Will you take the Swine Flu Jab?

Hikari Kisugi said:
+1 for description

I've had 2 flu's in my life, I remember both of them well, people can average 5 or 6 colds a year, some so mild you might just feel a bit 'down' for a day or two, but a flu you will remember. You'll feel awful and wish it was 96 hours later, or that you were dead.
Click to expand...

Five or six colds a year? :eek: Only if you have poor general health surely.

I usually go years between colds, my last one was a few years ago now so I'm probably due one soon. But it isn't inevitable that you have to catch one.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Not to offend but could someone with a modicum of common sense possibly answer rather than the select few conspiracy theorists as, if I'm honest, I couldn't give a monkeys what you have to say on the subject.
Click to expand...



As of 11th July there have been ~9,000 reported, confirmed cases resulting in a total of 17 deaths from what I have seen. That's only 0.0134% (or 13 in each 100,000) of the population that has been infected. Hardly a pandemic.
 
LabR@t said:
But remember
THAT THE UK IS BEST PLACED TO FACE THE SWINE FLU PANDEMIC
is it me or are we always best placed according to Mr (bulls***) Brown ??
Click to expand...

Maybe we are :p

It was the WHO that said the UK was one of the best equipped places to handle Swine flu
 
Last edited:
I'm in two minds about this...

On the one hand, it could prevent me from getting it or only get it mildly - any reduction in pain is always a good thing. Plus I'd rather not transfer it on to family members who may be more frail than me etc.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure how well these things are tested and if they could have any bad effects etc. That could just be my ignorance but hey. Furthermore, the flu has killed what...16ish people now in the UK.. ordinary flu wipes out way more than that so I still don't quite understand the reason for the mass panic. I agree with freedom of speech but when the media are having such a detrimental effect I think that the government should be able to put a lid on it. Report on something worthwhile for a change!

Plus I practically faint when I have needles poked into me so that's another minus point.
 
Freefaller said:
I can't believe all this fuss about flu.... :/ Geeze, I mean if it was a real problem I could understand, but goodness me this is gettind dull and ridiculous. :/
Click to expand...

Despite media frenzy, there is reason to be concerned.

Nitefly said:
There are two proteins around the outside of the virus that the human immune system detects (Haemagglutinin and Neuraminidase). These can have different structures due to slight variations in the genetic code for these genes.

An influenza subtype has a code based on which versions of these proteins the virus had. For example, if the virus has Haemagglutinin type 5 and Neuraminidase type 1, the virus will be called H5N1.

When we encounter a virus, or bacteria, or anything foreign, our body creates 'antibodies' which recognise the foreign invader to our bodies allowing them to be subsequently destroyed. Thus if we encounter H5, our body will eventually create corresponding antibodies to H5, giving us immunity to this 'type' (but more accurately 'strain') of virus. However, this immunity is limited.

The structure of each version of either H or N changes over time randomly due to mutation. It gets to a point where a H5 now looks different enough from other H5s that some individuals' antibodies cannot recognise the new type of H - thus we are at risk from the new strain of virus. This is antigenic drift, and is how we get 'seasonal flu'.

Now, the real danger comes from antigenic shift. Influenza A exists in many types of animal groups, including birds and pigs. The subtypes in these animals have evolved over a long period of time without infecting humans, therefore no human immune system has a clue what those avian and swine viruses look like.

Let us assume that there is the virus H8N8 is common in humans. Now, the virus H16N16 in birds crosses over with H8N8 in a human which has both viruses. The result could be hypothetically any combination of genes between the two viruses - including one which has all the nasty genes from H8N8, but the appearance to the human immune system of H16N16. The new virus would spread like wildfire and would be extremely serious - this is what happened in the Spanish flu of 1918:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

This is very similar to what could potentially happen with swine flu, hence the scientific concern.
Click to expand...

