Swine Virus (1 Viewer)

[Joel8945]

The viruses seems more virulent (read: transmissable, not deadly) than average flu, but even assuming it's virulence is average for a flu, that still actually makes it rather easy to pass on.

Victoria just got hit harder because a large cluster of cases were offloaded there at once, instead of one or two. It was that 2000 person cruise liner wasn't it? It's also colder there.

No it was just my luck that over 75% of the swine flu cases are in Victoria!

This is going to be a long winter!

 

[MaNiElla]

75%

??!!

 

[Joel8945]

75%

??!!

In Australia I think there is about 400 cases, Victoria holds over 300 of those cases!

Do the math?

 

[youngminii]

It is evident that Victorians are filthy and do not take precautions against this virus. They may be likened to Mexicans, where the underdeveloped nation experienced many deaths due to their disgusting lifestyle.

 

[Joel8945]

It is evident that Victorians are filthy and do not take precautions against this virus. They may be likened to Mexicans, where the underdeveloped nation experienced many deaths due to their disgusting lifestyle.

Thanks!

Its official us Victorians are the worst citizens in Australia!

Kudos youngminii,

 

[JonathanM]

It is evident that Victorians are filthy and do not take precautions against this virus. They may be likened to Mexicans, where the underdeveloped nation experienced many deaths due to their disgusting lifestyle.

Free love, man. Join us!

 

[yoddle]

They just said on a news flash that health authorities expect 200 000 Tasmanians to catch it in the next two months . Altho it is the Tasmanian media so they probably actually meant '2'.

I'm not fazed really

 

[Anonymou5]

No, the wiping their hands on their shirts afterwards would not do anything except contaminate both their hands AND their shirt. The reason you don't cough into your hands is because you use your hands to touch your mucous membranes (easiest attack vector for viruses) as well as other people and things other people use.

Just cut the verbose and answer the following simple question. Suppose someone who I do not have social contact with (i.e. a stranger) is standing 1.2 metres away from me. Am I more likely to be contaminated with their germs if they (a) sneeze with their mouth wide open or (b) sneeze into their hands.

It's that simple. I'm not saying that either of those alternatives is hygienic. What I am saying, is that (a) promotes the spreading of germs a lot more effectively than (b).

 

[katie tully]

Um, and people over 65 most certainly have not been exposed to this strain of flu before.

Yes they have.

Actually, this virus's lifetime is identical to normal influenza, no?

No.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Yes they have.

You need a lesson on genetics, Squires. Viruses undergo millions of mutations each year. 65 years of mutation makes it impossible for this to be the same strain unless it was either a lab accident or... well, that's it really. And we know it was no lab accident because it's a natural splice of 4 different flu strains (pig, human, avian, avian).

"The 2009 outbreak of Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 was an epidemic of a new strain of influenza virus identified in April 2009, commonly referred to as swine flu. It was thought to be a mutation (reassortment) of four known strains of influenza A virus subtype H1N1: one endemic in humans, one endemic in birds, and two endemic in pigs (swine)"
- New Scientist, via Wikipedia

No.

Actually, yes. Almost all flu strains share that in common.

Just cut the verbose and answer the following simple question. Suppose someone who I do not have social contact with (i.e. a stranger) is standing 1.2 metres away from me. Am I more likely to be contaminated with their germs if they (a) sneeze with their mouth wide open or (b) sneeze into their hands.

It's that simple. I'm not saying that either of those alternatives is hygienic. What I am saying, is that (a) promotes the spreading of germs a lot more effectively than (b).

If they cough directly at you (or within a conical area of you), a) is more likely to infect you, but b) is probably more likely to spread the flu to multiple people I imagine (gravity tends to drag infected vapour to the ground pretty quickly in the case of a)).

What kind of arsehole coughs directly at you anyway?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

"The national breakdown of swine flu cases is: Victoria 521, NSW 70, Queensland 23, South Australia 7, ACT 4, Tasmania 2, Western Australia 2, Northern Territory 1."

Total 630.

Victoria just went from 'contain' to 'sustain'. In other words, the total is actually in the thousands and containment is no longer possible.

Considering it's seasonal flu season in the southern hemisphere and Aus has the largest number of cases in the southern hemisphere by a long shot, the end is nigh. Etc.

"On May 22, WHO chief Dr. Margaret Chan said that the virus must be closely monitored in the southern hemisphere, as it could mix with ordinary seasonal influenza and change in unpredictable ways. "In cases where the H1N1 virus is widespread and circulating within the general community, countries must expect to see more cases of severe and fatal infections," she said. "This is a subtle, sneaky virus."[131]

