4 ms·

I have to say I don't entirely see why this is news. Swine Flu is no more dangerous than any other Influenza A infection (Influenza A accounts for about 70% of

I have to say I don't entirely see why this is news. Swine Flu is no more dangerous than any other Influenza A infection (Influenza A accounts for about 70% of flu cases in any given year). It's distinguishing trait is it spreads faster than other flu viruses. But as the article itself says... "The overwhelming majority of our patients have had mild symptoms and are usually better in three to five days," the university said. None of the WSU cases have been fatal. I think a lot of people are confusing Swine Flu with Bird Flu in their mind and freaking out. Swine Flu may lead to more cases of the flu this season but it's still just the Flu. Assuming you don't have another underlying condition you should be fine with rest and chicken soup.

arghnoname 17y ago
The problem with H1N1 is that the general population has little immunity to it, so containing and controlling it is difficult. Had it been more virulent, this would be very serious. Why this thing is tracked and scientists take it very seriously is that influenza can rapidly mutate and H1N1 _could_ become much more virulent than it is today. The extremely deadly 1918 flu had a first wave that behaves like most flu outbreaks before coming back and killing tens of millions of people. That doesn't mean that will happen this time or that people should get panicky. Catching H1N1 in its current state is probably beneficial because it would confer stronger immunity to what might be a family of influenza that could be around for a while, but its spread is newsworthy. If the news leads to more people staying home when they are sick, even if the symptoms are more minor for them, and we get more herd immunity through increased vaccinations, that's a good thing. EDIT: I just wanted to emphasis that vaccination is definitely preferable to catching the actual disease, even if the latter would give strong immunity to future, similar strains.
- xiaoma 17y ago
  The 1918 flu pandemic was H1N1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic
  - arghnoname 17y ago
    I know, but that doesn't mean that they are equivalent. It just means some of their markers are equivalent.
    - Herring 17y ago
      So roughly how do people manage to classify them? I was under the impression they all mutated 100x an hour.

arghnoname 17y ago

The problem with H1N1 is that the general population has little immunity to it, so containing and controlling it is difficult. Had it been more virulent, this would be very serious. Why this thing is tracked and scientists take it very seriously is that influenza can rapidly mutate and H1N1 _could_ become much more virulent than it is today. The extremely deadly 1918 flu had a first wave that behaves like most flu outbreaks before coming back and killing tens of millions of people. That doesn't mean that will happen this time or that people should get panicky. Catching H1N1 in its current state is probably beneficial because it would confer stronger immunity to what might be a family of influenza that could be around for a while, but its spread is newsworthy. If the news leads to more people staying home when they are sick, even if the symptoms are more minor for them, and we get more herd immunity through increased vaccinations, that's a good thing. EDIT: I just wanted to emphasis that vaccination is definitely preferable to catching the actual disease, even if the latter would give strong immunity to future, similar strains.

xiaoma 17y ago
The 1918 flu pandemic was H1N1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic
- arghnoname 17y ago
  I know, but that doesn't mean that they are equivalent. It just means some of their markers are equivalent.
  - Herring 17y ago
    So roughly how do people manage to classify them? I was under the impression they all mutated 100x an hour.