Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do you have any expert opinions to back this up?

I'm no virologist, but based on my understanding a virus will mutate with or without the influence of a vaccine.

Yes, it is true that mutations occur regardless of a presence of a vaccine or not, but if there is a vaccine being administered (or other medication), that will exert a selection pressure (evolutionary pressure) on the virus - much like how the (over)use of antibiotics will exert a selection (evolutionary) pressure on the bacteria.
 
Fear the unknown? There's insufficient information on nearly every modern flu strain, why should we be any more fearful of this one than others?

People, wash your hands and cover your mouth when you cough and quit worrying unless there's something to worry about.

If you think this is just a regular flu, than pray tell why this strain has gotten every disease organization on the lookout

Why wasn't there a massive lockdown on previous years flu?

Oh right, because some flu strains have a potential to be very damaging....

yet you just dismiss it as rubbish
 
Fear the unknown? There's insufficient information on nearly every modern flu strain, why should we be any more fearful of this one than others?

As this strain is a new strain, there is NO immunity to it.

A new strain of an existing disease (or a completely new disease) is always something to be cautious about (even worry about) because if it is highly virulent, there will be no immunity, individual or herd. The entire population could be infected, and there would be no protection as the immune system can't identify this new novel invader.

If it mutates to become more highly virulent as it spreads through the unprotected population (which influenzas have the capability of doing), it can be, as seen in 1918, devastating.

Public health organizations have every right to be worried when a new strain or a new disease pops up in the human population, because they know that if it is, or could potentially turn, deadly, no one will have any immunity to it.
 
Weren't there other circumstances in the 1918 flu. Didn't the war have a lot to do with it. And the swine of 76 they found the vaccine to be more deadly than the virus itself.
 
But we also need to remember this:
Yes, we do. However, that's no reason to assume to worst; to do so would be a logical fallacy.

Yes, it is true that mutations occur regardless of a presence of a vaccine or not, but if there is a vaccine being administered (or other medication), that will exert a selection pressure (evolutionary pressure) on the virus - much like how the (over)use of antibiotics will exert a selection (evolutionary) pressure on the bacteria.
I'm not certain it's that simple. For example, vaccines might significantly reduce the mutation rate of viruses by reducing their populations and therefore the statistical probability of mutation, no?

Also, why then was small pox eliminated by a vaccine? And Polio (in most regions)? By your claims, wouldn't these viruses have mutated as the entire world was exposed to the immunity?
 
Weren't there other circumstances in the 1918 flu. Didn't the war have a lot to do with it.
I believe the fact that there were large movements of groups of people (ie, soldiers) helped contribute to its spread. I've also heard it speculated that war related issues – such as dietary changes – may have led to folk having weakened immune systems, meaning they were more likely to be hit hard by the virus.
 
Yes, we do. However, that's no reason to assume to worst; to do so would be a logical fallacy.


I'm not certain it's the simple. For example, vaccines might significantly reduce the mutation rate of viruses by reducing their populations and therefore the statistical probability of mutation, no?

Also, why then was small pox eliminated by a vaccine? And Polio (in most regions)? By you claims, wouldn't these viruses have mutated as the entire world was exposed to the immunity?

flu strains are notorious for mutating on a whim

the same isnt true for say small pox virus or whatnot

not all viruses are created equal
 
If you think this is just a regular flu, than pray tell why this strain has gotten every disease organization on the lookout

Why wasn't there a massive lockdown on previous years flu?

Oh right, because some flu strains have a potential to be very damaging....

yet you just dismiss it as rubbish
Your entire argument is based on the argument from authority logical fallacy. But still, why not at least backup your claims with links? For example, how concerned does the CDC say we should be?


As this strain is a new strain, there is NO immunity to it.
That's not all that uncommon. For example, it happens occasionally when vaccine manufacturers make a poor prediction and create the wrong vaccine for an entire flu season.
 
It is all a guess when they create a vaccine, they don't now what strain will hit until after it hits.
 
Your entire argument is based on the argument from authority logical fallacy. But still, why not at least backup your claims with links? For example, how concerned does the CDC say we should be?

Because I just posted the information that i just happened to know

You asked a question, I gave an answer

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/04/27/virus-mutate.html

The genetic material inside the virus plays an enormous role in how quickly a virus mutates, which in turn can impact how the illness can spread in the population.

Viruses that replicate through DNA use the same mechanisms the host cell uses to create its own DNA, a process that includes a kind of "proof-reading" of the genetic material being copied. This means mutations occur more slowly.

Examples of DNA viruses include smallpox and polio. These viruses spread through human populations and were often fatal. But once vaccinations were developed the viruses were contained and all but eradicated. RNA viruses, on the other hand, replicate without a similar proofreading activity, and as a result, errors in the genetic coding occur. Its these errors that allow RNA viruses, such as influenza and HIV, to mutate rapidly from host cell to host cell, and make it difficult for vaccines and natural immunities to keep up and prepare for new strains of the virus.

is one such article describing how some viruses mutate faster than others

there are countless others i could find

as i have said, not all viruses are the same in regards to the rate of mutation. the flu is notorious for adapting and adapting fast

edit: whoops, thought you posted about my response to small pox vs flu

as for my argument, I will tend to believe the CDC and WHO concerning thier knowledge concerning viruses over a counterpart argument from a forum poster who has taken a biology course in school

http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/swineflu_you.htm

are some sites giving us updtates on the severity and what not
 
Because I just posted the information that i just happened to know

You asked a question, I gave an answer

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/04/27/virus-mutate.html



is one such article descirbing how some viruses mutate faster than others

ther are countless others i could find

as i have said, not all viruses are the smae in regards to the rate of mutation. the flu is notorious for adapting and adapting fast

That's a red herring and doesn't at all answer the question proposed.
 
