Similar to Spanish Flu?

[SphinYote]

OK, I haven't gone searching for the article yet, but I've seen this come up in the comments section of a number of articles on the Swine Flu.

Claims that it is similar to the Spanish Flu, the 1818 outbreak.

My assumption is that they mean genetic.

And these people are trying to use this as a reason as to why it's such a serious threat.

OK, lets break this down.

First of all, other articles state that this is a strain never before seen, with components never before seen together. Makes it unlikely that it's related to Spanish flu genetically (unless perhaps the researchers are looking at different parts of the genome). So, it's not likely that it's related.

Now, lets suppose they are related.

So, these people think that it's something to be frightened of, because the Spanish flu killed so many people over such a long period of time (2 years).

OK, so it killed a lot of people.

Those who were susceptible to it.

Leaving behind those who had stronger immune systems, a resistance to it.

We are descendants of the people resistant to it (and some of those survivors are still alive today).

We would therefore probably inherit whatever made them resistant to it.

Therefore, if this flu is related to Spanish Flu, then we would be less likely to die from it or get ill.

So tell me again why we should be more afraid rather than less. I don't get it.

Seems to me, it would be greatly in our favor if it was related to the Spanish flu, rather than anything to be afraid of.

Yote

[spiral]

Well, some genetic testing has suggested that the 1918 Spanish influenza was a type of bird flu, so I guess they're only similar in that they were transmitted from animals to humans.

[bigolalaskan]

I haven't seen anything comparing this to the Spanish flu, but I haven't been looking.

From what I have read, this isn't genetically related to anything. Its a hybrid of swine, avian, & human virus' that have not seen before, thus giving us human's no natural immunity to it.

That probably would be where the comparison is. I do know the Spanish flu was very random at who it killed. My grandfather lost his parents to the epidemic when he was 4. None of the four kids were effected, however, both parents died. I think it was three or four days before someone came and checked on them and find the kids alone on the homestead.

My guess is it has the potential to be a deadly killer like 1918. On our side, we have antibiotics & antivirials they didn't have then, we have a decent health care system (if you have the money or insurance), unlike mexico residents.

Against us, I would guess is the number of asthmatics in this country and what a particularily nasty flu virus will do to them, no matter how many antibiotics or anti-virals we have . . .

[Shanti]

Those that survived then do not help our genes today.
First of all, the ones that died, didnt have to be that sick. It was a high death toll because medicine sucked back then!! Literally it was useless.
They didnt have antivirals nor have a clue how to care for flu patients. They had no understanding of viruses back then.

The ones that survived simply did because it wasnt their time to succumb to natures natural way of knocking down the numbers.

Viruses are fairly unpredictable. You can get a severe virus and recover fine but yet succumb to a mild form at a different time.

Today we have much better chances at surviving flu's than ever before. We know how to take care of ourselves and what to watch for so we know when to seek medical help.
We have medically advanced supportive care when need and we do have meds now and more being made.

Our last 'modern' pandemic was 1968. I lived through that one but thats doesnt mean my kids would if it came again. Flu immunity wears off so even I would be at risk, again.
1 million people died. Thats sounds like a lot, but that was 'world wide'. Considering the amount of people in the world, that isnt so bad.
Every year, here in the states, tens of 'thousands' die from common flu. No one is panicking every year because of that!

No reason to panic now.

Use the same practice of good health habits now just like you should be doing in every flu season.

[Infinite Grey]

OK, I haven't gone searching for the article yet, but I've seen this come up in the comments section of a number of articles on the Swine Flu.

Claims that it is similar to the Spanish Flu, the 1818 outbreak.

1918


My assumption is that they mean genetic.

And that assumption would be wrong. The similarities lie in the path and severity the virus is taking.


And these people are trying to use this as a reason as to why it's such a serious threat.

Not the articles I've read.


OK, lets break this down.

Ok lets.


First of all, other articles state that this is a strain never before seen, with components never before seen together. Makes it unlikely that it's related to Spanish flu genetically (unless perhaps the researchers are looking at different parts of the genome). So, it's not likely that it's related.