This led other experts to become concerned that the new virus strain could mutate over the coming months. Guan Yi, a leading virologist from the University of Hong Kong, for instance, described the new H1N1 influenza virus as "very unstable", meaning it could mix and swap genetic material when exposed to other viruses. During an interview he said "Both H1N1 and H5N1 are unstable so the chances of them exchanging genetic material are higher, whereas a stable (seasonal flu) virus is less likely to take on genetic material." The H5N1 virus is mostly limited to birds, but in rare cases when it infects humans it has a mortality rate of between 60% to 70%.[132] Experts worry about the emergence of a hybrid of the more virulent Asian-lineage HPAI (highly pathogenic avian influenza) A/H5N1 strain (media labeled "bird flu") with more human-transmissible Influenza A strains such as this novel 2009 swine-origin A/H1N1 strain (media labeled "swine flu"), especially since the H5N1 strain is and has been for years endemic in a variety of wild bird species in countries like China, Indonesia, Vietnam and Egypt.[132]"
2009 swine flu outbreak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[katie tully]

You need a lesson on genetics, Squires. Viruses undergo millions of mutations each year. 65 years of mutation makes it impossible for this to be the same strain unless it was either a lab accident or... well, that's it really. And we know it was no lab accident because it's a natural splice of 4 different flu strains (pig, human, avian, avian).

One possible explanation is that "older adults might have been in contact a long time ago with a virus related to the one that we see now," said Anne Schuchat, interim deputy director for science and public health programs at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Adults might have some degree of pre-existing... antibodies to the H1N1 virus, especially older adults over 60 or 65," she added.

"The presence of pre-existing antibodies may be due to previous exposure to (influenza) infection or vaccination."

A substantial portion of elderly Americans may have some immunity to the H1N1 influenza virus, a finding that may prove useful when and if a vaccine to the new flu strain becomes available.

The question of whom to target with an H1N1 flu vaccine, and how to stretch the supply if it is limited, are among the most important issues facing public health officials over the next four months.

Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Thursday that a study using stored blood samples found that one-third of people over 60 have antibodies that might protect them from infection with the new virus. If further research is able to better define who has partial immunity, those people might need only one dose of vaccine, not two.

"Our working hypothesis is that everyone who gets this vaccine is likely to need two doses," Anne Schuchat, CDC's deputy director, said Thursday. She added, however, that the new study suggests "perhaps there will be some people where pre-existing immunity will be there and one dose would lead to a "primed' response. That is definitely ... something we're interested in."

.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

4) The elderly are resistant to this flu. This is really weird. Normally they are the most susceptible. Perhaps they have resistance from the flus early/mid last century?

4. Anybody over the age of 65 has already been exposed to this strain of the flu, hence the resistance that we don't have.

Um, and people over 65 most certainly have not been exposed to this strain of flu before. Something is certainly at work, and it's possible they have resistance from a similar flu earlier in their lives (most likely not Spanish since that's too far back - more like the WW2 ones) but your claim there is nonsense.

One possible explanation is that "older adults might have been in contact a long time ago with a virus related to the one that we see now," said Anne Schuchat, interim deputy director for science and public health programs at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Sorry Tully, but this is a new strain, and elderly resistance is possibly explained by exposure to a similar but certainly not identical flu strain they caught earlier in their lives. Or it could also be something else like a cytokine storm mechanism.

 

[youngminii]

I didn't know you gained a resistance to viruses by having had an older strain before.. Doesn't that mean if we get this current strain of the swine flu, we'd have (at least) a small resistance to the later, mutated strains of it?

But then everyone's saying we won't have any resistance. Okay, I'm confused.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

I didn't know you gained a resistance to viruses by having had an older strain before.. Doesn't that mean if we get this current strain of the swine flu, we'd have (at least) a small resistance to the later, mutated strains of it?

But then everyone's saying we won't have any resistance. Okay, I'm confused.

Indeed. I would be absolutely amazed if the elderly were resistant to this because of exposure to a previous related flu.

More likely they're resistant because it uses one of the same attack mechanisms of a previous flu but is completely unrelated. Such recurrent evolution is more common than you'd think given the sheer numbers at work here (virus mutation is extremely fast - it's bound to repeat itself at points).

 

[Joel8945]

I didn't know you gained a resistance to viruses by having had an older strain before.. Doesn't that mean if we get this current strain of the swine flu, we'd have (at least) a small resistance to the later, mutated strains of it?

But then everyone's saying we won't have any resistance. Okay, I'm confused.

Apparently exposing yourself to the flu will give you some immunity to future mutations, having said that I can get the normal cold and catch it back again!

At the moment apparently the virus is quite weak against what we have been using against it. What is scaring people is the fact that it practically should mutate into something that may be resistant to our drugs. A few years ago when I was studying biology we were talking about how 'survival of the fittest' allows these bugs to develop an immunity to what we have because generally a couple of viruses have this resistance, then all the viruses who get killed off (through not being resistant) allow for a higher faction of viruses that are resistant to the drug to be there, hence, the viral population will come back again with the majority resistant to the drug.

I am worried about what could be happening as we could be sitting on a ticking time bomb. But at the moment apparently getting this flu over here really shouldn't affect you. I'm really trying to be optimistic about the whole situation.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Apparently exposing yourself to the flu will give you some immunity to future mutations, having said that I can get the normal cold and catch it back again!

