OT-Going on the record about swine flu

[teatsonabull]

Whether it was 11,000 or 8, it was almost statistically insignificant and probably not any different than “regular” flu strains that come around and NOTHING like the “experts” were predicting.

If this thing was so bad, how come we are not hearing of millions of third-world deaths?

C’mon this was a “wag the dog” shock-and-awe operation from day One. You know it and I know it. What’s next from Big Brother?

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
Looks like laboratory confirmed numbers is 1,857 for the period 8/30/2009 to 1/23/2010 (lower 2/3s of the page), and this is all influenza deaths, including H1N1 over the period.[/quote]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people. A friend, who is the chief of internal medicine at a large local center city hospital, told me that through the middle of december, 100% of tested patients with flu symptoms tested positive for H1N1. It was the only flu around. But fewer than 10% of their patients were tested, including only 1 of the 3 in that hospital that had died.

I’m not aware of any significant non H1N1 flu populations yet. It’s still early. So the chances are high that close to 100% of those confirmed flu deaths would have been H1N1. So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable. Which is exactly what the CDC concluded.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
Looks like laboratory confirmed numbers is 1,857 for the period 8/30/2009 to 1/23/2010 (lower 2/3s of the page), and this is all influenza deaths, including H1N1 over the period.[/quote]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people. A friend, who is the chief of internal medicine at a large local center city hospital, told me that through the middle of december, 100% of tested patients with flu symptoms tested positive for H1N1. It was the only flu around. But fewer than 10% of their patients were tested, including only 1 of the 3 in that hospital that had died.

I’m not aware of any significant non H1N1 flu populations yet. It’s still early. So the chances are high that close to 100% of those confirmed flu deaths would have been H1N1. So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable. Which is exactly what the CDC concluded.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
Looks like laboratory confirmed numbers is 1,857 for the period 8/30/2009 to 1/23/2010 (lower 2/3s of the page), and this is all influenza deaths, including H1N1 over the period.[/quote]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people. A friend, who is the chief of internal medicine at a large local center city hospital, told me that through the middle of december, 100% of tested patients with flu symptoms tested positive for H1N1. It was the only flu around. But fewer than 10% of their patients were tested, including only 1 of the 3 in that hospital that had died.

I’m not aware of any significant non H1N1 flu populations yet. It’s still early. So the chances are high that close to 100% of those confirmed flu deaths would have been H1N1. So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable. Which is exactly what the CDC concluded.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
Looks like laboratory confirmed numbers is 1,857 for the period 8/30/2009 to 1/23/2010 (lower 2/3s of the page), and this is all influenza deaths, including H1N1 over the period.[/quote]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people. A friend, who is the chief of internal medicine at a large local center city hospital, told me that through the middle of december, 100% of tested patients with flu symptoms tested positive for H1N1. It was the only flu around. But fewer than 10% of their patients were tested, including only 1 of the 3 in that hospital that had died.

I’m not aware of any significant non H1N1 flu populations yet. It’s still early. So the chances are high that close to 100% of those confirmed flu deaths would have been H1N1. So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable. Which is exactly what the CDC concluded.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
Looks like laboratory confirmed numbers is 1,857 for the period 8/30/2009 to 1/23/2010 (lower 2/3s of the page), and this is all influenza deaths, including H1N1 over the period.[/quote]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people. A friend, who is the chief of internal medicine at a large local center city hospital, told me that through the middle of december, 100% of tested patients with flu symptoms tested positive for H1N1. It was the only flu around. But fewer than 10% of their patients were tested, including only 1 of the 3 in that hospital that had died.

I’m not aware of any significant non H1N1 flu populations yet. It’s still early. So the chances are high that close to 100% of those confirmed flu deaths would have been H1N1. So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable. Which is exactly what the CDC concluded.

[ucodegen]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people.

True, but they are testing more people now, as a result of H1N1 and trying to track the disease, than they usually do. In the process, the ‘tracked’ count is not significantly greater than with other flu(s).

What is significant on this flu is that the characteristics of those succumbing are different than traditionally. Usually, the old and very young are the types of people that succumb. In this case, it was the category of people that usually handle the flu well.

So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable.

Not necessarily. More people admitted themselves to hospitals with symptoms than would have during a normal flu season because they were wary of what those symptoms might mean. This would change the % of reporting to non-reporting and therefore change the extrapolation. I would prefer that they present actuals before they show extrapolation.

