H1N1. 32% of the population will be affected by this?!

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

I had that flu a few years back where it is 48 hours of vomit and 24 hours of crap. It sucked, there was times where it was literally coming out of both ends at once.

Which one did you prioritize?

There is a very important argument that needs settling.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Azure

Holy crap 32% of the population is going to get the flu?

The flu? Nobody ever gets the flu!!!

AAARRGASDH!!!

It isn't an either/or thing.

Some people will get this, some will get the normal, some will get both.

Even if no one dies from this and it is no more virulent that normal flu, there are going to be a LOT more flu cases this year.

I just hope people are considerate and stay home when they get it rather than spread it around the office.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

I don't think the regular flu shot will help you against H1N1.

But just because it's a pandemic doesn't mean it's a "serious" disease. From what I've read it's pretty much the regular old flu, but with a more potent impact, particularly when it comes to the lungs.

Very young, very old, and immunocompromised are the groups likely to experience severe effects. All the ordinary precautions you'd use to prevent ordinary flu should be used on this too.

Not to nitpick, but there is hardly a single thing about your post that is accurate. I"ll elaborate point by point below:


I don't think the regular flu shot will help you against H1N1.
There is no "Regular flu shot". Flu vaccines are produced each year based on the most likely strains to be common/an issue that year, that's why they are always so late in the season and why you need one every year, it's always different. In this case they're vaccinating against H1N1, so it'll be just as effective as any other year.

But just because it's a pandemic doesn't mean it's a "serious" disease. From what I've read it's pretty much the regular old flu, but with a more potent impact, particularly when it comes to the lungs.

This is mostly correct, at least the part about it being a pandemic, except that the biggest problem with this strain is that it has a tendencey to cause severe problems in otherwise healthy people with strong immune systems. That's why there's such a big huff about it.

Very young, very old, and immunocompromised are the groups likely to experience severe effects. All the ordinary precautions you'd use to prevent ordinary flu should be used on this too.

As I said earlier, the issue is that this flu is the exact opposite, in that it tends to be worse for people that are otherwise healthy. If it was just another flu, sure Fox News would make a big stink about it, but you wouldn't see the response from real medical establishments. Is it the end of the world? Of course not, but it does have potential to disrupt a lot of lives in the short term.

[Resolute 14]

FWIW, the Spanish Flu infected about the same percentage of the world population between 1918-1920, but killed as many as 100 million. It was also a strain of H1N1.

[Peanut]

They're reporting that this flu is especially bad for women who are pregnant (immune-system compromised, I guess)... so if any of your wives/girlfriends are preggo then they should be extra careful.

Personally I'm a bit worried about flu season, but it's because I just don't want my daughter to get the flu (swine or regular) since she's still quite young. I'm the hand sanitizer nazi!!

[wooohooo]

In terms of effectiveness, soap and water do a better job than hand sanitizers. So only use those if you have no access to soap and water.

Also, normal healthy people generally have nothing to worry about. Like it was previously stated, only if you're immunocompromised

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Not to nitpick, but there is hardly a single thing about your post that is accurate. I"ll elaborate point by point below:


I don't think the regular flu shot will help you against H1N1.
There is no "Regular flu shot". Flu vaccines are produced each year based on the most likely strains to be common/an issue that year, that's why they are always so late in the season and why you need one every year, it's always different. In this case they're vaccinating against H1N1, so it'll be just as effective as any other year.

But just because it's a pandemic doesn't mean it's a "serious" disease. From what I've read it's pretty much the regular old flu, but with a more potent impact, particularly when it comes to the lungs.

This is mostly correct, at least the part about it being a pandemic, except that the biggest problem with this strain is that it has a tendencey to cause severe problems in otherwise healthy people with strong immune systems. That's why there's such a big huff about it.

Very young, very old, and immunocompromised are the groups likely to experience severe effects. All the ordinary precautions you'd use to prevent ordinary flu should be used on this too.

As I said earlier, the issue is that this flu is the exact opposite, in that it tends to be worse for people that are otherwise healthy. If it was just another flu, sure Fox News would make a big stink about it, but you wouldn't see the response from real medical establishments. Is it the end of the world? Of course not, but it does have potential to disrupt a lot of lives in the short term.

What I meant by my comments with respect to the "regular flu" is that H1N1 is going to require a specific vaccine - which will mean multiple shots if you want protection against both H1N1 and this year's version of the "regular flu". A vaccine for one won't protect against the other, at least to my understanding.

And I'm not convinced I'm wrong about who will experience the disease most severely. It may have greater prevalence amoung younger, healthier people, but the most severe consequences (the biggest dangers) are still for the groups I described.

