligence.

[Porrohman]

30 Million vials of anti-virals...So, that's the top earners, MP's, company directors etc, the illegal workers and those on minimum wage and some to sell to the Dutch. Obviously pensioners and normal working people who earn above NMW but below the national average will not be eligible as we are a drain on the valuable resources of this great country. Oh, what a surprise!

[Prufrock]

30 Million vials of anti-virals...So, that's the top earners, MP's, company directors etc, the illegal workers and those on minimum wage and some to sell to the Dutch. Obviously pensioners and normal working people who earn above NMW but below the national average will not be eligible as we are a drain on the valuable resources of this great country. Oh, what a surprise!

That makes no sense. Whatsoever. The gist seems to be you're angry at someone.

[Prufrock]

Answer me this - if we don't get our knickers in a twist about a couple of hundred Mexican dying, why do we bang on about Hillsborough year after year with less than 100 deaths?

I'll answer it if you can in any way show how the two are linked, or how comparison from one to the other is relevant, other than they both involve people dying. If you genuinely want to know the answer to the question and can't see the difference, then I'm quite shocked as I held you to have some sort of intelligence.

As opposed to a direct comparision, it's more the fact that intentionally or not, you're response about a hundred people in Mexico seemed extremly flipant and perhaps callous. Was unexpected from someone who has said the things you have. A hundred people dead should never be casually dismissed, would have thought you of all people would believed that.

[Worthy4England]

Answer me this - if we don't get our knickers in a twist about a couple of hundred Mexican dying, why do we bang on about Hillsborough year after year with less than 100 deaths?

I'll answer it if you can in any way show how the two are linked, or how comparison from one to the other is relevant, other than they both involve people dying. If you genuinely want to know the answer to the question and can't see the difference, then I'm quite shocked as I held you to have some sort of intelligence.

As opposed to a direct comparision, it's more the fact that intentionally or not, you're response about a hundred people in Mexico seemed extremly flipant and perhaps callous. Was unexpected from someone who has said the things you have. A hundred people dead should never be casually dismissed, would have thought you of all people would believed that.

That's the nail that needed hitting...

[bobo the clown]

It all depends on the likelihood of death - granted there's over 100 died in Mexico, but when similar numbers start dying in the Western world then I'd agree it's time to take it seriously. It could just be a flu that's particularly contagious and a lot of people end up catching. Big deal.

... I'm amazed at those words coming from you !!!

You know, blurred, you made a crass remark, in direct contrast to what you bang on about regarding Hillsborough and your defence of it and pretence at innocence do you no favours.

Sometimes you should just say " ... hands up, I got that wrong".

[bobo the clown]

... meanwhile ... back on the point ; - time will tell, but I expect this to be another huge overblown reaction to an unfortunate event. Yesterdays (Mondays) UK media action reeked of sensationalism and almost a desire for this to blow out of control.

It showed the media across the piece, tv, radio & press of all standards to be horribly poor quality and concerned purely with making a story, whatever the facts.

John Snow sounded positively disappointed as he explained that a two people in Scotland turned out to have only mild symptoms.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Answer me this - if we don't get our knickers in a twist about a couple of hundred Mexican dying, why do we bang on about Hillsborough year after year with less than 100 deaths?

I'll answer it if you can in any way show how the two are linked, or how comparison from one to the other is relevant, other than they both involve people dying. If you genuinely want to know the answer to the question and can't see the difference, then I'm quite shocked as I held you to have some sort of intelligence.

As opposed to a direct comparision, it's more the fact that intentionally or not, you're response about a hundred people in Mexico seemed extremly flipant and perhaps callous. Was unexpected from someone who has said the things you have. A hundred people dead should never be casually dismissed, would have thought you of all people would believed that.

Sorry, I was at lunch, but this about sums it up. I never have, and never would, trivialize the Hillsborough disaster. However, you appeared to trivialize the Mexican deaths virtually saying there is not need to worry until the people of the first world Western nations started dying in similar numbers. It was a surprisingly callous remark - as would be a similar remark about Hillsborough. I was only trying to get you to see the import of what you had said in terms of a reference you could understand. My question was rhetorical in this sense - no answer required.