Nitefly said:
You are most welcome :)

When you are infected with Influenza A (or any virus), there are millions of viral particles (potentially well into the trillions) in your body in certain areas. When a virus replicates, the virus unfolds from its simple structure, replicates, then the genes come together to make new virus particles.

In Influenza A, there are only 8 genes! H and N are coded by one gene each.

If a human has the aforementioned H8N8 and H16N16, both will be potentially replicating in that persons body. Of all the trillions and trillions of particles and 8 times as many viral genes floating around, it will take just one H or N gene from H16N16 to be boxed up with H8N8 and you will have your new, deadly virus, which will subsequently replicate into millions in that one person.

So, the chance of a nasty version of swine flu appearing depend on two factors:

1) The chance that an individual will house swine flu and a human flu at the same time. Considering the contagious nature of swine flu, this is almost inevitable.

2) The chance of the gene swapping as above. As you can probably guess, the chances of this occuring are far from small...
Click to expand...

I will be taking the vaccine, should it be made available to me. There is, however, no reason to panic. If you are fit and healthy, the worst realistic scenario is that many people will catch a nasty bout of flu. It is only those suffering from pre-existing illness or disorders or are vulnerable (for example, the elderly) who are at greatest risk.

Remember, MRSA is a 'big killer', but only to the vulnerable who are already ill.

If swine flu isn't a big deal, then MRSA should never have made the news due to its utter insignificance.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
There is, however, no reason to panic. If you are fit and healthy, the worst realistic scenario is that many people will catch a nasty bout of flu. It is only those suffering from pre-existing illness or disorders or are vulnerable (for example, the elderly) who are at greatest risk.
Click to expand...
No no no no no.

There is reason to panic - or at least be concerned.

If you are fit and healthy you're more likely to be chuffed. Potentially with this strain of mutated influenza (if and when it happens), it isn't necessarily the very young/weak/elderly/sick that are so vulnerable. Young healthy people - that have good immune systems - react most actively to the virus. It's this reaction that can lead to inflammation > lung secretion > DEATH. That's your worst case scenario...

This is what happened in 1918 when 99% of deaths were <65 and ~50% were 20-40. Bare in mind the overall mortality was 10-20% (rather than ~0.1% for 'normal' flu). I'd be concerned. And take a jab.
 
Last edited:
meghatronic said:
If you are fit and healthy you're more likely to be chuffed. Potentially with this strain of mutated influenza (if and when it happens), it isn't necessarily the very young/weak/elderly/sick that are so vulnerable. Young healthy people - that have good immune systems - react most actively to the virus. It's this reaction that can lead to inflammation > lung secretion > DEATH. That's your worst case scenario...

This is what happened in 1918 when 99% of deaths were <65 and ~50% were 20-40. Bare in mind the overall mortality was 10-20% (rather than ~0.1% for 'normal' flu). I'd be concerned. And take a jab.
Click to expand...

I'd also attribute it at least partially to war related illness in that age bracket. But nevertheless, I said be concerned, but do not panic. Of course, the otherwise healthy may suffer, but it is unlikely on the individual scale. Furthermore, you cannot really draw a direct parallel between 1918 and 2009.
 
Nitefly said:
I'd also attribute it at least partially to war related illness in that age bracket. But nevertheless, I said be concerned, but do not panic. Of course, the otherwise healthy may suffer, but it is unlikely on the individual scale. Furthermore, you cannot really draw a direct parallel between 1918 and 2009.
Click to expand...
With respect, the parallel can be drawn easily as it is a hypothetical situation.

50% is a very high number, and you'd have difficulty blaming it on other illnesses and migration effects.
 
meghatronic said:
With respect, the parallel can be drawn easily as it is a hypothetical situation.

50% is a very high number, and you'd have difficulty blaming it on other illnesses and migration effects.
Click to expand...

you do realise of course, and I feel silly for pointing this out as you clearly know, but in 1918, there weren't of course all that many people alive who were over 65, so you'd naturally expect fairly few of the deaths to be in over 65's, because even if you killed them all, it would still not be more than those under 65 who died.

