mirth Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Why is the CDC's account of cumulative US H1N1 pediatric deaths (86) so much lower than that of flutrackers (175)? This is no small discrepancy. The timeframes are the same. What exactly does the CDC define as an official H1N1 pediatric death? Flutrackers' tally of US pediatric deaths stands at 175. http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=127174 many of these had NO underlying causes. Just as a comparison - & btw, pediatric flu deaths are actually known exactly because they are reportable (unlike general flu deaths for the overall population) - these are the historic #'s since it became reportable. These #'s are for the ENTIRE winter season, spanning usually 6 mos. Consider the high # we have already this year, before the end of October. During the 2003-04 season, 153 flu-associated deaths in children were reported to CDC. (This data was collected by CDC.) During the 2004-05 season, 47 deaths in children were reported to CDC. (This is the first year that influenza mortality in children became a nationally reportable condition.) During the 2005-06 season, 46 deaths in children were reported to CDC. During the 2006-07 season, 76 deaths in children were reported to CDC. It's a preventable disease. Shouldn't we try to prevent it? So we wouldn't have this: The dead children thread: http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124781 - news stories, with photographs. Hard to look at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Mostly because flutrackers is "real time" whereas the CDC only updates weekly & only when the state/county authorities officially report the death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirth Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 Thanks for your reply. Is there any reason to suspect that states might have failed to report any flu deaths in years 2003-2008 to CDC? Do you know if FluTracker tallies for those years eventually matched those of CDC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I will post what I posted to the other thread: But still...why would it be THAT big a discrepancy??? I was looking at the CDC site today and they had a graph showing deaths reported during the current week that HAPPENED the current week. I.just.don't.get.it. Where does flu trackers get the info and how do you know it is confirmed swine flu if the state/county authorities haven't made the offical call on the death? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Is there any reason to suspect that states might have failed to report any flu deaths in years 2003-2008 to CDC? Do you know if FluTracker tallies for those years eventually matched those of CDC? I am wondering this too. I am not trying to be critical...just wanting the "facts" of the matter. KWIM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirth Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 (edited) I will post what I posted to the other thread: But still...why would it be THAT big a discrepancy??? I was looking at the CDC site today and they had a graph showing deaths reported during the current week that HAPPENED the current week. I.just.don't.get.it. Where does flu trackers get the info and how do you know it is confirmed swine flu if the state/county authorities haven't made the offical call on the death? I think FluT gets its information from news stories, and any official state sources it can. From http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/ : Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality Eleven influenza-associated pediatric deaths were reported to CDC during week 40 (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana [2], North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee [2]). Ten of these deaths were associated with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection and one was associated with an influenza A virus for which the subtype is undetermined. These deaths occurred between August 30 and October 10, 2009. Since August 30, 2009, CDC has received 43 reports of influenza-associated pediatric deaths that occurred during the current influenza season (three deaths in children less than 2 years, five deaths in children 2-4 years, 16 deaths in children 5-11 years, and 19 deaths in individuals 12-17 years). Thirty-nine of the 43 deaths were due to 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infections. A total of 86 deaths in children associated with 2009 H1N1 virus have been reported to CDC. So CDC's tally is current only to week 40 (9/29 - 10/4/2009). We are now in Week 43. Monday begins week 44. If FT and CDC are both approximately close to being correct, the # of ped deaths has more than doubled in the past 3 weeks! This is a staggering amount. Even in CDC's official estimation, 11/86 (13%) of kid deaths occurred in the week for which they had the most recent information, and that's with only 9 states reporting! I wonder what it could've been had the other 41 chimed in as well! This lag and/or failure to report is nothing short of astonishing. Since my kids no access to vax whether I want them to or not (even if they did, it would have no efficacy for another 5 weeks given the 2x dose 1 mo apart requirement), my only hope is that they don't end up in a hospital needing a ventilator the same week everyone else does. Some Purdue math model study predicted weeks 43/44 would be the peak of H1N1 transmission rates. (http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/us_news/midwest/purdue_researchers_h1n1_swine_flu_about_to_peak_1256138835831) Edited October 23, 2009 by mirth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Yes, what mirth said. Also see my reply #46 in the other thread: http://welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1278639#post1278639 I'm going to be away for a bit so I won't be checking in as often. Stay healthy, everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Thank you both for the great explainations. I really hope the Purdue study is correct. It would be nice for the peak to come soon (meaning that decline will begin shortly afterwards). Gah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Also see this post from FT: http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?p=308646#post308646 FluView is essentially a form filled out weekly with updated information as reported by the various state health departments. I've noticed in the pediatric deaths section that some states report promptly, so their deaths show up in the next FluView report, while other states are much slower in reporting, or wait to report once a month or so. The FluView can only report the information that comes up from the states through official channels. This causes FluView to be weeks out of date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 So, as of this moment - & I fully expect that to change - CDC is reporting a total of 102 pediatric deaths to Oct 17, with 11 of them in the week ending Oct 17. Which you'll see doesn't make sense with the 86 total posted the previous week since 86+11=97, but makes sense when you consider the quote I posted from FT about the time lags in reporting. 5 of the deaths were from previous weeks and only now getting into the report. Just for comparison, Canada's FT totals & the official totals match up completely. Canada's public health units are reporting more promptly and we're not seeing these time lags. We are dealing with smaller #'s overall though so it's easier to keep track of our cases..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHGrandma Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Hornblower, how are deaths being reported that are from pneumonia that occurred as a secondary infection to the H1N1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Hornblower, how are deaths being reported that are from pneumonia that occurred as a secondary infection to the H1N1? All of the deaths being reported include those who died from secondary infections. MOST died from secondary infections, actually, according to the CDC data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 when people die from flu they do often have a secondary infection. Figuring out what the cause of death is, is tricky. We've seen general organ failure a fair bit with this flu. So what do you put on the death cert? Organ failure? Influenza? Secondary bacterial infection? Diabetes? This is why there actually are NO good stats on how many die of seasonal flu. (the #s you hear in the media are estimates that public health comes up with). Some coroners will write flu, some will write heart attack, but the heart attack may have been caused by flu.... There were a few cases I've seen which I think were bizarre in their reporting & went out of their way to list bacterial pneumonia as cause of death, even though the person also tested positive for influenza, and bacterial pneumonia is a common sequela of influenza. Teasing out whether they would have died whether or not they got the flu is the tricky bit. I mean 10-20% of people with HIV/AIDS die from fungal infections - what is the cause of death in their case? The last thing which glommed onto them (the proverbial straw on camel's back)? The underlying condition? The one or more other conditions in between which complicated things? The lack of timely access to medicine? Tricky stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirth Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 (edited) It is obscene that the CDC can allow a national "death gap" to develop, nevermind remain unrectified, when its Canadian analog has no such problem. How can you control disease if you cannot measure it? You can bet researchers at Purdue are plugging in anything but CDC#s to adjust their model. Edited October 23, 2009 by mirth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 It is obscene that the CDC can allow a national "death gap" to develop, nevermind remain unrectified, when its Canadian analog has no such problem. How can you control disease if you cannot measure it? You can bet researchers at Purdue are plugging in anything but CDC#s to adjust their model. CDC doesn't have any control over it. I'm guessing that this type of reporting is much easier to do with a national health system like Canada's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.