Do you think the fatalities in Norway by H1N1/D225G predict a risk of a secondary swine flu pandemic?
The scientific knowledge needed to predict such risk (and that would include virology, infectious disease, pulmonology, and community health) based on the report cited in the original post is way over my head. I'd like to know the credentials of anyone here making such predictions.Are you convinced by the linkage to the 1918 Spanish Influenza. Please explain why.
The only relevant evidence I can find in the cited material from the original post is this description in an unattributed article on the "Bird Flu Pandemic" site (which seems to be a site devoted to scaring people enough to buy all the vitamins, herbal supplements, essential oils, emergency food supplies, and face masks they sell):
One doctor in Western Ukraine was quoted as saying the following about what the lungs of people who have died from this flu look like....
"We have carried out post mortems on two victims and found their lungs are as black as charcoal. They look like they have been burned. Itís terrifying."
This frightening thing is that these reports sound chillingly similar to descriptions of how people died from the Spanish flu back in 1918. That horrific flu outbreak killed somewhere between 50 and 100 million people worldwide, and it is regarded as the worst flu pandemic in modern times.
One unnamed author on a decidedly non-scientific site quotes one unnamed physician in Ukraine and thinks it's "chillingly similar," all the while trying to sell you stuff that would make sense to buy only if you agreed that it's chillingly similar ...
So, no. I'm not convinced.Using facts available to you: Make a prediction for H1N1/09 vaccin effectivess against the mutated Ukrainian flu strain.
According to the sources provided (see the second link in the original post), this mutation was found in "Brazil, China, Japan, Mexico, Ukraine, and the United States, as early as April." That tells me it's a variant that was already out there when the vaccine was produced, not a mutation that has taken place since.
I see no evidence in the OP, and I have no other facts at all, to help me predict whether the vaccine will be effective against this strain. I encourage anyone having facts relevant to this question to go ahead and post them.
edited to add:
From a link found on the first page linked to in the OP:
All H and N sequences [from the Ukraine strain] are typical for H1N1, as indicated in early WHO announcements. There are no large changes. Additional gene segments have been deposited from a subset of these isolates (but not analyzed below). There are silent changes that are in all or most Ukraine sequences, but the only HA polymorphism was the receptor binding domain change, D225G. This polymorphism was in the three lung, as well as the one throat sample. It was not in the nasopharyngeal washes or the isolate grown in MDCK cells suggesting the D225G may have a tissue tropism component and may allow for high levels of virus in the lung.
Anyone able to briefly explain in layman's terms the significance of "silent changes," "HA polymorphism," "receptor binding domains," "tissue tropism," and "MDCK cells"??
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 21 2009, 02:08 PM)
From my perspective, I don't believe in superfluous vaccinations any more than I believe in superfluous antibiotics. Marginally effective antibiotics are now generally discouraged (unless warranted necessary), and I'm not sure why marginally effective vaccinations aren't discouraged (unless warranted as necessary), for the same reasons. But that's just my opinion.
There are significant differences in the modes of action of vaccines vs. antibiotics. These differences answer your question.
Antibiotics (which are much more akin to antivirals like Tamiflu and Zovirax than they are to vaccines) only work for the period of time you are taking them. Vaccines are given once, and create a very long-lasting effect mediated by the bodyís own immune system. Also, vaccines are very specific, whereas many antibiotics are broad-spectrum, affecting not only the target but many other bacteria as well.
Thus, antibiotics are prone to misuse (people who take them only until they feel better, instead of taking the full course), and overuse (in cases where infection is possible or suspected, instead of only in cases of confirmed and identified bacterial infection), while vaccines are not.
Misuse, as described above, leads to many surviving bacteria (the bacteria that were least susceptible to the antibiotic), and therefore to drug resistance. Vaccines are not susceptible to this kind of misuse.
Overuse of antibiotics has the potential effect of creating drug resistance in all
affected bacteria in the body, even where no susceptible infection existed in the first place. Vaccines canít be overused in this way because they are so specific. That is to say, if you get vaccinated needlessly (you never come into contact with the targeted virus), no other viruses are affected in any way.