The life expectancy in the USA only broke 65 in 1949, it was under 50 in 1917, and took an unsurprising hit in 1918 as.

Stats can be changed to mean anything, the Spanish flu killed very few old people in 1918, as there were very few old people in 1918, it also killed not that many young people, as infant mortality was also incredibly high ANYWAY back then so not many babies were around as there are now. Many that died, would have died anyway.

So is it now that shocking that 99% of people died were under 65, when 99% of the people alive in the world, were under 65, not even slightly. It was simply a very deadly flu, this one isn't. If it was all to do with healthy people over reacting to the flu(which was supposedly the case with the spanish flu) it would be killing a lot of healthy people that get it, except it isn't. So farSwine flu is predominately killing those with WEAK IMMUNE systems, the complete and utter opposite of what you're trying to say was the problem with the spanish flu, so completely and utterly incomparable.
 
Last edited:
Raikiri said:
As of 11th July there have been ~9,000 reported, confirmed cases resulting in a total of 17 deaths from what I have seen. That's only 0.0134% (or 13 in each 100,000) of the population that has been infected. Hardly a pandemic.
Click to expand...

A pandemic has nothing to do with the death rate!
 
Nitefly said:
Despite media frenzy, there is reason to be concerned.





I will be taking the vaccine, should it be made available to me. There is, however, no reason to panic. If you are fit and healthy, the worst realistic scenario is that many people will catch a nasty bout of flu. It is only those suffering from pre-existing illness or disorders or are vulnerable (for example, the elderly) who are at greatest risk.

Remember, MRSA is a 'big killer', but only to the vulnerable who are already ill.

If swine flu isn't a big deal, then MRSA should never have made the news due to its utter insignificance.
Click to expand...

Nope I'm not panicing, and I'm not concerned and I really don't care about it either. MRSA is a killer, but this has nothing to do with swine flu. Swine flu doesn't kill, flu and illness within weak people kills (and I mean weak in terms of immune systems or previous illnesses etc...).

I'm not injecting or injesting myself with unnecessary crap unless absolutely necessary.
 
oli collett said:
How long have you had it? Have you had the flu before?
Click to expand...

Ive had it for 2ish days now. I had flu a good few years ago. I get ill very rarely indeed. I know I have flu but whether or not its swine flu is unknown - Id hazard a guess that it is, considering I live in London, 1 person caught swine flu from the same party on Saturday and I match the symptoms. Its no big deal, my chest feels quite bad but on the mend fo shizzle.

---

There are so many idiots unecessarily panicking over what amounts to a virus no worse (in terms of death rate) than standard flu. Now if it mutates into something worse (which is unlikely) then maybe we should worry, it hasnt yet for Gods sake!
 
Last edited:
Christo said:
Ive had it for 2ish days now. I had flu a good few years ago. I get ill very rarely indeed. I know I have flu but whether or not its swine flu is unknown - Id hazard a guess that it is, considering I live in London, 1 person caught swine flu from the same party on Saturday and I match the symptoms. Its no big deal, my chest feels quite bad but on the mend fo shizzle.

---

There are so many idiots unecessarily panicking over what amounts to a virus no worse (in terms of death rate) than standard flu. Now if it mutates into something worse (which is unlikely) then maybe we should worry, it hasnt yet for Gods sake!
Click to expand...

people forget, a mutation isn't automatically worse and the chance of mutation is pretty low though increased by the amount that virus's do actually reproduce. Human evolution is slow as well, we live long and reproduce very slowly, a virus will reproduce millions of times in days. But a survivable reproducable mutation is very unlikely and theres nothing to say it will become worse and more deadly, evolution is trial and error, it may mutate into a harmless and more contagious disease, or become deadly but almost impossible to spread.

Nothing to be worried about in the slightest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom