Is it possible HIN1 (Swine Flu) is back in Ireland?

MadsL

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

So you are basically saying if the length of development was increased slightly they might have found out the dangers?

Huh?

I'm saying exactly the opposite!

MadsL

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

It's a pity!
I have pointed out numerous times that the point of this thread was to get other people's opinions on the vaccine.

And then we have people who just won't back down and realize that it is about OPINION'S.

And there was me thinking;

1. medicine was about science not opinions
2. Opinions are pretty worthless if not backed by facts.
3. That just because you start a thread doesn't mean you get to mod it.

I guess I'm wrong.

ShaneSheep555

MadsL wrote: »

Huh?

I'm saying exactly the opposite!

Whoops, I meant the opposite of that!

Gatling

Viva Las Vegas

MadsL

Red Pepper wrote: »

I think this thread needs to be locked now. It's pointless.

Don't want to respond to my question? It was simple. What number would you like me to use in describing the hundreds of thousands of deaths?

ShaneSheep555

MadsL wrote: »

And there was me thinking;

1. medicine was about science not opinions
2. Opinions are pretty worthless if not backed by facts.
3. That just because you start a thread doesn't mean you get to mod it.

I guess I'm wrong.

How many times do I have to explain this Thread to you?

MadsL

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

How many times do I have to explain this Thread to you?

I think someone should explain boards.ie to you. I appreciate you are new here. You do not 'own' a thread on boards, nor do you get to mod it. So, please stop shouting.

So to answer the question your OP posed.
The thread title says.

Is it possible HIN1 (Swine Flu) is back in Ireland?

Yes, a boy was taken into hospital in Jan 2014 with a confirmed case, but since we have herd exposure to the virus it is not as serious as in 2009. The child could still have died (he didn't) but it is unlikely we will see a pandemic like in 2009. This strain is now 'seasonal flu' not 'pandemic flu'.

However seasonal flu still kills at least approx 250k people worldwide each year and medical advice is to get vaccinated.

Now, if you disagree with widespread medical advice please try to rationally explain why with facts rather than opinions.

Pretzill

In answer to the OP - I have been given the vaccine in 2009 for H1N1 - and for about 15 years I take the yearly flu vac because I fall into an at risk category - I have never had a problem with either vaccine except the H1N1 vac made me nauseous for a couple of days I think this was something to do with eggs being used in the process and I have a sensitivity to eggs - but I haven't had a flu or even a bad winter cough in over a decade so the vaccine has worked for me.

ShaneSheep555

MadsL wrote: »

I think someone should explain boards.ie to you. I appreciate you are new here. You do not 'own' a thread on boards, nor do you get to mod it. So, please stop shouting.

So to answer the question your OP posed.
The thread title says.

Is it possible HIN1 (Swine Flu) is back in Ireland?

Yes, a boy was taken into hospital in Jan 2014 with a confirmed case, but since we have herd exposure to the virus it is not as serious as in 2009. The child could still have died (he didn't) but it is unlikely we will see a pandemic like in 2009. This strain is now 'seasonal flu' not 'pandemic flu'.

However seasonal flu still kills at least approx 250k people worldwide each year and medical advice is to get vaccinated.

Now, if you disagree with widespread medical advice please try to rationally explain why with facts rather than opinions.

I fully understand boards.ie thank you
I never said 'I own this thread' so where you pulled that out of is beyond me.

That's great and I appreciate your opinion. There is nothing to disagree with what you said, I simply said that I (being my opinion) was curious and discouraged because of the 2009 vaccine and I am still weary of the vaccine.

Now this is the end of it because I don't have days to waste trying to explain - my opinion.

MadsL

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

I never said 'I own this thread' so where you pulled that out of is beyond me.

Forgive me but I read posts 7, 44, 48, 51, and 187 as you being rather shouty about the what the rules are for responding to your thread. If that was not your intention, fair enough.

Now. Why are you wary about the flu jab when it is no longer the same jab nor has it been since 2010?

opiniated

MadsL wrote: »

Hmmm..have you been data-mining my posts. My daughter had the flu jab this year.