[Bruce Rioja]

It all depends on the likelihood of death - granted there's over 100 died in Mexico, but when similar numbers start dying in the Western world then I'd agree it's time to take it seriously. It could just be a flu that's particularly contagious and a lot of people end up catching. Big deal.

Well let's hope that the Mexicans are saying the same about English tossers getting crushed to death at the match, eh?

[blurred]

Answer me this - if we don't get our knickers in a twist about a couple of hundred Mexican dying, why do we bang on about Hillsborough year after year with less than 100 deaths?

I'll answer it if you can in any way show how the two are linked, or how comparison from one to the other is relevant, other than they both involve people dying. If you genuinely want to know the answer to the question and can't see the difference, then I'm quite shocked as I held you to have some sort of intelligence.

As opposed to a direct comparision, it's more the fact that intentionally or not, you're response about a hundred people in Mexico seemed extremly flipant and perhaps callous. Was unexpected from someone who has said the things you have. A hundred people dead should never be casually dismissed, would have thought you of all people would believed that.

Sorry, I was at lunch, but this about sums it up. I never have, and never would, trivialize the Hillsborough disaster. However, you appeared to trivialize the Mexican deaths virtually saying there is not need to worry until the people of the first world Western nations started dying in similar numbers. It was a surprisingly callous remark - as would be a similar remark about Hillsborough. I was only trying to get you to see the import of what you had said in terms of a reference you could understand. My question was rhetorical in this sense - no answer required.

No, not at all. I said there was no reason for panic in the Western world until deaths started occurring in places other than Mexico, not that the lives lost in Mexico were less worthy than our own. I thought that was quite clear by the tone of my comments, that it was the hysteria and pandemic warnings that I was railing against, not the loss of life.

I was not being callous as to a serious outbreak of illness, merely pointing out that the over the top reaction by those in the UK media was unwarranted seeing as there were (and still are, as far as I know, as I've not seen the news today) only two people who have contracted this version of the flu in the UK, neither of whom are thought to be in any way near life-threatening. Talk of 30 million doses of life saving anti-virals, closing of borders and suspension of air travel seems a might bit trite when two people in Scotland have a fever and the sniffles.

It's a public health tragedy in that part of the world, and they are doing the necessary to combat it as effectively as they can. I wouldn't wish illness on anyone, and not that I'm heading out there, but I'll heed the warnings and avoid Mexico while the outbreak is going on. That's about as much as I'll be doing about it, though, and don't buy the scaremongering that's going on in this part of the world to what is, ostensibly, a public health disaster the best part of 10,000 miles away.

[blurred]

It all depends on the likelihood of death - granted there's over 100 died in Mexico, but when similar numbers start dying in the Western world then I'd agree it's time to take it seriously. It could just be a flu that's particularly contagious and a lot of people end up catching. Big deal.

Well let's hope that the Mexicans are saying the same about Western tossers getting crushed to death at the match, eh?

Well, if they don't give a rats about a crush at Hillsborough then that's their prerogative, as they're not likely to know particularly much about it.

If they're football fans, then I'd imagine they'd have some form of empathy with it if they have heard about it, insofar as we do with crowd troubles in the Ivory Coast or anywhere else.

Quite what point you're making I'm not entirely sure. Can you explain how if some people around the world catch this flu and don't die, but just have the flu, is it that big a deal?

[Bruce Rioja]

It all depends on the likelihood of death - granted there's over 100 died in Mexico, but when similar numbers start dying in the Western world then I'd agree it's time to take it seriously. It could just be a flu that's particularly contagious and a lot of people end up catching. Big deal.

Well let's hope that the Mexicans are saying the same about Western tossers getting crushed to death at the match, eh?

Well, if they don't give a rats about a crush at Hillsborough then that's their prerogative, as they're not likely to know particularly much about it.

If they're football fans, then I'd imagine they'd have some form of empathy with it if they have heard about it, insofar as we do with crowd troubles in the Ivory Coast or anywhere else.

