Flu Hits 49/50 States

MetaKron said:
Out of the number of children who have had flu this season, how many would have died even if they didn't have flu? Can we prove that having the flu increases the death rate among children at all? It's a very small number of deaths.
Click to expand...

When children die either directly from the flu, or from an influenza related secondary infection, that is proof that the flu increased the death rate. Do you think that the flu only afflicts children who were weak and would have died of something else anyway?
 
Repo Man said:
When children die either directly from the flu, or from an influenza related secondary infection, that is proof that the flu increased the death rate. Do you think that the flu only afflicts children who were weak and would have died of something else anyway?
Click to expand...

How do you prove that they died from the flu? How do we prove that out of the population of children who had the flu, more or fewer died of disease or other natural causes than they would have if they didn't have the flu?

If you say something like "it just is" then you are not doing science.
 
It's fairly obvious that all the people who died from the Spanish Flu in 1918 would have died in the war anyway. Or of old age... by now. Or aids medication.
 
MetaKron said:
How do you prove that they died from the flu? How do we prove that out of the population of children who had the flu, more or fewer died of disease or other natural causes than they would have if they didn't have the flu?

If you say something like "it just is" then you are not doing science.
Click to expand...

When the doctor signs the death certificate that says the cause of death was influenza, that is proof. The CDC collects the statistics, and publishes the numbers so that us laypeople can have a reasonably informed discussion of how many people died from the flu in the last year, and can know when a flu strain has a higher than normal mortality. I'm not a scientist, but I've no reason to doubt the work of the doctors and epidemiologists of the CDC.
 
Definitely not a scientist. Definitely not scientific thought. You people definitely did not put humans on the moon.
 
There is a balance that must be found somewhere between ultimate skepticism and ultimate gullibility. You use the argument that science is not science unless it is completely skeptical, however, if such were the case, then nothing could be determined whatsoever and scientific achievement would add up to a big fat zero.
 
Asguard said:
Besides weaking OUR imune systems because there arnt as many common bugs around, destroying the good bacteria on our skin ect they also make 'bad" bacteria more resistant.
Click to expand...
When my wife and I spent a month in Mexico she was really worried about the water. She used bottled water to brush her teeth and practically taped her mouth shut in the shower. I didn't drink the tap water but other than that I didn't worry about it. Guess who got dysentery TWICE? Fortunately it turns out that Mexican hospitals are incredibly good.

I'll be fine, I kiss my dogs. Some of them even like to reinforce my status as pack leader so they stick their throats in my face to bite gently.

There's a flu strain right now that has practically shut down Washington. Almost everyone I know has it or has had it, and most of them stayed off work for a week or more. I was out for two and a half days.
 
FR

do you know that children NOT exposed to virus and baterria are more likly to have alergies and Asthma?

Im not talking about sharing needles here but im also not talking about sterilising your home. The more virus's your imune system is exposed to the more likly you are to build up an imunity to those virus's. Just look at small pox, who didnt get it? those who had been exposed to cow pox
 
invert_nexus said:
There is a balance that must be found somewhere between ultimate skepticism and ultimate gullibility. You use the argument that science is not science unless it is completely skeptical, however, if such were the case, then nothing could be determined whatsoever and scientific achievement would add up to a big fat zero.
Click to expand...

It's a reasonable question. Among the flu victims, did the death rate overall actually increase or decrease?
 
Thats so disturbing. I haven't had the flu since I was twelve years old. And I've never had a flu shot either. I hope I'm not jinxing myself.
 
So you better get exposed to some viruses and get your body up to date on that it's not safe and needs to produce antibodies.

And then, there are epidemics for which nothing of the sort helps? Damn. I've got a pretty good immune system. But if such an unstoppable epidemic hits... I'd never claim to be immortal. And since I probably won't be among the first to get ill... I'll die? Damn! Any way for me to, before it happens, help avoid that?
 
no unfortuantly not. I surpose you could stock up on tamiflu but im not sure on the shelf life of the drug so you will probably have to keep buying it untill the flu hits and the goverment pulls it off the shelf. Of course its a perscription drug and will remain so because the health department is worried (and righfully so) about a rush for the drug is a pandemic DOES hit and we need that stock pile
 
Asguard said:
do you know that children NOT exposed to virus and baterria are more likly to have alergies and Asthma?
Click to expand...
I didn't know that particular fact, but I'm aware that when they started drafting everybody during WWII, boys that grew up in rural areas, exposed to "germs," were fine, whereas the boys from the cities got so sick that many of them had to repeat basic training. Even today I've been told that country folk are less likely to get sick than city folk.
 
incidence of asthma and alegergies are MUCH lower among children that have pets and by having pets i mean in close contact (so having the dog or cat inside with the child ect)

Why?

firstly the comanionship can be stress reliving so you dont put the mental strain on your imune system but also because they are constantly exposed to the virus and bacteria.

The same goes for kids who grow up on a farm (as i said look at the benifit from cow pox)

This sterilised world we tend to live in now is bad for us, our body needs something to fight and if we kill everything off firstly our body wont know what to do if we DO get sick and secondly it gets "bored" and atacks itself (its more compicated that that but its a good analergy)
 
The CDC recommends the use of alcohol sanitizers. I've been hearing this more and more with the rise of MRSA.

To the Editor: Community-based epidemiologic studies have shown beneficial effects of hand sanitizers. Hand sanitizers were effective in reducing gastrointestinal illnesses in households (1), in curbing absentee rates in elementary schools (2), and in reducing illnesses in university dormitories (3). An Internet search retrieved recommendations for hand hygiene from schools, daycare centers, outdoor guides, and animal shelters.

To reduce infections in healthcare settings, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are recommended as a component of hand hygiene (4). For alcohol-based hand sanitizers, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (5) recommends a concentration of 60% to 95% ethanol or isopropanol, the concentration range of greatest germicidal efficacy.
Click to expand...
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no03/05-0955.htm

I'll defer to their collective wisdom.
 
MetaKron said:
How do you prove that they died from the flu? How do we prove that out of the population of children who had the flu, more or fewer died of disease or other natural causes than they would have if they didn't have the flu?

If you say something like "it just is" then you are not doing science.
Click to expand...

Are you eventually going to make some sort of point? Are you suggesting that children who died as a result of the flu did not die of the flu?
 
this wasnt the case with the pandemic flu however

The cause of death was actually the persons own imune system which had no idea WHAT to atack and ended up atacking the lungs themselves

This is why the normally "safe" group were the ones who died in greater numbers, they had the stronger imune responce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top