At the moment apparently the virus is quite weak against what we have been using against it. What is scaring people is the fact that it practically should mutate into something that may be resistant to our drugs. A few years ago when I was studying biology we were talking about how 'survival of the fittest' allows these bugs to develop an immunity to what we have because generally a couple of viruses have this resistance, then all the viruses who get killed off (through not being resistant) allow for a higher faction of viruses that are resistant to the drug to be there, hence, the viral population will come back again with the majority resistant to the drug.

I am worried about what could be happening as we could be sitting on a ticking time bomb. But at the moment apparently getting this flu over here really shouldn't affect you. I'm really trying to be optimistic about the whole situation.

What you speak of relates more to bacteria and anti-biotics (imagine if the common infection could no longer be treated by penicillin derivatives?). Anti-biotics kill bacteria so there's a strong selective pressure there.

Viruses are treated with anti-virals which inhibit rather than kill the virus. Influenza (flu) mutates so fast that each year it's a different strain meaning our immune systems usually need to learn how to kill it all over again. Anti-virals help the immune system do it's job by either bolstering it or making the virus weaker. Anti-virals are harder for a virus to grow resistant to for this reason - they don't actively kill anything, so there's less selective pressure to grow resistance (the aim of a virus is, after all, to reproduce in the host, not kill the host), and even if it does grow resistance, there's plenty of non-resistant viruses still alive reproducing and competing, unlike with anti-biotics (where the weak ones die).

Vaccines are used to 'train' the immune system before the virus actually hits. Vaccines are actually real virus particles with certain parts deactivated so they won't spread but the immune system can still recognise them for future destruction.

tl;dr version: Worry about anti-biotic abuse and superbugs, not viruses. This virus does have a high chance to mutate into something deadly. But if it does so it's nothing to do with our drugs.

 

[Joel8945]

What you speak of relates more to bacteria and anti-biotics (imagine if the common infection could no longer be treated by penicillin derivatives?). Anti-biotics kill bacteria so there's a strong selective pressure there.

Viruses are treated with anti-virals which inhibit rather than kill the virus. Influenza (flu) mutates so fast that each year it's a different strain meaning our immune systems usually need to learn how to kill it all over again. Anti-virals help the immune system do it's job by either bolstering it or making the virus weaker. Anti-virals are harder for a virus to grow resistant to for this reason - they don't actively kill anything, so there's less selective pressure to grow resistance (the aim of a virus is, after all, to reproduce in the host, not kill the host), and even if it does grow resistance, there's plenty of non-resistant viruses still alive reproducing and competing, unlike with anti-biotics (where the weak ones die).

Vaccines are used to 'train' the immune system before the virus actually hits. Vaccines are actually real virus particles with certain parts deactivated so they won't spread but the immune system can still recognise them for future destruction.

tl;dr version: Worry about anti-biotic abuse and superbugs, not viruses. This virus does have a high chance to mutate into something deadly. But if it does so it's nothing to do with our drugs.

Touché!

Oh and I learnt something. Vaccines contain the actual virus .

 

[JonathanM]

rst off: I may not be a medical expert, however, my parents are. Secondly, here's a source, the Centre for Disease Control (America): CDC H1N1 Flu | Interim Recommendations for Facemask and Respirator Use to Reduce Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Virus Transmission

The most effective use of face masks is probably to prevent already sick people from coughing the particles out, but the masks won't stop the spray completely and are altogether useless once they become saturated (as I said, after about 30 minutes of use, from both the air and one's own breathing). They are also only to be used once, yet many people ignore this.

So what am I saying? If everybody wore face masks 24/7, replaced theirs every 30 minutes (but did not remove it and place it back on at all), AND avoided all physical contact (including with things touched by potentially infected people, such as keyboards, mice, taps, handrails), and washed their hands up to their elbows for 30 seconds (the proper method), then the rate of transmission may drop significantly (we don't know whether face masks would even do anything if they were used!). Otherwise, snowball's chance in hell.

Sorry to bring this back up, but I've been thinking about it. Wouldn't the above only apply to someone who already has the virus? What worry do healthy people have to have of contaminating their own face masks, and wouldn't it then act to mask some flu particles out in the unlikely case that a person wearing it is coughed around. I am aware of the fact that face masks do not provide 100% protection, I remember some doctor saying "they're useless, their only advantage is to create awareness of the disease." I disagree with this - they would provide some measure of protection, not that I'd wear it anyway though; wearing one equals social suicide imo xD.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Sorry to bring this back up, but I've been thinking about it. Wouldn't the above only apply to someone who already has the virus? What worry do healthy people have to have of contaminating their own face masks, and wouldn't it then act to mask some flu particles out in the unlikely case that a person wearing it is coughed around. I am aware of the fact that face masks do not provide 100% protection, I remember some doctor saying "they're useless, their only advantage is to create awareness of the disease." I disagree with this - they would provide some measure of protection, not that I'd wear it anyway though; wearing one equals social suicide imo xD.

When the mask becomes saturated (i.e. after 20 to 30 minutes of use), it no longer provides the protection from outside particles you speak of, making it effectively useless.