[ucodegen]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people.

True, but they are testing more people now, as a result of H1N1 and trying to track the disease, than they usually do. In the process, the ‘tracked’ count is not significantly greater than with other flu(s).

What is significant on this flu is that the characteristics of those succumbing are different than traditionally. Usually, the old and very young are the types of people that succumb. In this case, it was the category of people that usually handle the flu well.

So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable.

Not necessarily. More people admitted themselves to hospitals with symptoms than would have during a normal flu season because they were wary of what those symptoms might mean. This would change the % of reporting to non-reporting and therefore change the extrapolation. I would prefer that they present actuals before they show extrapolation.

[ucodegen]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people.

True, but they are testing more people now, as a result of H1N1 and trying to track the disease, than they usually do. In the process, the ‘tracked’ count is not significantly greater than with other flu(s).

What is significant on this flu is that the characteristics of those succumbing are different than traditionally. Usually, the old and very young are the types of people that succumb. In this case, it was the category of people that usually handle the flu well.

So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable.

Not necessarily. More people admitted themselves to hospitals with symptoms than would have during a normal flu season because they were wary of what those symptoms might mean. This would change the % of reporting to non-reporting and therefore change the extrapolation. I would prefer that they present actuals before they show extrapolation.

[ucodegen]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people.

True, but they are testing more people now, as a result of H1N1 and trying to track the disease, than they usually do. In the process, the ‘tracked’ count is not significantly greater than with other flu(s).

What is significant on this flu is that the characteristics of those succumbing are different than traditionally. Usually, the old and very young are the types of people that succumb. In this case, it was the category of people that usually handle the flu well.

So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable.

Not necessarily. More people admitted themselves to hospitals with symptoms than would have during a normal flu season because they were wary of what those symptoms might mean. This would change the % of reporting to non-reporting and therefore change the extrapolation. I would prefer that they present actuals before they show extrapolation.

[ucodegen]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people.

True, but they are testing more people now, as a result of H1N1 and trying to track the disease, than they usually do. In the process, the ‘tracked’ count is not significantly greater than with other flu(s).

What is significant on this flu is that the characteristics of those succumbing are different than traditionally. Usually, the old and very young are the types of people that succumb. In this case, it was the category of people that usually handle the flu well.

So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable.

Not necessarily. More people admitted themselves to hospitals with symptoms than would have during a normal flu season because they were wary of what those symptoms might mean. This would change the % of reporting to non-reporting and therefore change the extrapolation. I would prefer that they present actuals before they show extrapolation.

[NotCranky]

[quote=teatsonabull]Whether it was 11,000 or 8, it was almost statistically insignificant and probably not any different than “regular” flu strains that come around and NOTHING like the “experts” were predicting.

If this thing was so bad, how come we are not hearing of millions of third-world deaths?

C’mon this was a “wag the dog” shock-and-awe operation from day One. You know it and I know it. What’s next from Big Brother?[/quote]
I was pissed when they chose Mexico to start the hype.

[NotCranky]

[quote=teatsonabull]Whether it was 11,000 or 8, it was almost statistically insignificant and probably not any different than “regular” flu strains that come around and NOTHING like the “experts” were predicting.

If this thing was so bad, how come we are not hearing of millions of third-world deaths?

C’mon this was a “wag the dog” shock-and-awe operation from day One. You know it and I know it. What’s next from Big Brother?[/quote]
I was pissed when they chose Mexico to start the hype.

[NotCranky]

[quote=teatsonabull]Whether it was 11,000 or 8, it was almost statistically insignificant and probably not any different than “regular” flu strains that come around and NOTHING like the “experts” were predicting.

If this thing was so bad, how come we are not hearing of millions of third-world deaths?

C’mon this was a “wag the dog” shock-and-awe operation from day One. You know it and I know it. What’s next from Big Brother?[/quote]
I was pissed when they chose Mexico to start the hype.

[NotCranky]

[quote=teatsonabull]Whether it was 11,000 or 8, it was almost statistically insignificant and probably not any different than “regular” flu strains that come around and NOTHING like the “experts” were predicting.

If this thing was so bad, how come we are not hearing of millions of third-world deaths?

C’mon this was a “wag the dog” shock-and-awe operation from day One. You know it and I know it. What’s next from Big Brother?[/quote]
I was pissed when they chose Mexico to start the hype.

[Author]

Posts