WHO suffers due to lack of deaths from h1n1

[Nevarwinter]

It’s panic time at the World Health Organization. Avian flu flopped. And SARS generated more headlines than deaths. WHO wants a pandemic. It needs a pandemic. So it got a pandemic even if it’s a phony one.

But what’s a blood-sucking bureaucracy supposed to do when its funding depends on fear and their best and brightest hopes for human death sputter out?

In 2005 (WHO) rewrote the definition of “influenza pandemic,” which formerly required “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” Under its new definition, a handful of cases and zero deaths can nonetheless constitute a “pandemic.” And that’s pretty much what we’ve seen. The term “influenza pandemic” has simply lost any truly useful meaning.

WHO lied, no one died.

Found here: http://www.ihatethemedia.com/world-health-organization-swine-flu

Via: http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2009/06/the_who_finally.html

Apparently they finally got their pandemic a day or so ago.

[waynevan]

Hmmmmmmmmmm. The regular flu kills a thousand times more people than swine flu (half a million a year) yet it is NOT a pandemic. Weird.............

[homiebrah]

Has anyone talked to WHO about this yet? She may not know...

:))

[waynevan]

Has anyone talked to WHO about this yet? She may not know...

:))

Holy monkey I hadn't even considered that. Scary.

[DaHa]

There are approx 28000 known cases of swine flu, with ~150 deaths thus far, and by all reports it is continuing to spread fairly rapidly. This includes many cases in the northern hemisphere where flu season is over, indicating it is a more resilient strain. Perhaps at this point it doesn't meet your requirements for a pandemic, and perhaps it even shouldn't be labeled as such at this point - however, the purpose of the label is to increase preventative measures and warn people that there may be a problem; labelling it a pandemic after half the planet is dead (pardon my exaggeration) is too damned late.

Also consider it will never be as big a problem in North America due to higher standards of care, so in theory you won't get as many deaths (still potential for a great number of cases).

In essence, I'd rather see a warning put out and not see a problem, then not have the warning and see the problem after the fact. Whether or not it's a political issue at the WHO vs a purely medical issue, I think it's something to at least keep an eye on.

[AZslim]

...............and the evil liberal plot is where?

[nunyadb]

It's KAKA, it's doo doo, in a word, it's horse puckey.
The normal strain of flu kills more people in a year in the U.S. than this
thing has even made sick for chrissakes.
If they want a pandemic so bad, at least pick one that is dangerous.
Good grief Charlie Brown.

[nunyadb]

...............and the evil liberal plot is where?

In the calling something a pandemic when it is NOT
simply for the sake of getting more member nations
to provide more funding.
Follow the money.

[Greyclouds]

There are approx 28000 known cases of swine flu, with ~150 deaths thus far, and by all reports it is continuing to spread fairly rapidly. This includes many cases in the northern hemisphere where flu season is over, indicating it is a more resilient strain. Perhaps at this point it doesn't meet your requirements for a pandemic, and perhaps it even shouldn't be labeled as such at this point - however, the purpose of the label is to increase preventative measures and warn people that there may be a problem; labelling it a pandemic after half the planet is dead (pardon my exaggeration) is too damned late.

Also consider it will never be as big a problem in North America due to higher standards of care, so in theory you won't get as many deaths (still potential for a great number of cases).

In essence, I'd rather see a warning put out and not see a problem, then not have the warning and see the problem after the fact. Whether or not it's a political issue at the WHO vs a purely medical issue, I think it's something to at least keep an eye on.

Spot on! :clap:

[Greyclouds]

In the calling something a pandemic when it is NOT
simply for the sake of getting more member nations
to provide more funding.
Follow the money.

So would you prefer that we ignore all high incidence diseases when they have low mortality rates?

:think:

Knowledge is power. If you seek to blind the WHO because of your fears of their "money-mongering" then you run the risk of setting us up for future health crises.

I think that their response to the H1N1 flu has been appropriate thus far, without causing undue economic stress above what we've already encountered.

[EmergentAurora]

If I recall what I read correctly, in the pandemic of 1919 the first wave was in the spring/summer and was relatively mild. It didn't become extremely deadly until the following season. Given the resilience of this strain, I think this is a smart decision.