The major threat of H1N1 isn't so much that it's more severe, just that it's different, and will increase the load on hospitals beyond what they would see from the ordinary flu infections that appear every year.

Mind you, I ain't no doctor.

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by wooohooo

In terms of effectiveness, soap and water do a better job than hand sanitizers. So only use those if you have no access to soap and water.

That's false.

[Bagor]

My SIL (French Family Doctor) is of the opinion that what is happening now is a rehersal ....... for a worse strain.......

There ya go... might as well scaremonger on a bit.

What I'm saying is she's not worried about H1N1 but about the potential mutations.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

That's false.

Is it? (Serious question.)

I always thought hand sanitizers were severely over-rated in terms of flu prevention. I've been under the impression that almost all of them do far more to kill bacterial growth than viruses (ie. cold and flu), hence the reason why consistent mechanical scrubbing of hands with soap and hot water is said to be a much more effective procedure.

I could be wrong!

[wooohooo]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

That's false.

Can you back that up?

It really depends on the studies (hands vs inanimate objects are very different, what bacteria they're testing against etc.)

Looking at a couple of published medical journals
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

I'll quote it "Conclusions. Handwashing with soap and water showed the greatest efficacy in removing C. difficile and should be performed preferentially over the use of alcohol-based handrubs when contact with C. difficile is suspected or likely."

Keep in mind, every bacteria responds differently, so while this bacteria maybe better against soap and water, it might be less effective against another.

[wooohooo]

Also

Here's one specifically designed against the H1N1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

CONCLUSIONS: HH with SW or alcohol-based hand rub is highly effective in reducing influenza A virus on human hands, although SW is the most effective intervention. Appropriate HH may be an important public health initiative to reduce pandemic and avian influenza transmission.

So even in the case of H1N1, it is shown that Soap and Water is more effective than hand sanitizers.

Now if you still think that's 'false', prove me wrong

[Machiavelli]

Oops, my apologies, I wasn't thinking clearly. You guys are right....hand sanitizers are more effective for killing bacteria.

Sorry, wooohooo.

Edit: haha, looks like I was too late.

[wooohooo]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Oops, my apologies, I wasn't thinking clearly. You guys are right....hand sanitizers are more effective for killing bacteria.

Sorry, wooohooo.

Edit: haha, looks like I was too late.

No need to be sorry, it's an often debated subject even among scientists and doctors. That's why tests like these are devised

[CrusaderPi]

Meh, hysteria or no hysteria. Makes no diff to me.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

I had that flu a few years back where it is 48 hours of vomit and 24 hours of crap. It sucked, there was times where it was literally coming out of both ends at once.

Once I had diarrhea so bad that the sound, force and smell of it made me puke. Nothing better then cleaning out the bathtub when you're still sick.

[ricosuave]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Meh, hysteria or no hysteria. Makes no diff to me.

Yeah, I'm more of a pyromania man, myself.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by wooohooo

Also

Here's one specifically designed against the H1N1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

CONCLUSIONS: HH with SW or alcohol-based hand rub is highly effective in reducing influenza A virus on human hands, although SW is the most effective intervention. Appropriate HH may be an important public health initiative to reduce pandemic and avian influenza transmission.

So even in the case of H1N1, it is shown that Soap and Water is more effective than hand sanitizers.

Now if you still think that's 'false', prove me wrong

I think hand sanitizers and soap/water work differently - the alcohol in the hand sanitizers kills stuff, but it has to be in contact with the germs for a certain minimum period of time. Soap and water are actually effective at washing away the germs, removing them from the surface of your hands.

I could be wrong about all this, but I'm almost certain I read somewhere that soap was effective because it mostly removed the germs, due to the way soap molecules work, rather than killing them.

[PIMking]

that flu is nasty down here in alabama. It wasn't that bad in iowa but know a ton of school kids and college kids are getting it. a lady in my building has it too.

one of the middle schools shut down because they had over half of the school out with the flu.

personally im not worried about it.

[JD]

Originally Posted by TSXCman

I got the H1N1 this summer. And I am in the age demographic that it was supposed to be very serious to.

So i stayed at home for 12ish days, lots of sleep and liquids. Never infected any family or friends, just recovered quite fine.

You stayed home for freakin 12 DAYS and you say it was no big deal??? The very worst sicknesses I've had keep me home for a maximum of 4 days. Was the 12 days because you were trying to avoid spreading it or because you were unwell for that long?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by wooohooo

No need to be sorry, it's an often debated subject even among scientists and doctors. That's why tests like these are devised

You are way to nice.

I would have at least bitch slapped her.