I think people mainly died from the Spanish flu and not subsequent infections. I still don't see what that guy is talking about. The reality is that if a particularily virulent strain of flu spreads amongst humans, we're not going to prepared for the initial wave.

Originally Posted by Buttle

I think people mainly died from the Spanish flu and not subsequent infections. I still don't see what that guy is talking about. The reality is that if a particularily virulent strain of flu spreads amongst humans, we're not going to prepared for the initial wave.

The case he's making is that 1918-1919 was a completely different world than today. If you got a bacterial infection of some kind, you often had to wait it out and hope you survived.

Today, bacterial infections aren't as much of an issue since we're so much more medically advanced (antibiotics) and have better hygiene. We're fighting off only the virus, wheras the people in 1918-1919 were fighting off a new virus on top of the typical variety of bacterial infections (which were virtually uncurable at the time).

Originally Posted by Taunton

The case he's making is that 1918-1919 was a completely different world than today. If you got a bacterial infection of some kind, you often had to wait it out and hope you survived.

Today, bacterial infections aren't as much of an issue since we're so much more medically advanced (antibiotics) and have better hygiene. We're fighting off only the virus, wheras the people in 1918-1919 were fighting off a new virus on top of the typical variety of bacterial infections (which were virtually uncurable at the time).

Not every person who had the flu and died from it had an infection as well. I think avoiding the fact that a particular strain could be more virulent is dumb. The influences of antibiotics should be a minor consideration in comparison.

Originally Posted by Buttle

Not every person who had the flu and died from it had an infection as well. I think avoiding the fact that a particular strain could be more virulent is dumb. The influences of antibiotics should be a minor consideration in comparison.

Of course the current H1N1 strain is highly virulent/infectious, but it has not proven that it is deadly.

The flu season for the southern hemisphere has passed and we haven't seen any evidence that the current H1N1 pandemic is nearly as deadly as the common seasonal flu, or the Spanish Flu pandemic for that matter.

Just doing some reading:

The majority of deaths were from bacterial pneumonia, a secondary infection caused by influenza

Source: Taubenberger, J; Morens D (2006). "1918 Influenza: the mother of all pandemics". Emerg Infect Dis 12 (1): 15–22

I know this is semantic concern, but virulence can be described to explain the degree of severity of disease as well as its ability to spread.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Just doing some reading:



Source: Taubenberger, J; Morens D (2006). "1918 Influenza: the mother of all pandemics". Emerg Infect Dis 12 (1): 15–22

Alright, maybe you're right. Buttle is not happy now though.

I just got around to reading the 2nd article. Very interesting.

And I did a facepalm at "Do we need reminding that in 2005 the World Health Organization predicted that up to 150 million people might die from Avian flu? The eventual death toll was 262 people."

Where do they get these monkeys.

Man, I really love your posts sometimes

omgawdblush.

but srsly, you'd enjoy my monday night facebook status updates.

where is joseph moshe????