[geauxtohell]

WHO wants a pandemic. It needs a pandemic. So it got a pandemic even if it’s a phony one.

This is priceless. People were clamering for the WHO's knowledge and assistance when they feared for their lives, and when it turned out to be less severe than once thought, now the WHO is the bad actor?

They exist to do exactly what they did do during the swine flu: educate the public and try and prevent the spread of disease (and lower morbity and mortality).

Hindsight machismo is not terribly inspiring.

[zantax]

This is priceless. People were clamering for the WHO's knowledge and assistance when they feared for their lives, and when it turned out to be less severe than once thought, now the WHO is the bad actor?

They exist to do exactly what they did do during the swine flu: educate the public and try and prevent the spread of disease (and lower morbity and mortality).

Hindsight machismo is not terribly inspiring.


And to my knowledge they can't force anyone to spend anything. If anyone has a beef take it up with our guys if they spend too much.

[geauxtohell]

And to my knowledge they can't force anyone to spend anything. If anyone has a beef take it up with our guys if they spend too much.

Add to the fact that the WHO never "pimped" the hysteria on this matter. The news clips they released were always reasoned and scientifically sound.

If people want to "blame" people, they should blame our 24 hour news culture.

Frankly, I am just glad this one didn't become as bad as it could and am hopeful that we will always be this proactive in future flu outbreaks.

[DaHa]

It's KAKA, it's doo doo, in a word, it's horse puckey.
The normal strain of flu kills more people in a year in the U.S. than this
thing has even made sick for chrissakes.
If they want a pandemic so bad, at least pick one that is dangerous.
Good grief Charlie Brown.

True - but then, how many people has this strain of swine flu killed over the past year? Ah right, it's only been active/reported for about 2.5 to 3 months. We don't have the data to compare it to the regular flu at this point (we can extrapolate of course). We also don't know what will happen during the actual flu season (this has cropped up outside of the normal flu season in the northern hemisphere), and we don't know whether it will continue to mutate.

Can you tell me with absolute certainty that it will not get worse? The WHO announcing it is a pandemic is a warning that it has the potential to get worse (they aren't saying it will kill millions, they are saying it has that potential), and people should be prepared, and they're basing it on much better information that you have (I'm assuming here you are not in the medical field, nor do you specialize in infectious diseases - if this is incorrect, I apologize and will accord more weight to your statements). Essentially, if you want to believe that this is entirely motivated by politics and not by any of that nasty medical knowledge, that's your right, but I'm going to err on the side of caution and assume there is risk until I have data that proves we're all clear.

[Guvnah]

Hmmmmmmmmmm. The regular flu kills a thousand times more people than swine flu (half a million a year) yet it is NOT a pandemic. Weird.............

Maybe they should be treating HIV as a pandemic and quarrantine anyone with the virus. See how fast the spread stops with that strategy.

[geauxtohell]

Maybe they should be treating HIV as a pandemic and quarrantine anyone with the virus. See how fast the spread stops with that strategy.

HIV is a fraction as transmissible as the flu.

Apples and footballs.

[Maelstrom]

If I recall what I read correctly, in the pandemic of 1919 the first wave was in the spring/summer and was relatively mild. It didn't become extremely deadly until the following season. Given the resilience of this strain, I think this is a smart decision.

Everyone should catch this flu while they have the chance.

It'll provide some resistance when this one comes back in the fall.

[Maelstrom]

HIV is a fraction as transmissible as the flu.

Apples and footballs.

The common cold is not considered a pandemic.

The issue, for pandemics, isn't the transmissibility, but the number of infectees.

HIV isn't considered purely for political reasons.

[nunyadb]

Maybe they should be treating HIV as a pandemic and quarrantine anyone with the virus. See how fast the spread stops with that strategy.

That sounds like a plan.
At least with HIV we're dealing with something that we KNOW
will kill you. This make believe disease **** for money is pure
horse ****.

They didn't hit a homer with SARS, then the tried the "Avian flu",and
when that scared a lot of people but didn't produce any results, they went
for the next one.
It's Ka Ka.

[Guvnah]

HIV is a fraction as transmissible as the flu.

Apples and footballs.

Yet it's far more prevalent and far more deadly.