Quite what point you're making I'm not entirely sure.

Don't try and cover your tracks, matey boy. Your post is there for all to see.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Answer me this - if we don't get our knickers in a twist about a couple of hundred Mexican dying, why do we bang on about Hillsborough year after year with less than 100 deaths?

I'll answer it if you can in any way show how the two are linked, or how comparison from one to the other is relevant, other than they both involve people dying. If you genuinely want to know the answer to the question and can't see the difference, then I'm quite shocked as I held you to have some sort of intelligence.

As opposed to a direct comparision, it's more the fact that intentionally or not, you're response about a hundred people in Mexico seemed extremly flipant and perhaps callous. Was unexpected from someone who has said the things you have. A hundred people dead should never be casually dismissed, would have thought you of all people would believed that.

Sorry, I was at lunch, but this about sums it up. I never have, and never would, trivialize the Hillsborough disaster. However, you appeared to trivialize the Mexican deaths virtually saying there is not need to worry until the people of the first world Western nations started dying in similar numbers. It was a surprisingly callous remark - as would be a similar remark about Hillsborough. I was only trying to get you to see the import of what you had said in terms of a reference you could understand. My question was rhetorical in this sense - no answer required.

No, not at all. I said there was no reason for panic in the Western world until deaths started occurring in places other than Mexico, not that the lives lost in Mexico were less worthy than our own. I thought that was quite clear by the tone of my comments, that it was the hysteria and pandemic warnings that I was railing against, not the loss of life.

I was not being callous as to a serious outbreak of illness, merely pointing out that the over the top reaction by those in the UK media was unwarranted seeing as there were (and still are, as far as I know, as I've not seen the news today) only two people who have contracted this version of the flu in the UK, neither of whom are thought to be in any way near life-threatening. Talk of 30 million doses of life saving anti-virals, closing of borders and suspension of air travel seems a might bit trite when two people in Scotland have a fever and the sniffles.

It's a public health tragedy in that part of the world, and they are doing the necessary to combat it as effectively as they can. I wouldn't wish illness on anyone, and not that I'm heading out there, but I'll heed the warnings and avoid Mexico while the outbreak is going on. That's about as much as I'll be doing about it, though, and don't buy the scaremongering that's going on in this part of the world to what is, ostensibly, a public health disaster the best part of 10,000 miles away.

Okay, but what you said was:

It all depends on the likelihood of death - granted there's over 100 died in Mexico, but when similar numbers start dying in the Western world then I'd agree it's time to take it seriously. It could just be a flu that's particularly contagious and a lot of people end up catching. Big deal.

This did not suggest you were railing against the media but rather implied that it would only be a big deal if a 100 died in the Western world. Perhaps it could have been better phrased....?

[blurred]

How have I 'covered my tracks' exactly? I've not deleted my post, so of course it's there for all to see. I stand by it.

If a peculiar set of circumstances leads to a number of deaths from this flu in Mexico City (which has happened) and because of the nature of the virus it transports itself to other countries (which has happened) but all that has happened anywhere other than Mexico City is people present flu symptoms but don't die (which has happened), then it won't be the global mega-pandemic catastrophe that people are talking about at the moment.

This is no different to a cholera outbreak in the Sudan, or any other localised disease outbreak (bird flu in Asia) but the fact that it's happened to somewhere that British people go on holiday, and therefore there's an outside chance of us contracting it, we're suddenly concerned about it, and decide to blow it up into a massive threat. I just don't believe that it's worth the level of hype it's receiving, and the fact that thus far the deaths have been localised in one country seems to indicate that it's not the huge global threat that everyone's making it out to be. Of course diseases will spread around the world these days, that's the joy of air travel, but it's not showing up as being so catastrophically fatal anywhere else apart from Mexico City. There must be a reason for that, and I've speculated as to the possible ones, but that will need investigating in time.

[blurred]

It all depends on the likelihood of death - granted there's over 100 died in Mexico, but when similar numbers start dying in the Western world then I'd agree it's time for us to take it seriously. It could just be a flu that's particularly contagious and a lot of people end up catching. Big deal.

