• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flu precautions, do they make sense?

MRC_Hans

Penultimate Amazing
MRC_Hans
Joined
Aug 28, 2002
Messages
24,961
We had a discussion the other day, at work, about the current flu pandemic.

Here we have posters warning people to wash hands, cough in their sleeve, the stuff. Many of us travel regularly and meet all sort of precautions at airports (expecially the Chinese go through a lot og antics).
But once a pandemic is underway, what is the use of it all? Why not just let go and get it over with?

Well, I once read an article, either in Lancet or Nature, where they theorized that the more difficult it was for a virus to spread, the more its milder versions were favored. Basically, killing your host is really a silly thing to do for a parasite, but if it can spread fast enough, that is affordable.

However, once propagation is hampered, the successful virus must have its victims stay in circulation as much as possible, to get a chance to spread.

So, all the things we do to hamper the spread of H1N1, may actually work. Not necessarily to lower the final tally when it comes to cases, but the number of fatalities and workdays lost may well get much lower.

Hans
 
Here's something interesting that doesn't seem to get out in the media much --- elderly people may already be immunized to a degree.

Link

New evidence suggests that people in their 60s might be somewhat protected against the spreading swine flu because they may have been exposed earlier to a similar strain, government health officials said.
Click to expand...
 
All I know is if I see one more entity (like a school system) say that they will have plenty of anti-bacterial hand-sanitizer to respond to/prevent Swine flu my head will explode.
 
Um, wash your hands, don't cough on other people.

I work in grade schools, so i wash my hands before touching my face.

I don't use hand sanitizer but having seen the hand washing skills of children, it does have it's uses.

(It makes a great BBQ sauce.)
 
I wonder how many germs there are on the push button of the hand sanitizers?
 
On the other hand (ahem), in the U.S. the big question is the timing--will this become pretty widespread before we get the vaccine?

Even if the sneeze into your elbow advice only delays it a little, that might be an important delay.

ETA: But I agree, hand sanitizers don't make a lot of sense. I think scheduling time for real handwashing is more important. But most of all, getting the message out to stay home when you're sick.
 
Last edited:
Just thinking said:
Or on the door you must touch in order to open it on the way out ... some require the use of a door knob.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to be in the wc anyway, the point is that you sould clean up afterwards - it's just as much intended to prevent spreading your germs to other people.

If you've washed your hands, you leave fewer germs on the doorknob for the next guy.
 
Hmmm...100000 flu patients in 1month or 100000 flu patients in 1 week? Which is better?
 
MRC_Hans said:
We had a discussion the other day, at work, about the current flu pandemic.

Here we have posters warning people to wash hands, cough in their sleeve, the stuff. Many of us travel regularly and meet all sort of precautions at airports (expecially the Chinese go through a lot og antics).
But once a pandemic is underway, what is the use of it all? Why not just let go and get it over with?

Well, I once read an article, either in Lancet or Nature, where they theorized that the more difficult it was for a virus to spread, the more its milder versions were favored. Basically, killing your host is really a silly thing to do for a parasite, but if it can spread fast enough, that is affordable.

However, once propagation is hampered, the successful virus must have its victims stay in circulation as much as possible, to get a chance to spread.

So, all the things we do to hamper the spread of H1N1, may actually work. Not necessarily to lower the final tally when it comes to cases, but the number of fatalities and workdays lost may well get much lower.

Hans
Click to expand...

No, velocity of propagation will influence total morbidity and mortality for a variety of reasons. Reduced demand on the medical system will improve individual outcomes, for example.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Well, I once read an article, either in Lancet or Nature, where they theorized that the more difficult it was for a virus to spread, the more its milder versions were favored. Basically, killing your host is really a silly thing to do for a parasite, but if it can spread fast enough, that is affordable.

Hans
Click to expand...

Any chance at all you can find out where/what this was?

It fits well with a theory I have going on why reported infection rates have dropped when they should be sharply increasing.

blutoski said:
No, velocity of propagation will influence total morbidity and mortality for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...

Does this have anything to do with reducing severity? Please clarify. I know what you mean about reduced mortality, we've seen that with all novel viruses, but I'm not sure whether you're saying the severity is decreased.

blutoski said:
Reduced demand on the medical system will improve individual outcomes, for example.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really fit a pandemic scenario. Hospitals here and in Oz were stretched, but not quite as badly as feared. It's hardly going to improve outcomes, even taking heed of improved clinical responses.
 
The more hosts infected, the more chances it will mutate into the dreaded deadlier version. Stop the spread of the bug, and stop the chance it will mutate. It would be best if everyone were vaccinated before we have yet another seasonal flu bug every year to contend with. However, with all the antivaccinators and other folks who can't get the vaccine, that is not realistic, so try not to spread the misery, even if your version of it is mild for now.

So, please do what you can to make sure you don't get infected. If you are, then please make some effort to control the spread. The less bugs spread around, the less mutants will be made of them.

No flu parties please. I have yet to see one offered, but I'm waiting for some nut to start one and advertise it is better to spread the milder version while ignoring the fact that it could be mild for them, but they could then pass on a deadlier mutation to their party attendees. Wouldn't be interesting if 50% of those party goers then died of flu, kicking off the dreaded deadly second wave? Oh wouldn't that be fun!
 
The Atheist said:
Does this have anything to do with reducing severity? Please clarify. I know what you mean about reduced mortality, we've seen that with all novel viruses, but I'm not sure whether you're saying the severity is decreased.

Doesn't really fit a pandemic scenario. Hospitals here and in Oz were stretched, but not quite as badly as feared. It's hardly going to improve outcomes, even taking heed of improved clinical responses.
Click to expand...

Well, this is very hypothetical at this point, right? Precautions are intended to prevent a worst-case-scenario.
 
blutoski said:
Well, if you're going to be in the wc anyway, the point is that you sould clean up afterwards - it's just as much intended to prevent spreading your germs to other people.

If you've washed your hands, you leave fewer germs on the doorknob for the next guy.
Click to expand...


Which is why I think washbasins should be outside the toilet area and you should be able to get back into the public area without touching any doors. Also you should be able to turn off the tap without touching anything. I have seen some with sensors that detect your hand and turn on. They are a bit of a pain but at least I do not have to touch anything for them to work.
 
The Atheist said:
Ok. Your first post seemed unequivocal rather than speculative.
Click to expand...

It's unequivocal that it would reduce m&m in a serious outbreak.

It's speculative as to whether there will be a serious outbreak.


Analogy:

It's unequivocal that helmets protect you in a bike crash.

It's speculative as to whether you will have a bike crash.
 
While it's generally true that a successful parasite has no incentive to kill its host, we must first define "success".
When we study viruses , or any DNA transmitter (DNAT for short- covers everything while sidestepping the living/non-living debate) - we define success as long term longevity . (Transmission fidelity is in there too- a fly with 3 legs and opposable thumbs, however successful, damn well isn't a FLY any more!

There's a radically different way to define success though. Reproductive fecundity.

A virus which was so infectious as to get into every human on Earth inside six months would be amazingly successful from the fecundity POV.
If it was utterly harmless to humans, it would go right on being successful so long as humans were around. It might even end up storing its DNA as HERV and so becoming human.


But what if it had a 100% lethality rate inside a year?

Rat scientists of the year 900,000 might never know about it , so by one definition it was not "successful".
But it would be damnably successful for a short time.

We might call it the "Achilles" Virus. Short lived, but glorious.
 
I put this comment in the wrong thread, I think. I have to leave it there since someone else commented on it, but I'll reproduce it here:

My girlfriend, who is a nurse at a large teaching hospital, told me they've taken out the hand washing sinks in patient rooms and replaced them with hands-free hand sanitizer dispensers.

More outrageous than that--she told me last week she was a bit stressed because two of her co-workers (nurses) were sick with the flu but at work anyway.*

She also pointed out that over half of health care providers choose not to get vaccinated .

My response to that was, "I wonder how they define 'health care providers'? If it includes chiropractors, massage 'therapists' and other kinds of quacks, then I'm not so surprised." She tells me that her impression is that at least 1/4 of nurses refuse to get vaccinated. (They have to sign a waiver that says they don't want it.)

Don't they have to take a course in public health?

*ETA: She defended her co-workers by pointing to hospital policy that basically punishes workers for using their sick days when they're sick.
 
The pulse poll didn't even verify if people were actually health care providers or not. They were relying only on the claims of their readers when they log onto the site. It even asked me if what kind of provider I was (nurse, doctor, etc.) Anyone could lie. It's over the internet!!

Oh, and your link then links to a stupid nurse claiming the vaccine made her sick. If you get sick within a week or two of getting the vaccine, then that wasn't enough time for it to work, and you got sick from getting the actual virus. The flu vaccine is a dead viral vaccine and cannot make you sick.

It's darn scary nurses don't know the basics!! Nice education system we have. Their educations teach them the exact opposite of critical thinking and to eat up sCAM nonsense. Then to they go onto to just spread the ignorance. We as a species are too stupid to continue, I swear.

http://chp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/2/127

http://www.journaldatabase.org/articles/91286/Complementary_and_Alterna.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom