medical examiner, predictably, dwells on technology (and more government spending) as the source of our swine flu "problem"

legtimate newspapers are now admitting that swine flu is, in fact, no more dangerous (in terms of mortality) than any other seasonal flu strain we've encountered over the past 20 years (my pick for lesson 1)

lesson 2 would be that the media followed the government's script about H1N1 being a dire threat to america . . . a sidebar issue intended to goose along support for nationalized health care. "see how well we're doing with swine flu? we can do this with everything that ails you"

but, alas, the swine flu shortage is simply another predictable replay of government incompetance, last on view in the "cash for clunkers" boondoggle - where dealers waited month for validation and reimbursement for killing potential classic cars - and then the other shoe dropped and we found out that actual cost per clunker was at least 5X what we were originally told. Now we have swine flu shortages, which will eventually become cost overruns and an excess of unused vaccine after the flu passes . . .

before some wag says "BA wants you to die from swine flu" - i never said any such thing.

the reason the government is involved at all is that our failure to enact tort reform means that pharmaceutical companies are scared to death to produce anything on short notice where they can be sued for billions when (inevitably) there are a few vaccine related deaths. therefore they (big pharma) drags its feet until some senate committee grudgingly drafts legislation which shields them from litigation for government mandated vaccine. then everyone gets what they want - government looks like a hero for "authorizing" the vaccine, and big pharma isn't sued into bankruptcy if something goes wrong.

this has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with politics and manipulating public perceptions.

why isn't slate looking out for the public interest, rather than shielding our self serving politicians and bureaucrats?

you are nuts. would you please do research on this issue because despite anquished cries from the right because they hate lawyers malpractice suits are a small percentage of health costs.

here is a link to a cbo report that says malpractice suits account for only 2% of healthcare costs.

<link>

do you believe everything you are told in the biased conservative media? do you ever research the facts they present?

i am sitting here with my wife who has it and i am getting it.

this is a bad flu my friend, again, the standard conservative line because they hate obama is that it is not really that serious.

i pray to God you don't get it but if you do, you will change you tune in a hurry even if you don't end up in the hospital.

BA--

Regarding your "lesson #1", I'd be curious to see which "legitimate newspapers" you are referring to. From where I sit, (and I've treated patients during previous flu seasons), there has been an increase in absenteeism, an increase in hospitalizations (particularly ICU admits) for "interstitial lung disease", and an higher mortality in the setting of "flu-like syndromes" than in previous years. As a infectious disease doc, I've been getting regular statistical updates from the state health department that show this to be the case. I've also had two of my partners and about half the office staff out sick with this over the past week--big fun for me! Mind you, no one's been sick enough to be hospitalized, but having significant numbers of docs and nurses home sick is not such a good thing for patient care, either.

Your first "lesson" is mislead. The death rate may track regular seasonal flu, but you missed the part that the demographics are completely opposite. Seasonal flu kills people at the margins of life (the very old and very young) where as h1n1 is killing the healthiest people. This is due to the cytokine storm it can trigger, causing a healthy person's immune system to attack it's own body. The healthier the immune system the stronger the attack. This is precisely why h1n1 is making the headlines and why some people are scared and why the vaccine is so important.

relig:

Everyone save for those in medicine completely miss the point. It is not the payouts that are costly, but it IS the practice of defensive medicine. The last paragraph on the first page of your article dismisses the "evidence" as "weak and inconclusiive." Gee wiz, all they had to do was walk into their friendly neighborhood medical practice as simply ask the physicians if they order more tests or procedures than they think is necessary.

THAT is what drives up the cost of health care. The 2% figure is very misleading.

DvB

- the baltimore sun

- the washington post

- the wall street journal

here are some links to respected universities, scientists and organizations regarding the H1N1 flu being no more risky than previous seasonal flu viruses . . .

purdue university - <link>

university of maryland <link>

virology.com (dr rancaniello) <link>

the new york times <link>

cnn <link>

if you want to conduct your own search, just google "H1N1 overblown" - you have 50,800 results to pick from . . .

BA--

Will try to go over your links at home when I have more time. But, respectfully, I tend not to count getting Google hits as "legitimate research." I can google "Roswell conspiracy" and "Pop Rocks exploding stomach" and get a lot of hits as well : )

baltimore aureole:

if you want to conduct your own search, just google "H1N1 overblown" - you have 50,800 results to pick from . . .

Why do you presume that "our own" search would be like yours, which is obviously a search for the answers you want to find? Instead of googling "H1N1 overblown," perhaps you should simply google "H1N1."

Why don't we google "global warming hoax" and see if we can find out if global warming is in fact a hoax!

Grungie,

My (perhaps incorrect) impression is that the illness caused by the virus is not too qualitatively different from the seasonal influenza variety, but that there are a couple of interesting phenomena. One is that the populations at highest risk are different (skewing younger, pregnant women?) and the second is that the incidence of disease is unprecendented at this early point in the flu season.

I think all of your observations would be consistent with a virus of normal virulence but high transmissibility / high disease incidence.

To be honest I think we dodged a huge bullet with this. Hopefully we will be in a better position to address all of these issues the next time. Given the incidence, if the mortality rate had been anything like previous pandemics we would be in serious trouble right now.

I thought vaccine manufacturers are ALREADY immune from lawsuits since the thimerosol scare?

icemilkcoffee:

I thought vaccine manufacturers are ALREADY immune from lawsuits since the thimerosol scare?

they are ONLY if the .gov declares a state of emergency, which it did back in april.

when you google "global warming hoax", you run into websites that

- inform you about the maunder minimum, and the ongling warming from the 1500s to today

- the fact that nasa refuses to release the actual raw data (temperatures) which lead to its "conclusion" that warming is taking place

- there is no equation that establishes the proportion of C02 as contributor to warming vs solar radiation, water vapor, urbanization, and the diminuition of the little ice age

- the fact that 1934 was the warmest year ever recorded in modern times, and that temperatures were so low in the 1970's that scientists warned of an impending ice age

and so on and so forth

the internet is powerful - if you're open minded and not brainwashed

The point was that you can Google any damn idea and find links that support you. That does not make it true.

You're more fun on Dear Prudie.

baltimore aureole:

when you google "global warming hoax", you run into websites that

- inform you about the maunder minimum, and the ongling warming from the 1500s to today

- the fact that nasa refuses to release the actual raw data (temperatures) which lead to its "conclusion" that warming is taking place

- there is no equation that establishes the proportion of C02 as contributor to warming vs solar radiation, water vapor, urbanization, and the diminuition of the little ice age

- the fact that 1934 was the warmest year ever recorded in modern times, and that temperatures were so low in the 1970's that scientists warned of an impending ice age

and so on and so forth

the internet is powerful - if you're open minded and not brainwashed

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy. Look all over the internets and you'll be armed to the teeth with your talking points.

The point sailed right over your head. The internet is powerful if you're open-minded, i.e., you don't fortify your arguments for, say, global warming being a hoax by googling "global warming hoax."