joannqn Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) You've got to see the results of this CBS investigation. They found that most assumed flu cases weren't even the flu, let alone H1N1. At most, 17% of those tested for the flu, had H1N1. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5405872n&tag=api Edited October 25, 2009 by joannqn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 You've got to see the results of this CBS investigation. They found that most assumed flu cases weren't even the flu, let alone H1N1. At most, 17% of those tested for the flu, had H1N1. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5405872n&tag=api Yep...and then today, I read that the CDC estimates that 1 in 5 kids have had H1N1 already and that of the 5000 samples sent in, most WERE H1N1. I wish they would make up their minds already! I am all for being scared sh*tless over something if it is warranted, but heck, I am starting to wonder what is true and what isn't anymore! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joannqn Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 CBS couldn't get testing data from the CDC. They to go directly to the states to get the information they needed for the investigation. What does THAT tell you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in FL Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Yep...and then today, I read that the CDC estimates that 1 in 5 kids have had H1N1 already and that of the 5000 samples sent in, most WERE H1N1. I wish they would make up their minds already! I am all for being scared sh*tless over something if it is warranted, but heck, I am starting to wonder what is true and what isn't anymore! I didn't see this yet. Do you have a link? I would love to read the whole thing. Thanks Melissa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TN Mama Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Yep...and then today, I read that the CDC estimates that 1 in 5 kids have had H1N1 already and that of the 5000 samples sent in, most WERE H1N1. I wish they would make up their minds already! I am all for being scared sh*tless over something if it is warranted, but heck, I am starting to wonder what is true and what isn't anymore! And this is exactly why I'm not in a panic. We aren't staying home, but you won't find me at an indoor play place of any kind right now. There's no way to have control over the situation and I refuse to be put into a panic by the media and/or the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joannqn Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 And this is exactly why I'm not in a panic. We aren't staying home, but you won't find me at an indoor play place of any kind right now. There's no way to have control over the situation and I refuse to be put into a panic by the media and/or the government. We avoid indoor play places this time of the year anyway, simply because we discovered that we could guarantee that our kids would be sick two days later EVERY time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I didn't see this yet. Do you have a link? I would love to read the whole thing.Thanks Melissa I have read it several places, but the first one I could find just off the bat was this one http://cdc.gov/h1n1flu/update.htm Almost all of the influenza viruses identified so far are 2009 H1N1 influenza A viruses. These viruses remain similar to the virus chosen for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, and remain susceptible to the antiviral drugs oseltamivir and zanamivir with rare exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I found this interesting as well. It is from a meeting held but the WHO on the severe cases and treatment. It gives a bit of a different demographic than the CDC is giving as far as risk groups go: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_clinical_features_20091016/en/index.html Groups at greatest risk Participants agreed that the risk of severe or fatal illness is highest in three groups: pregnant women, especially during the third trimester of pregnancy, children younger than 2 years of age, and people with chronic lung disease, including asthma. Neurological disorders can increase the risk of severe disease in children. Evidence presented during the meeting further shows that disadvantaged populations, such as minority groups and indigenous populations, are disproportionately affected by severe disease. Although the reasons for this heightened risk are not yet fully understood, theories being explored include the greater frequency of co-morbidities, such as diabetes and asthma, often seen in these groups, and lack of access to care. Although the exact role of obesity is poorly understood at present, obesity and especially morbid obesity have been present in a large portion of severe and fatal cases. Obesity has not been recognized as a risk factor in either past pandemics or seasonal influenza. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 You've got to see the results of this CBS investigation. They found that most assumed flu cases weren't even the flu, let alone H1N1. At most, 17% of those tested for the flu, had H1N1. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5405872n&tag=api I posted about this elsewhere. Here and Effect Measure If a patient has an influenza-like-illness they are assumed to have flu. Some (possibly most) patients will actually not have flu, but will have one of the other common respiratory viruses (adenovirus, rhinovirus, parainfluenza, etc.). There really isn't any treatment for those, and flu tends to be more serious, so cases of ILI are generally assumed to be flu. When cases of ILI are low, the number of cases that are caused by influenza is low. As ILI cases go up, they are more likely to be caused by influenza. Here's a summary for 2004-2008 . The black line is percent positive. You can see that as flu increases, the percent of positive samples go up. At its highest, only about 30% of samples are positive. This is a very unusual year though, and I'd be surprised if we don't see a different pattern , with higher percent positives. Currently, it's about 37 percent. Anyway, it's probably true that much of what is being diagnosed clinically in outpatients isn't influenza. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Here is an article where the CDC said 1 in 5 kids had the flu...and it is followed by an update that "nope...nevermind that...we were wrong." http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/10/one-in-five-kids-had-swine-flu-this-month-cdc-says.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Here is an article where the CDC said 1 in 5 kids had the flu...and it is followed by an update that "nope...nevermind that...we were wrong." http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/10/one-in-five-kids-had-swine-flu-this-month-cdc-says.html Huh. I'm not reading that they said they were wrong. They said it was misinterpreted by the media. Which makes much more sense to me. [update, 12:02 p.m. Oct. 23: Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the CDC, said Friday in a news conference that the data was misinterpreted by news media and that it is highly unlikely that most of the cases were swine flu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joannqn Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) This page at CBS shows some actual percentages that CBS found in their investigation. Numbers like: Alaska had 722 flu test specimens: 1% had swine flu 5% had other flu 93% negative for flu California had the most specimens of the ones shown at 13,704: 2% had swine flu 12% had other flu 83% were negative for flu Florida had the highest swine flu percentage. Out of 8,853 specimens: 17% had swine flu 83% were negative for flu So, we're hearing that if you have flu symptoms you probably have the swine flu but the actual test results (from before they stopped counting) show otherwise. Remember everyone was saying all flu is swine flu because it wasn't seasonal flu season? However, the test results showed that there was other flu going around. Not only that, but the results show that most of the people who had symptoms and were getting tested, didn't have any kind of flu, period. ETA: Thanks Perry. Edited October 25, 2009 by joannqn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Huh. I'm not reading that they said they were wrong. They said it was misinterpreted by the media. Which makes much more sense to me. I see your point. I just think there is a fine line here - I mean, the CDC really needs to be careful about their reports so as not to confuse people. I wonder if sometimes they don't lay blame on the media for their own mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 So, we're hearing that if you have flu symptoms you probably have the swine flu but the actual test results (from before they stopped counting) show otherwise. Remember everyone was saying all flu is swine flu because it wasn't seasonal flu season? However, the test results showed that there was other flu going around. Not only that, but the results show that most of the people who had symptoms and were getting tested, didn't have any kind of flu, period. ETA: Thanks Perry. :iagree: But then, doesn't that make this virus much less prevalent than normal flu? It either does that or makes the CFR much worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TN Mama Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 But then, doesn't that make this virus much less prevalent than normal flu? It either does that or makes the CFR much worse. And I wonder how the massive false negative results are playing into all of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) That also makes the graphs posted confusing to me. Is the CDC just reporting the incidence of ILI then in the graph...of which up to 93% is not actually flu? How are they getting the different colored bars then that discern between types? SO does this mean, then, that there is a HUGE peak in people thinking they have the flu and running to the dr? And then I think about one patient I read about who died from swine flu. They said they kept testing him and testing him and testing him (for DAYS) and the tests were negative. However, the autopsy finally showed that he did, in fact, have swine flu. Huh? How do cases like that play into this? Are all of those cases even really negative...even if they are tested the non-rapid way? This is all so very frustrating. Edited October 25, 2009 by Tree House Academy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 :iagree: But then, doesn't that make this virus much less prevalent than normal flu? It either does that or makes the CFR much worse. Not for October, no. If it were January, that would be different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancer67 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Wow, I just watched that CBS video. That guy at the new conference really stumbled to get out an answer. So, maybe my daughter doesn't even HAVE`swine flu, who knows??? All I know,is that something smells rotten in Denmark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Not for October, no. If it were January, that would be different. I get that...but they are saying things are at a record high and such for this time of year. Isn't it possible, then, that this year's flu season will peak and then level out earlier than most? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 That also makes the graphs posted confusing to me. Is the CDC just reporting the incidence of ILI then in the graph...of which up to 93% is not actually flu? How are they getting the different colored bars then that discern between types? This is all so very frustrating. The colored bars are all lab confirmed influenza. Look at 2006-07 (because it's easy to see the line). The colored bars are all the samples that were positive for flu, broken down by subtype. The solid black line shows that at the peak of influenza season, only about 30% of all ILI samples were truly flu. During the summer, less than 5% of people with ILI had flu. So if you have a fever and runny nose/sore throat in July, it's much more likey to be adenovirus, rhinovirus, etc. than influenza. In January, it's still more likely to be something besides influenza, but the likelihood of influenza has gone up quite a bit. Like I said elsewhere, I would be surprised if those numbers don't go up this year, because this is not a typical flu season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I get that...but they are saying things are at a record high and such for this time of year. Isn't it possible, then, that this year's flu season will peak and then level out earlier than most? Yes, it's possible, and since it is spreading so quickly I wouldn't be surprised if it did that. But overall, I expect more people will be infected with flu than in a typical year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Yes, it's possible, and since it is spreading so quickly I wouldn't be surprised if it did that. But overall, I expect more people will be infected with flu than in a typical year. Thank you so much for all of your explanations and your devotion to answering all of our questions here. You are truly appreciated. :001_smile: 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.