Why don't you care about that?

[geauxtohell]

Yet it's far more prevalent and far more deadly.

Why don't you care about that?

Because HIV is relatively hard to transmit and genomically stable.

It's not spread via the air like the flu.

The disease itself can be well controlled with education and preventative measures.

The same can't be said for the flu.

Don't tell me you care about HIV patients when you are suggesting a forced quarentine.

[Guvnah]

Originally Posted by Guvnah
Yet it's far more prevalent and far more deadly.


Because HIV is relatively hard to transmit and genomically stable.


Yet HIV is far more prevalent and far more deadly.


It's not spread via the air like the flu.


Yet HIV is far more prevalent and far more deadly.


The disease itself can be well controlled with education and preventative measures.


Yet HIV is far more prevalent and far more deadly. (I guess education and preventative measures aren't working so well...)


The same can't be said for the flu.


Yet HIV is far more prevalent and far more deadly.


Don't tell me you care about HIV patients when you are suggesting a forced quarentine.

Quarrantine protects those who do NOT have it.

If "caring about those who have it" means continued exposure for those who do not, then something is really disordered in that model.

HIV patients can get all the same care and medical attention in quarrantine that they would out on the streets.

[geauxtohell]

Yet HIV is far more prevalent and far more deadly.

Yet from 1994, we've cut the number of those diagnosed and who have died from HIV in 1/2 due in this country, because we have recognized the disease for what it is and use education and preventative measures. The numbers continue to drop.

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm


Quarrantine protects those who do NOT have it.

Quarrantine is un-necessary for a disease like HIV that is hard to catch. I doubt you'll find any public health expert that buys into your "solution".

You'll be happy to know they did it in Cuba though:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/290/21/2875.pdf


If "caring about those who have it" means continued exposure for those who do not, then something is really disordered in that model.

Unless you are participating in risky sexual activities or IV drug use, your chances of catching the virus are virtually nill (about 1%).


HIV patients can get all the same care and medical attention in quarrantine that they would out on the streets.

So can prisoners. You don't see people jumping at the opportunity to go to prison.

[Guvnah]

I doubt you'll find any public health expert that buys into your "solution".


Of course not. It's a politically protected condition.


Unless you are participating in risky sexual activities or IV drug use, your chances of catching the virus are virtually nill (about 1%).


Yet it's more prevalent and more deadly than the flu.

But I do not disagree with the your assessment of contraction vectors. In fact, there may not be a case today that is not rooted in someone's immorality (aka "risky sexual activities or IV drug abuse.")



So can prisoners. You don't see people jumping at the opportunity to go to prison.

Nobody jumps at either situation (quarrantine or prison.) But we, as a society, put those who are a crime risk into prison, and (for many other diseases) we put those who are health risk in quarrantine.

We would practically have HIV wiped out in this country had we employed quarrantine for it in the 1990s.

[geauxtohell]

Of course not. It's a politically protected condition.

And every public health official is in on the conspiracy......

Give me a break.


Yet it's more prevalent and more deadly than the flu.

At status quo. The worry is that this serotype of the H1N1 will far exceed HIV. Since the flu is tranmitted through respiratory droplets, that means it will far outpace a disease that requires blood/blood or blood/semen contact.


But I do not disagree with the your assessment of contraction vectors. In fact, there may not be a case today that is not rooted in someone's immorality (aka "risky sexual activities or IV drug abuse.")

It's not my assessment, it's basic medical science. If you want to call it "immoral", that's your perrogative. It also means you stand little to no chance of contracting the virus, but you know that as well.


Nobody jumps at either situation (quarrantine or prison.) But we, as a society, put those who are a crime risk into prison, and (for many other diseases) we put those who are health risk in quarrantine.

And there is no need to do that in this country for HIV, which, again, as the data shows can be managed through education and procautionary measures.


We would practically have HIV wiped out in this country had we employed quarrantine for it in the 1990s.

Or if Ronald Reagan would have shown enough leadership to tell Jerry Fallwell to kiss off and let C. Everett Koop do his job.

The administration didn't even acknowledge the disease until 1987. That was about 7 years worth of people think it was a "homosexual" disease.

If you are truly interested in this topic a good book is "My Own Country".