Sacrificial victims? Whilst I am sorry to hear of your daughter's troubles please do realise that some drugs cause reactions - for example a friend of mine is kept alive by taking Abacavir, yet "a hypersensitivity reaction occurs in association with initiation of abacavir therapy as part of combination antiretroviral therapy in ∼3.7% of patients. "

So the risk of deadly reaction (not narcolepsy) is 1000 times greater in him taking this drug and not knowing if he will have a severe reaction. Yet this drug is still on the market. Why? Because it is damned effective at making you not die of AIDS.

If you want a safe alternative where there are no side effects ever, perhaps homeopathy is for you.

And if we are trading concerns for loved ones my wife's respiratory system is badly compromised by asthma, H1N1 would probably kill her. That's why our family is vaccinated, as is (thankfully) her workplace.

My daughters respiratory system is also compromised by asthma.
That's why I gave her the damn vaccination in the first place!
That, and the fact that I was assured that it was "safe".

So now, instead of one illness, she has two!

Please understand that I am not suggesting that the swine flu vaccine hasn't helped some people. In my case however, it has made a difficult situation ten times worse., and I wish I'd never heard of the darned thing!

My point?
Just that there is never a black and white situation when it comes to these decisions. By all means, follow medical guidelines. But, for those of us for whom those guidelines have backfired rather spectacularly, permit us to be somewhat cautious in future about the "safety" of these vaccines - particularly when the pharma companies were rushed into producing a vaccine.
Some of us have to live with the consequences of that!

ShaneSheep555

MadsL wrote: »

Forgive me but I read posts 7, 44, 48, 51, and 187 as you being rather shouty about the what the rules are for responding to your thread. If that was not your intention, fair enough.

Now. Why are you wary about the flu jab when it is no longer the same jab nor has it been since 2010?

I was trying to get my point across to you. It seemed that you didn't understand why I started this Thread? Even after many attempts of trying.

I am wary of the flu jab because of 2009 even if they are completely different!

If you don't understand that's fine but I have a right to an opinion.

MadsL

opiniated wrote: »

My daughters respiratory system is also compromised by asthma.
That's why I gave her the damn vaccination in the first place!
That, and the fact that I was assured that it was "safe".

So now, instead of one illness, she has two!

Please understand that I am not suggesting that the swine flu vaccine hasn't helped some people. In my case however, it has made a difficult situation ten times worse., and I wish I'd never heard of the darned thing!

My point?
Just that there is never a black and white situation when it comes to these decisions. By all means, follow medical guidelines. But, for those of us for whom those guidelines have backfired rather spectacularly, permit us to be somewhat cautious in future about the "safety" of these vaccines - particularly when the pharma companies were rushed into producing a vaccine.
Some of us have to live with the consequences of that!

Appreciate that there have been issues with side effects since we stated medicine. We cannot simply remove effective drugs based on tiny statistical anomalies (and I appreciate that your daughter is not at all 'tiny' in your mind, nor do I mean to suggest it) .

The risk of narcolepsy that was discovered is 0.00003% or 3 in 100,000. In the US in week 6, ten children died of flu. In one week.

Godge

Vaccines are never 100% safe. they are designed to reduce the fatality risk.

Say a disease will kill 250 people a year if the population remains unvaccinated.
Say the vaccine will kill 10 people a year but if the whole population is vaccinated, nobody dies from the disease.

From a population point of view, the vaccine makes sense. From the 10 people who die every year from the vaccine, they wonder why it is them rather than the 250.

A similar point arises in relation to the non-lethal effects of diseases and vaccines i.e. side-effects. For example, mumps can make young men sterile.

A very harsh way of looking at it is that if you die/get sick from a vaccine, you are taking one for the team, the team being the rest of the population.

MadsL

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

I was trying to get my point across to you. It seemed that you didn't understand why I started this Thread? Even after many attempts of trying.

That's the point I'm trying to explain to you, no-one cares why you started the thread. Once you start a thread on boards, the charter applies, not what you personally want. If you want to control your own threads, go start a blog.

I am wary of the flu jab because of 2009 even if they are completely different!

Why?

If you don't understand that's fine but I have a right to an opinion.

I never questioned your right to an opinion, I'm asking you how you formed that opinion, what facts did you use for example. That's how discussions happen on a discussion forum.

ShaneSheep555

MadsL wrote: »

That's the point I'm trying to explain to you, no-one cares why you started the thread. Once you start a thread on boards, the charter applies, not what you personally want. If you want to control your own threads, go start a blog.


Why?



I never questioned your right to an opinion, I'm asking you how you formed that opinion, what facts did you use for example. That's how discussions happen on a discussion forum.

Once again you are coming up with stupid remarks? I never wanted to control this thread in the beginning?

I was stating that I don't feel comfortable knowing that 4 years ago the vaccine that was used for the same virus (It may not have the same ingredients in it) was used and there were some consequences, this is how I formed my opinion

I personally do not know what is in the vaccine, do you?

Pretzill

Though I said earlier I have no problem being vaccinated regularly against the flu - I also have no problem with those who choose not to be vaccinated. Everyone is entitled to make an informed decision and weigh up the pros and cons.

Having people in the population who don't take vaccines won't affect those who do - it's not as simple as 'taking one for the team' when it comes to percentages...every person counts...those that are unlucky enough to be adversley affected by any medication are those who also believe they made an informed decision and those who feel rightly let down. This, however shouldn't affect the next persons decision to take something after they have weighed up the pro's and cons too.

Cowpox or smallpox? Was an easy choice perhaps these vaccines don't give such clear cut answers anymore.

ShaneSheep555

Pretzill wrote: »

Though I said earlier I have no problem being vaccinated regularly against the flu - I also have no problem with those who choose not to be vaccinated. Everyone is entitled to make an informed decision and weigh up the pros and cons.

Having people in the population who don't take vaccines won't affect those who do - it's not as simple as 'taking one for the team' when it comes to percentages...every person counts...those that are unlucky enough to be adversley affected by any medication are those who also believe they made an informed decision and those who feel rightly let down. This, however shouldn't affect the next persons decision to take something after they have weighed up the pro's and cons too.

Cowpox or smallpox? Was an easy choice perhaps these vaccines don't give such clear cut answers anymore.

Brilliantly said!

MadsL

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

Once again you are coming up with stupid remarks? I never wanted to control this thread in the beginning?

I'll leave it there with this, I think the posts I pointed out speak for themselves.

I was stating that I don't feel comfortable knowing that 4 years ago the vaccine that was used for the same virus (It may not have the same ingredients in it) was used and there were some consequences, this is how I formed my opinion

The current flu vaccine is a different composition and the brand that was linked to narcolepsy (linked not proved) is no longer used.

I personally do not know what is in the vaccine, do you?

Yes. It is widely available on the web. Ask what brand and here is the US list, I'm sure there are other sites for brands used in Ireland.
http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Influenza/Influenza-Vaccine-Package-Inserts.aspx

So yes, yes "we' do know what it in it.

So could you if you spent five minutes reading.

Red Pepper

Red Pepper wrote: »

From your article
"I don't know if the number is right, but certainly any reasonable estimate would be far above the WHO number of confirmed deaths," he added."

"For comparison, they observe, the WHO estimates that 250,000 to 500,000 people (0.004% to 0.008% of the population) die of seasonal flu annually"

So where did you get the number 500,000 for swine flu? Is that your own hype?

Waiting Madsl. WHO said 20k. Your link said more but discredited itself. You say 500k. Which is it?

MadsL

Pretzill wrote: »

Having people in the population who don't take vaccines won't affect those who do

Yes it does. This is exactly how vaccines work

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/pages/communityimmunity.aspx

When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as "community immunity.

MadsL

Red Pepper wrote: »

Waiting Madsl. WHO said 20k. Your link said more but discredited itself. You say 500k. Which is it?

What do you claim it to be?

let's see...

Working with admittedly sparse data, a research team led by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated the global death toll from the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic at more than 284,000, about 15 times the number of laboratory-confirmed cases.

So at least 250k

And the global estimates are:

The total of median estimates of country-specific respiratory deaths was 201,200, with a range of 105,700 to 395,600, calculated on the basis of the 25th- and 75th-percentile estimates for each age-group and country. Another 83,300 deaths (range, 46,000 to 179,900) were attributed to cardiovascular complications, for a total of 284,400 (range, 151,700 to 575,400). (Because of rounding of regional estimates, the totals don't add up precisely.)

So between 151k and 575k

What number do you like?

Which is it?

Nobody knows.

Red Pepper

Exactly. I will accept WHO estimate (The same WHO that sanctioned and supported the rushed vaccine)
20,000.

You asked "What do you claim it to be?" - Are you serious, YOU MADE THE 500K CLAIM, DEFEND IT!

Pretzill

MadsL wrote: »

Yes it does. This is exactly how vaccines work

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/pages/communityimmunity.aspx

When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as "community immunity.

Those who are immunocompromised are those who are encouraged to avail of the flu vaccine - quite the opposite of community immunity - healthier members of the population don't regularly take flu vax - those working in frontline healthcare would be an obvious exception.

Femme_Fatale

Cork University Hospital visiting hours/visitors are restricted now because of it.

MadsL

Pretzill wrote: »

Those who are immunocompromised are those who are encouraged to avail of the flu vaccine - quite the opposite of community immunity - healthier members of the population don't regularly take flu vax - those working in frontline healthcare would be an obvious exception.

That site gives an general overview of how vaccines work. i don't see an reason why healthy individuals should not get the vaccine since it slows the spread of the disease to the vulnerable.

Pretty much the whole US population is encouraged to get a jab.

Who Should Get Vaccinated Against Influenza
Everyone older than 6 months is recommended for flu vaccination with rare exception.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/whoshouldvax.htm

MadsL

Red Pepper wrote: »

Exactly. I will accept WHO estimate (The same WHO that sanctioned and supported the rushed vaccine)
20,000.

You asked "What do you claim it to be?" - Are you serious, YOU MADE THE 500K CLAIM, DEFEND IT!

Could you at least read the text in the link. And stop shouting please.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has put the number of deaths from ****This word is important ---> confirmed 2009 H1N1 flu at a minimum of 18,449, but that number is regarded as well below the true total, mainly because many people who die of flu-related causes are not tested for the disease. 2009 H1N1 flu at a minimum of 18,449.

So those were the case ****This word is important ---> tested for H1N1 and confirmed deaths. Much of the deaths were in areas when there was not routine testing for the cause of the deaths, so CDC make an estimate based on the 250k-500k people on average that die from flu each year and look at each countries estimated deaths.

That gives a range between approx 150k and 570k deaths...

The authors say their ****This word is important ---> estimate of 151,700 to 575,400 deaths represents 0.001% to 0.011% of the world population. For comparison, they observe, the WHO estimates that 250,000 to 500,000 people (0.004% to 0.008% of the population) die of seasonal flu annually, and flu deaths in past pandemics ranged from 0.03% of the population in 1968 to 1% to 3% in 1918.

So - what is your estimate?

MadsL

Red Pepper wrote: »

the rushed vaccine

Can you post your evidence of this 'rush' please.

Pretzill

MadsL wrote: »

That site gives an general overview of how vaccines work. i don't see an reason why healthy individuals should not get the vaccine since it slows the spread of the disease to the vulnerable.

Pretty much the whole US population is encouraged to get a jab.


http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/whoshouldvax.htm

But that's the US. In Ireland the elderly and those with compromised conditions and healthcare workers are encouraged to get vaccinated that was extended to a wider reach i.e pregnant women, children for the HIN1 vax. It maybe a population size requirement obviously with many millions living in the states as compared to the population here.

MadsL

Pretzill wrote: »

But that's the US. In Ireland the elderly and those with compromised conditions and healthcare workers are encouraged to get vaccinated that was extended to a wider reach i.e pregnant women, children for the HIN1 vax. It maybe a population size requirement obviously with many millions living in the states as compared to the population here.

It is also a function of the availability of the vaccine. I assume pharmacies have it on demand?