Incidentally, **** you, Jenny McCarthy. That is all.

[Asher]

I'm sorry, but you're not getting the point. This is only a contradiction to you because you fail to understand that the real world is a subtle one that can't be understood with blanket statements. That is to say, you're falling prey to one of the cognitive biases I talked about in my post.

Did you know that scientists say radiation is bad, but bananas are okay?

Did you know that scientists say cyanide is bad, but almonds are okay?

Did you know that scientists say chlorine is bad, but pools are okay?

Did you know that scientists say antimatter is bad, but thunderstorms are okay?

All of these would appear to be contradictions, unless you actually understand that the world is a complex place that can only really be understood through the careful application of the scientific method.

Fluoride is bad, but fluoride toothpaste and Edmonton tapwater is okay.

[Wezil]

That commenter has it wrong too. Just because the world weren't that badly affected, doesn't mean we couldn't have been. You still don't seem to be understanding that.

First things first.

I've seen no cite to support your earlier statement. Do you concede it was actually not a worse than usual season?


"doesn't mean we couldn't have been" - And if my uncle was a woman he'd be my aunt.

The fact is the WHO (and others) raised panic levels last year for something the WAS NOT anywhere near as bad as the doomsayers told us it would be. They either lied or were grossly inept.

The fact this is causing fewer people to heed their warnings this year is causing an increase in flu deaths. If this is good public policy to your mind I suggest you send a resume to WHO.

[Wezil]

Really? The last realy big one killed more people than died in the first world war.

675,000 Americans died. That was more than 1 in 200.

A flu that was killing young, healthy people was concerning to me. It was the same course the flu of less than 100 years ago took.

As with Mike - post your cite to show LAST YEAR was anywhere near as bad as the WHO said it would be LAST YEAR.

[Asher]

Why does it matter? We're all going to die of Mercury poisoning anyway.

[Wezil]

Why does it matter? We're all going to die of Mercury poisoning anyway.

Not me. My odds favour heart attack or emphysema.

Go crazy with the mercury.

[MikeH]

The WHO gave ranges of casualty estimates, the media picked the big numbers and ran with them. We had to be prepared IN CASE IT WAS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO.

You can't **** about with pandemics, you have to take all reasonable precautions, and you have to from the first onset of disease, which is probably before you know the full details about the strain you are dealing with.

One incredibly beneficial mitigating factor was that it didn't disproportionately target over 60 year olds, who are one of the most at risk groups, like most seasonal flus do. If it did we'd have been looking at much higher deaths. This is possibly because they were old enough to have been around last time a H1N1 type flu came round and might have had some resistance.


Let's make an analogy

Say you live somewhere prone to tornadoes.
The man on the news says, there's a big twister coming your way! It could destroy 50% of your town and kill loads of people! Get into shelters now!
The tornado comes, and in the end it misses most of the town, destroys a few barns and kills a few cows.

You do not then end up shouting about how incompetent the guy on the TV was for predicting the tornado would destroy the town, you say, thank goodness for that. We had some warning of an extremely dangerous and unpredictable event, but we took all the precautions we could to stay safe and luckily, it wasn't as bad as we feared. *phew* But it's not over, the next major tornado could hit our town and do that damage, so we'd better stay vigilant.

[MikeH]

BTW the reason I haven't answered the WHO charges, I'm struggling to find exactly what they predicted. If you have a link to an original WHO doc that'd be handy.

[N35t0r]

Where do I get a tornado shot?

[Wezil]

The WHO gave ranges of casualty estimates, the media picked the big numbers and ran with them. We had to be prepared IN CASE IT WAS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO.

You can't **** about with pandemics, you have to take all reasonable precautions, and you have to from the first onset of disease, which is probably before you know the full details about the strain you are dealing with.

One incredibly beneficial mitigating factor was that it didn't disproportionately target over 60 year olds, who are one of the most at risk groups, like most seasonal flus do. If it did we'd have been looking at much higher deaths. This is possibly because they were old enough to have been around last time a H1N1 type flu came round and might have had some resistance.

By this logic the WHO (or media if you choose to displace blame) would have to cause panic each and every year just in case that particular strain happens to be "the big one".

Let's make an analogy

Say you live somewhere prone to tornadoes.
The man on the news says, there's a big twister coming your way! It could destroy 50% of your town and kill loads of people! Get into shelters now!
The tornado comes, and in the end it misses most of the town, destroys a few barns and kills a few cows.

You do not then end up shouting about how incompetent the guy on the TV was for predicting the tornado would destroy the town, you say, thank goodness for that. We had some warning of an extremely dangerous and unpredictable event, but we took all the precautions we could to stay safe and luckily, it wasn't as bad as we feared. *phew* But it's not over, the next major tornado could hit our town and do that damage, so we'd better stay vigilant.

Not bad. I would amend it somewhat. The tornado in your analogy is real.

More proper would be "a storm is brewing which may result in a tornado..."

[MikeH]

All I have so far is this:

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/briefing_20100610/en/index.html

Did WHO exaggerate the threat?
When WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan announced the start of the pandemic, on 11 June 2009, she expressed the view that the pandemic would be of moderate severity. She further noted the relatively small number of deaths worldwide, and clearly stated that “we do not expect to see a sudden and dramatic jump in the number of severe or fatal infections.”

In every assessment of the pandemic, WHO consistently reminded the public that the overwhelming majority of patients experienced mild symptoms and made a rapid and full recovery, even without medical treatment.

WHO also noted, early on, that influenza viruses are unstable and can undergo rapid and significant mutations, making it difficult to predict whether the moderate impact would be sustained. This uncertainty, which persuaded WHO and many national health authorities to err on the side of caution, was further enforced by the behaviour of past pandemics, which varied in their severity during first and second waves of international spread.

I think it was mainly the media, not the WHO, that quoted worst case scenarios out of context from WHO reports and didn't understand them and were responsible for the majority of scaremongering, my memory of the time is that the WHO breifings were pretty balanced. But I can't find them now.

[MikeH]

By this logic the WHO (or media if you choose to displace blame) would have to cause panic each and every year just in case that particular strain happens to be "the big one".




Not bad. I would amend it somewhat. The tornado in your analogy is real.

More proper would be "a storm is brewing which may result in a tornado..."

The pandemic was real.

People caught H1N1, people died from H1N1, people transmitted H1N1 across the globe in a very short space of time.

If you think a flu pandemic isn't a potential mass killer you are not correct.

[Wezil]

Your source appears to be the WHO themselves...

"Who us? Nah, we got it right."

[DaShi]

Just link to DocFeelgoods posts.

[Wezil]

If you think a flu pandemic isn't a potential mass killer you are not correct.

Of course a pandemic has potential. So we are back to the raising panic every year plan. Sorry, but it won't work.

[Wezil]

I share your criticism of the media Mike. They weren't blameless in raising panic levels.