Yes, we do. However, that's no reason to assume to worst; to do so would be a logical fallacy.

If you are giving a treatment to a patient, and there is an extremely rare chance, in theory, that the patient could have a bad reaction to said treatment (say, a heart attack or go into a severe allergic reaction), you would say that because we should not assume the worst (a logical fallacy), that we should not be standing by that patient with an Epi pen and defib available in case such an adverse reaction happens?
 
No doubt many of the diagnosed cases are not actually swine flu. However, we are right to be scared.

Increased travel and global shipping in today's society allows diseases to spread very easily. There is a clear pattern through history that a new flu strain emerges and kills several millions of people. We're anticipating a new strain to emerge and try to do the same to us - we thought it might be the H5N1 strain when that started spreading, now we think it might be this swine flu.

Of course, medicine has come a long way. Outbreaks have been claiming fewer and fewer lives, and our ability to contain the disease has improved by improved communication and better medical techniques.

The danger is that these factors counting in our favour will not be sufficient to limit the number of deaths.
 
I shall weigh in with my opinion.

I don't understand the big hubbub over this thing. While I don't think it's a conspiracy with the government being in cahoots with the drug companies (as I've heard), I think it's really been blown way out of proportion.

How many people die each year from the regular ol' 'flu? I thought so.
 
How many strains of polio or small pox were there?

Very few. Smallpox is a DNA virus and its replication enzyme has proof reading activity (RNA viruses don't, which is why there are so many strains compared to DNA viruses). Polio viruses have a single RNA molecule for their genomes, thus rely solely on point mutation for their genetic diversity. Influenza viruses are particularly crafty. They not only (1) get point mutations, but undergo (2) reassortment of their 8 RNA gene segments (like independent assortment of chromosomes in diploid organisms) and (3) can undergo recombination events with same gene segments of other influenza viruses. Each of these three types of mutations is evident in the H1N1 "swine" virus that is the topic of this thread.

As a consequence of this genetic "bag of tricks", there are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of influenza viruses in nature, circulating mostly in waterfowl. The bad thing is when you have exposure of domesticated fowl, swine and humans in close proximity. That is an environment for those genetic events to occur that can lead to the emergence of a new influenza strain.

That's not all that uncommon. For example, it happens occasionally when vaccine manufacturers make a poor prediction and create the wrong vaccine for an entire flu season.

Vaccine manufacturers do not select the three strains formulated in each year's vaccine. An independent committee does. They base their selection criteria (usually two type A viruses and one type B virus) upon the current predominant strains circulating globally. Unfortunately, because of influenza viruses' craftiness I discussed above, they're only right about 7 years out of 10. This year's vaccine (2008) has the following:

A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)-like virus
A/Brisbane/10/2007 (H3N2)-like virus
B/Florida/4/2006-like virus

Next year will be:

A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)-like virus
A/Brisbane/10/2007 (H3N2)-like virus
B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus

Note the only change is the B virus. This is because more often than not a predominant strain circulates for about 3 years or so.

It is all a guess when they create a vaccine, they don't now what strain will hit until after it hits.

Most of the time they get a good match in a given year. And when they do miss it, it's usually because of an emergence of a new strain.

I shall weigh in with my opinion. I don't understand the big hubbub over this thing. I think it's really been blown way out of proportion. How many people die each year from the regular ol' 'flu? I thought so.

The last four global pandemics of serious influenza started in the spring as a mild form of influenza. The viruses returned in the fall with much more pathogenicity. This story won't be known until next winter (northern hemisphere). The 1918 pandemic strain infected almost a third of the US populace and killed about 2% of those infected, and the demographic was young, healthy adults. That is far more than seasonal influenza. I suspect there will be a special vaccine production run for this particular virus because time for a decision is running short. Have a read here and stay tuned.
 
The 1918 pandemic strain infected almost a third of the US populace and killed about 2% of those infected, and the demographic was young, healthy adults. That is far more than seasonal influenza.

Precisely - I was making a contrast between the two. I didn't say the Spanish Flu was just a seasonal thing. :)
 
Swine Flu Testing-Way Slow

In a nutshell, my wife was tested 6 days ago because of flu symptoms, which matched up pretty well with the SF symptoms. Test came back positive for Influenza A.

Doctor forwarded her test to CDC to check for H1N1. Neither my wife nor the doctor ever heard back from the CDC. Anyone else tested? Heard anything? Just curious.
 
Apparently they traced the virus back to a four-year-old in Mexico who was playing in sewage, got the virus on his hands, and spread it to the rest of his village.
 
Apparently they traced the virus back to a four-year-old in Mexico who was playing in sewage, got the virus on his hands, and spread it to the rest of his village.
Seems reasonable.
I found an article correlating this, though it is speculative.

Guardian.co.uk said:
If La Gloria [town where boy played in sewage] is indeed the start of the chain of human transmission, the most probable original source for the virus is thought to be a pig infected by bird flu and human flu. The pig would then have had to transfer the new virus to a human who infected other people.
 
Playing in sewage. I'll contemplate that for a bit to figure out how that is even remotely fun.

At least I had dirt, a rock and a pointed stick.
j54.gif
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.