This did not suggest you were railing against the media but rather implied that it would only be a big deal if a 100 died in the Western world. Perhaps it could have been better phrased....?

It could perhaps have been better phrased, but then people still seem to wish to attack my wording well after I've clarified my point - I think that the talk of 30 million doses of anti-virals and restricting flights, etc, seems just a little OTT for something which has two cases in the UK, neither of which are life-threatening. Forgive me if I'm not taking it as a serious threat to my life that two people in Scotland have the sniffles. If people started presenting more serious symptoms and in greater number then I'd understand the need for our MPs to be discussing such things in Parliament. As it is, it's a localised outbreak of a particularly strong flu virus 10,000 miles away, and all the talk of doom and gloom implications to me seems daft. Yes, it's a nasty situation in Mexico, and I won't be going there in a hurry, but I'm not worried about catching it, nor should anyone else in the UK be, because it's just not happening at the moment. That's what I mean by the fact that we don't need to take it seriously at the moment.

[blurred]

Also it's worth noting that only 20 of the 152 deaths in Mexico so far have been confirmed to be as a result of swine flu - there are many left that could've been from other causes. These are the only confirmed deaths in the world from the disease at the moment. It's right for the Mexicans to take precautions, and it's right that WHO have flagged it up to the medical community, so that they are aware that there is the potential for people to be presenting these symptoms, but I think it's all media scare-mongering the extent to which this has been reported, the same as I did with SARS and the various reports of Avian Flu over the past few years.

[Worthy4England]

I think there should be some sort of enquiry to establish the facts.

[Montreal Wanderer]

It all depends on the likelihood of death - granted there's over 100 died in Mexico, but when similar numbers start dying in the Western world then I'd agree it's time for us to take it seriously. It could just be a flu that's particularly contagious and a lot of people end up catching. Big deal.

This did not suggest you were railing against the media but rather implied that it would only be a big deal if a 100 died in the Western world. Perhaps it could have been better phrased....?

It could perhaps have been better phrased, but then people still seem to wish to attack my wording well after I've clarified my point - I think that the talk of 30 million doses of anti-virals and restricting flights, etc, seems just a little OTT for something which has two cases in the UK, neither of which are life-threatening. Forgive me if I'm not taking it as a serious threat to my life that two people in Scotland have the sniffles. If people started presenting more serious symptoms and in greater number then I'd understand the need for our MPs to be discussing such things in Parliament. As it is, it's a localised outbreak of a particularly strong flu virus 10,000 miles away, and all the talk of doom and gloom implications to me seems daft. Yes, it's a nasty situation in Mexico, and I won't be going there in a hurry, but I'm not worried about catching it, nor should anyone else in the UK be, because it's just not happening at the moment. That's what I mean by the fact that we don't need to take it seriously at the moment.

If all you meant was it is too soon for people in Britain to take it as a serious health threat to the people in Britain, then fair enough - nonetheless the precautions are in my view justified to prevent the spread. The original phrasing left one with the impression that it didn't matter if a few hundred dagos croaked but would be serious if Western Europe were similarly affected.

[blurred]

That was my viewpoint on the matter, yes, seeing as I was castigating the media (our media) and all the references to the 30m anti-virals which are what our government were going on about in Parliament yesterday. I don't know too much about what the rest of the world's media is making of it - I hope they're not going as overboard as we are about it, with respect to their own arrangements.

[blurred]

Knows his onions, this fella

PROFESSOR JOHN OXFORD, VIROLOGY EXPERT AT BARTS AND THE LONDON

If the avian flu H5N1 virus had spread from human to human like this then I would be extremely worried. It would be top of my Richter scale.

But this swine flu worries me less because as a population we have a basic immunity to H1N1. Outside of Mexico there have been no deaths, so it doesn't seem so aggressive.

And not only are we coming up to the summer, which makes it less likely for these viruses to spread as well, but Britain has enough antiviral drugs for half of the population.

So we should not panic in any way. This does not look as though it is going to be a virus that sweeps the world and causes huge mortality.