No shit Sherlock.


Now, lets suppose they are related.

Well actually they are related - all flu viruses are.


So, these people think that it's something to be frightened of, because the Spanish flu killed so many people over such a long period of time (2 years).


Actually it killed a lot of people in a very short time. 50 million in 6 months - the pandemic lasted 18 months.


OK, so it killed a lot of people.

It did indeed.


Those who were susceptible to it.

A significant percentage of the population.


Leaving behind those who had stronger immune systems, a resistance to it.


Yes and no. Not everyone was exposed to the virus, others were resistant, others immune. So what?


We are descendants of the people resistant to it (and some of those survivors are still alive today).

Not necessarily. Only about 40% of the global population (which is massive) were exposed to the Spanish Flu... only about 20 to 25% were infected (still a massive number). It is quite possible that most of us are not descendants of the survivors.


We would therefore probably inherit whatever made them resistant to it.

Irrelevant. Viruses mutate at an alarming rate - that is why herd vaccination is so important to prevent mutations.



Therefore, if this flu is related to Spanish Flu, then we would be less likely to die from it or get ill.

Perhaps you should look into germ theory... particularly on the mutation rate of viruses, particularly the influenza virus.



So tell me again why we should be more afraid rather than less. I don't get it.

We should not be "afraid" yet, we should be cautious.

As I posted in another thread, most of these influenza viruses are caught in stage 2(Animal to Animal) or 3(Animal to Human) and contained... preventing the virus from further mutating. This one made it to Stage 4 (Human to Human) before it was identified and has caused the death of healthy young adults; i.e. those with the strongest immune systems of any age bracket. This is a source of great concern.

It does not matter if this virus is simply the great great great great great great great great grandson of the Spanish Flu; it is significantly mutated to now pose a threat - even to the descendants of the survivors.



Seems to me, it would be greatly in our favor if it was related to the Spanish flu, rather than anything to be afraid of.

All viruses are related. The comparisons are to the effect and source; not their genetic similarities, which become irrelevant to a large degree in the face of an aggressive acting virus.

[SphinYote]

Thanks for clarification on whether the parallel people were drawing was genetic or not. And the date I gave was a typo, thanks.

Yeah, I know all about the mutation rate, and I never said it was nothing to be concerned about.

Viruses mutate, and a single mutation can cause devastating effects....I know flu has a particularly high mutation rate and that's one of the concerns about it. But all viruses run the chance of mutating (and I don't know if they can do what bacteria do and assimilate genetic material from other organisms....I doubt it, but I imagine a bacteria could make use of the viral genes if it got around the protein coat, if not necessarily the reverse).

I haven't looked at the most recent articles since yesterday afternoon yet, but my guess is that still most of the deaths were in Mexico and only in Mexico. And probably, if anyone were to test the bodies again, I'd be willing to bet they'd find other problems, infections, weak immune systems from before the flu virus.

My gripe is with everyone pulling every link in as a reason to panic before we even see what happens.

Like any sickness, it's a reason for concern for people with already weakened immune systems, elderly and children.

But thus far, outside of Mexico (again, unless something came up since yesterday afternoon), the death rate is still far lower than even normal strains of flu virus.

At this point, comparing it to the Spanish flu just seems calculated to make people panic, and I can see more people getting concerned over a cough or fever, going to the hospital or doctor, finding out they don't have the flu, but picking something else up at the hospital. Seems to me, all we're doing is causing the ill to cluster and exchange any other little sickness that's floating around.

Then, if the flu really does hit like everyone is panicking over, well, we'll have a self-fulfilling prophecy not because of the flu, but because everyone's been primed for a bad reaction with their secondary infections. Secondary infections which might require antibiotics. Which might mean the flu mutates into an antibiotic resistant strain. Fun stuff like that.

It's not the system we have in place I have a problem with so much, but by reacting prematurely, it seems like we're setting ourselves up to make it worse.

Yote

[SphinYote]

Also, I have to wonder. There have been the few schools, the one in NY (I believe), where it hit a lot of people.

But that's normal for any flu. It wasn't really aggressive. I mean, last year when the flu hit, the two weeks it was strongest, 1/3 of the people were gone at any given time, home sick. At a university.

100 proven cases in the U.S.

Granted there's probably a lot of people who have contracted it and not been tested. But even if it's several thousand people...that's still far LESS aggressive than normal flu.

Again, in Mexico I can see that it is aggressive...again because of lowered immune systems, lack of access to decent medicine.

But why are they claiming it's so aggressive elsewhere? That's what I don't get. All these claims, but near as I can tell, thus far it's proven itself to be less aggressive, not more.

Again, I acknowledge, the wrong mutation might change all that, but again, that's true of every flu virus.

I know it's crossed the species barrier and that's one of the things that people seem frightened about...it could potentially be bad. But right now, it isn't especially virulent in humans.

Yote

[Lunacie]

I haven't seen anything comparing this to the Spanish flu, but I haven't been looking.

From what I have read, this isn't genetically related to anything. Its a hybrid of swine, avian, & human virus' that have not seen before, thus giving us human's no natural immunity to it.

That probably would be where the comparison is. I do know the Spanish flu was very random at who it killed. My grandfather lost his parents to the epidemic when he was 4. None of the four kids were effected, however, both parents died. I think it was three or four days before someone came and checked on them and find the kids alone on the homestead.

My guess is it has the potential to be a deadly killer like 1918. On our side, we have antibiotics & antivirials they didn't have then, we have a decent health care system (if you have the money or insurance), unlike mexico residents.

Against us, I would guess is the number of asthmatics in this country and what a particularily nasty flu virus will do to them, no matter how many antibiotics or anti-virals we have . . .

Actually, modern medicine may be what caused the Spanish Flu to kill so many people instead of curing them. I've read some things in the last few years about how the Spanish Flu started in the trenches in Europe during WW1 - doughboys were going to the doctors at the field hospitals complaining of fever and aches and coughing. The doctors gave them asprin to reduce the fever and pronounced them cured.

But a few days later, the same soldiers were back at the field hospital with pneumonia and many of them died.

The word of this miracle cure, plain old aspirin, spread quickly, along with the Spanish Flu. Many people caught the flu and took aspirin to cure it, but many developed secondary infections that were worse than the flu and many of them died.

Why? Do a Google for "Spanish Flu + Aspirin" to learn how aspirin and other "anti-virals" actually allow the virus to reproduce and overwhelm the body's defenses.

And if you get the flu - don't take any OTC meds. Wrap up warmly, rest in bed for 24 hours, drink plenty of fluids, and let your body's natural defenses, including fever, destroy the invading virus.

[SphinYote]

Actually, modern medicine may be what caused the Spanish Flu to kill so many people instead of curing them. I've read some things in the last few years about how the Spanish Flu started in the trenches in Europe during WW1 - doughboys were going to the doctors at the field hospitals complaining of fever and aches and coughing. The doctors gave them asprin to reduce the fever and pronounced them cured.

But a few days later, the same soldiers were back at the field hospital with pneumonia and many of them died.

The word of this miracle cure, plain old aspirin, spread quickly, along with the Spanish Flu. Many people caught the flu and took aspirin to cure it, but many developed secondary infections that were worse than the flu and many of them died.

Why? Do a Google for "Spanish Flu + Aspirin" to learn how aspirin and other "anti-virals" actually allow the virus to reproduce and overwhelm the body's defenses.

And if you get the flu - don't take any OTC meds. Wrap up warmly, rest in bed for 24 hours, drink plenty of fluids, and let your body's natural defenses, including fever, destroy the invading virus.

Good post.

I usually try to let colds run their course naturally unless they really get bad. Ever since I figured out my food allergies, I've gotten them far less frequently, too.

Then again, when I try OTC meds, they just make me feel worse rather than better.....make my sinuses swell, which doesn't let the stuff out that needs to come out....which leads to infection.

So, lots of tea, try to make the fever peak (usually I try to make sure I'm sweating for at least 15-20 minutes....hot tea, showers, tons of blankets, whatever I can do....)....and that there does a lot to shorten the duration of it, I think.