USVI-On-Line

At work, we've also eliminated the candy dish that everyone dug through, and the "community" hand lotion bottles.

I'm nervous about getting the vaccine, but what I'm more worried about is just being out and about and around people in general.

I'm nervous to travel in a couple weeks in a plane to Cape Cod.

I feel like I have to santize EVERYTHING at work including the 22 phones that we have, the computers, the knobs on all the doors, anything I come in contact with.

I don't feel good about going out and having to use the ladies room.

Anything that my family touches outside the house comes home IN the house.

The list can go on and on.

If I get it, I get it.

djmom wrote:Soxfan: I agree with one thing you said-ask a doctor. I am certainly not going to skip the vaccine because two college kids said the flu was no big deal.

I am not advocating NOT getting the flu shot. I have said I will not get it, but that is a personal decision. I am in and out of 8-10 doctors offices/day for the past 6 years, and have never taken even the seasonal flu shot. Just a choice that I make for me - nobody else. As for the college kids...I was just pointing out that Dateline or whomever did that story I was watching built this thing up to a big crescendo, and then at the end, the girls had a fever of 100. I think sometimes, we tend to get carried away with these things. But that's just me.

djmom wrote:Try telling the families whose children or parents have died that the virus is no big deal.

Kind of a silly thing to say. Nobody is saying that for the 500 people who have died (36 of them children under 18 ), that it wasn't a big deal.

Here's a blurb from an interesting article I read this morning (full link below):

Nearly 500 Americans have died of complications from the H1N1 swine flu since the virus first surfaced last spring, including at least 36 children younger than 18, a new government report shows.

And 67 percent of those children who died had at least one chronic high-risk "neurodevelopmental condition," such as epilepsy, cerebral palsy or developmental delay, U.S. health officials said during a news conference Thursday.

Bacterial infections -- such as bacterial pneumonia -- were another contributing factor to an increased risk of death in children, including most children older than 5 who didn't have a preexisting high-risk medical condition. This suggests that bacteria, in tandem with the H1N1 virus, can cause severe disease in children who may be otherwise healthy, the officials said.

But the officials, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stressed that the pediatric death rates and complications from swine flu are very similar to the rates of death and complications seen in children sickened by the seasonal flu each year.

djmom wrote:I am not familiar with the mortality rate data, but .56% is over 4 times that of .12%. Which, if those numbers you have quoted are true, is pretty scary to me considering it is a younger population that is getting infected.

Again, to me the fact that younger people may be getting this at a higher rate than older folks actually skews this data. All of the literature has said that for MOST people who have presented to thier doctors with swine flu, the cases have been MILD. Most cases. I understand people have died. Given that, how many young people (who don't go to the doctor all that often to begin with), would go to the doc with a mild fever of 101, a slight cough, and no other symptoms? Taking those people out of the cohort of diagnosed swine flu patients would skew the mortality rate, would it not?

In other words, there are probably a hell of a lot of people who have had swine and went undiagnosed...Had they BEEN diagnosed, then their survival would've been added to the mortality rates, and thus we would have a lower mortality rate.

Also, the mortality rate for the 1918 flu was 2.5%, I believe.

djmom wrote:I am pretty sure that vaccine will not have a mortality rate of .56 percent.

Mortality is not the sole indicator of a poor vaccine. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there have been any clinical trials to date assessing clinical safety in infants and children with this vaccine.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news ... 88952.html

Tm Tebow gave me a high-five at Gator Walk on Saturday, so I'm pretty much immune to everything, forever!

augie wrote:Tm Tebow gave me a high-five at Gator Walk on Saturday, so I'm pretty much immune to everything, forever!

Nice! I guess I am in the minority in that I actually think he'll make a nice NFL quarterback.

soxfan22 wrote:

Mortality is not the sole indicator of a poor vaccine. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there have been any clinical trials to date assessing clinical safety in infants and children with this vaccine.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news ... 88952.html

---FYI

US pediatric clinical trials information - not results - here:
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/qaH1N1pedvax.htm


Oh yeah, GO GATORS!

A reply to maybe ease some of Connie's fears that H1N1 is present on everything she or her family may touch.

One good thing, if any thing good exists, about enveloped viruses such as H1N1, is that they do not survive very long on inanimate surfaces, like door handles, telephones, keyboards. How long do they survive and still retain infectivity, no hard and fast rule, but generally under a few hours, maybe under a hour even.
The major mode of transmission is person to person by sneezing and coughing.

Now, if I can just get to STJ in Oct without getting sneezed or coughed on while on the plane!

DELETED

sox-

I know you weren't trying to tell people not to take the vaccine-I agree-ask your doctor-

but a few flaws in your argument.

who goes to the doctor for the regular flu? most do not go. those aren't included in regular flu data either.

like the vaccine, mortality rates are not the only thing to consider for the flu either.

I don't feel like arguing about this anymore, so I will let you have the last word. Have fun!

djmom wrote:sox-

who goes to the doctor for the regular flu? most do not go. those aren't included in regular flu data either.

I politely disagree. Only on the grounds that the seasonal flu affects the elderly the most, and with that age group lie the most dire consequences should they become infected.

At the first sign of flu (real influenza...not sniffles or a G.I. bug), elderly patients are on the phone with their doctors, or they are in the hospital.

Are there people who go undiagnosed with seasonal flu and subsequently recover? Absolutely. But again, all reports are that even for people who have been presenting to their doctors with H1N1, symptoms have been MILD in most cases.

My point about secondary infection rates being higher for H1N1 than for seasonal was simply that millions are vaccinated for seasonal flu each year. Being that the goal of any vaccination is to slow the spread from person to person, coupled with the fact that there is no approved vaccination for H1N1 YET, the higher rate of secondary infection makes perfect sense. You can't make the leap, because of that fact, that H1N1 is any more sinister than seasonal flu.

"You can't let a good crisis go to waste."

I'm not arguing anymore

I am actually no more worried about H1N1 than the regular flu-except that we can't get the shot for it yet and thus prevent it. And the kids have no immunity-thus more likely to get it.

I don't think a typical case of H1N1 is going to be worse than a typical one of seasonal. It is just going to be the H1N1 is going to suck so much worse because so many more people will get it.

We all get the seasonal flu shot at our house and I suspect we would be just as inconvenienced by the seasonal flu as H1N1. And just as worried about my asthmatic daughter.

Most of my friends and I have been "converted" to the concept of the flu vaccine after a child gets the flu and we say "never again". (we don't take them to the doctor-most children never get tested. what good did that do until now that we have a new strain)

The only reason I even said anything about mortality is because you brought it up. I think the CDC really screwed up by stopping testing of mild cases-because they now have reduced their chance of getting valid data regarding what % get very ill or die. It may be very true that the H1N1 statistically is a milder illness.

But there can still be serious secondary infections in mild cases. My duaghter gets pneumonia almost every time she has a respiratory infection. Three times this year so far.

So maybe we don't disagree quite as much as you think.

SJfromNJ wrote:

UF Prof wrote:A reply to maybe ease some of Connie's fears that H1N1 is present on everything she or her family may touch.

One good thing, if any thing good exists, about enveloped viruses such as H1N1, is that they do not survive very long on inanimate surfaces, like door handles, telephones, keyboards. How long do they survive and still retain infectivity, no hard and fast rule, but generally under a few hours, maybe under a hour even.
The major mode of transmission is person to person by sneezing and coughing.

Your statement is counterintuitive of most theories and approaches taken to prevent the spread of H1N1 in schools. In the spring when H1N1 was going around in schools here in the NE, they would close the school and sanitize everything.

I saw a program about H1N1 where they said the virus can last days on surfaces such as keyboards, and the like. Also it seems to last longer in warm moist climate than cooler drier climate. I did not check if any of these issues were in fact true, but that was how it was reported.

---UF Prof may wish to answer your questions in a more technical way...

from the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/qa.htm

Contamination & Cleaning

How long can influenza virus remain viable on objects (such as books and doorknobs)?
Studies have shown that influenza virus can survive on environmental surfaces and can infect a person for 2 to 8 hours after being deposited on the surface.

What kills influenza virus?
Influenza virus is destroyed by heat (167-212°F [75-100°C]). In addition, several chemical germicides, including chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, detergents (soap), iodophors (iodine-based antiseptics), and alcohols are effective against human influenza viruses if used in proper concentration for a sufficient length of time. For example, wipes or gels with alcohol in them can be used to clean hands. The gels should be rubbed into hands until they are dry.

What if soap and water are not available and alcohol-based products are not allowed in my facility?
Though the scientific evidence is not as extensive as that on hand washing and alcohol-based sanitizers, other hand sanitizers that do not contain alcohol may be useful for killing flu germs on hands.

What surfaces are most likely to be sources of contamination?
Germs can be spread when a person touches something that is contaminated with germs and then touches his or her eyes, nose, or mouth. Droplets from a cough or sneeze of an infected person move through the air. Germs can be spread when a person touches respiratory droplets from another person on a surface like a desk, for example, and then touches their own eyes, mouth or nose before washing their hands.

djmom wrote:I'm not arguing anymore

So maybe we don't disagree quite as much as you think.

No interest in "arguing" either...It always amuses me that anytime two people have dissenting views on a subject, the discourse is generally termed "arguing". What fun would a board be if everyone had the same exact opinions, all the time? We're sharing ideas and thoughts...I have no interest in "winning" the arguement, as I clearly alluded to by saying things like "talk to your doctors" and "mine is a personal decision", etc.

I think you're right, we probably agree more than we disagree on this one.

BTW, I DO have an asthmatic son (only when he gets sick - which may be worse in this case?) and a pregnant sister that I am concerned about with this thing.

DELETED

Billy Wagner so far for the Sox:

4.2 innings pitched
9 strikeouts
0 earned runs

Filthy - so far.