It would seem I was wrong.ZephrC said:Here's the overstated lethatlity (They mention it at the bottom): http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/05/swine-flu-us-ca.htmlSakSak said:Care to give a source on that overstated lethality and it being no more contagious than any other influenza?
And here's an article on contagion: http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/12/31/swine_flu_may_be_less_contagious_than_feared/
I actually couldn't find the originals for either article I read, so I dug those up with google. So yay, multiple sources. For me at least. Swine Flu can apparently still be contagious after the fever breaks, which is unusual, but you're no more likely to catch it from a contagious person than you are with an average influenza virus.
Well yes, to be fair, the WHO and here in the US the CDC had perfectly sane reactions to it. It was in just the right place at just the right time to be hitting the major population centers at the beginning of the flu season, and because of that over-reporting in Mexico early reports on it's fatality levels were conflicted. There was certainly every reason to be cautious, and it certainly didn't hurt anything to have the vaccine prepared quickly. Part of the reason it spread so quickly last year is simply because it was a new strain of the flu, so nobody had any immunity to it, which is another thing they had to keep in mind.SakSak said:It would seem I was wrong.ZephrC said:Here's the overstated lethatlity (They mention it at the bottom): http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/05/swine-flu-us-ca.htmlSakSak said:Care to give a source on that overstated lethality and it being no more contagious than any other influenza?
And here's an article on contagion: http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/12/31/swine_flu_may_be_less_contagious_than_feared/
I actually couldn't find the originals for either article I read, so I dug those up with google. So yay, multiple sources. For me at least. Swine Flu can apparently still be contagious after the fever breaks, which is unusual, but you're no more likely to catch it from a contagious person than you are with an average influenza virus.
I do note however, that one of those articles mentioned that "Swine flu has sickened an estimated one-sixth of Americans since the novel virus was first identified in April." As in, despite the media furor, increased hygienic measures etc, one sixth still went trough it within a period of roughly 6 months, afflicting not only the young children and the older demographic but the relatively healthy young adult population as well. Not to mention, it did go global in fairly short order.
So I still hold it was more than just an influenza, and the potential for something much worse was there. But, thank you for showing me those articles; it would seem I was wrong regarding the lethality and the overall contagion rate.
Now, I must admit I don't know what kind of media uproar there was in the USA-side of the Atlantic, but over here where I live it was visible, but informational and most certainly not panic inducing. Perhaps that colours my perception too much; I wasn't bombarded with "DOOMSDAY!" messages about it, unlike some posters in this thread seem to imply.
Ah, well, that would explain it. Media does have the tendency to blow any uncertain situation or fact completely out of proportions if it will make good headlines. Like they did in the supposed 'climategate'.ZephrC said:Well yes, to be fair, the WHO and here in the US the CDC had perfectly sane reactions to it. It was in just the right place at just the right time to be hitting the major population centers at the beginning of the flu season, and because of that over-reporting in Mexico early reports on it's fatality levels were conflicted. There was certainly every reason to be cautious, and it certainly didn't hurt anything to have the vaccine prepared quickly. Part of the reason it spread so quickly last year is simply because it was a new strain of the flu, so nobody had any immunity to it, which is another thing they had to keep in mind.
Mostly it was the US news media that was the problem. They tried to make it sound like some sort of killer superflu that would doom all of humanity. It was really, really irritating, so a lot of us Americans that knew what was actually going on tend to get a bit grumpy about it still.
Fine. You had symptoms but that doesn't mean you specifically had swine flu. As people have already said, the symptoms didn't always present as being any more severe than a strong infection of flu.The_root_of_all_evil said:Ok, let's put it this way. I had a huge temperature, no energy, trouble breathing, inability to eat or walk, I'd been in direct contact with someone who had swine flu, and I had to be lifted home because I couldn't focus on walking.deus-ex-machina said:You still didn't answer my question.The symptoms you listed could still have been a bad sniffly cold. Man-flu, perhaps? It was very easy to test for and unless you're a microbiologist and you tested yourself, saying you KNOW you had it still doesn't mean much, even if you spell it in capitals.
Flu's a different set of symptoms, as you get aches and less of the swollen throat.
I think that allows for capitals![]()