435 Bangkok Schools To Close July 15-19

[WEBLEDINK]

Hi.

Stupid question. But what's all this "washing hands" do to a virus that is spread exclusively through the air, i.e. via coughing and sneezing..?? And i highly doubt that those silly masks have any effect on this virus. They can't even hold Diesel soot out, i've tried it.

Best regards.....

Thanh

Most people cover their mouth with hand when sneezing and coughing, then touch doors , shopping carts, cab door handles, hold bars and seats on skytrain, stair handrails and money etc.... washing hands is very important. An alcohol based cleansing agent is very easy to carry as it comes in small bottles that can be carried in your purse or pants pocket. Washing hands should be done frequently as possible with soap and hot water. Hot water is hard to find in most homes and public places in Thailand. Wash your hands as long as it takes you to sing the Happy Birthday song....Don't do it outloud or someone will think you have caught the crazy bug. As for the use of masking, it has not been studied as to its effect to suppress the spread of influenza but it does makes sense. It should fit snuggly against the face and not be allowed to hang loose. One other important thing is not to touch your eyes , nose or mouth without washing your hands first. Yes, the eyes can be an entry point for contaminants into the body. Stay about 6 feet from anyone you notice coughing or sneezing or appears to be sick. All these things will help you to avoid letting the virus enter your body.

Groups of people at higher risk for severe illness from novel influenza A (H1N1) infection are thought to be the same as those people at higher risk for severe illness from seasonal influenza. These groups include:

• Children younger than 5 years old
  
• Persons aged 65 years or older
  
• Children and adolescents (younger than 18 years) who are receiving long-term aspirin therapy and who might be at risk for experiencing Reye syndrome after influenza virus infection
  
• Pregnant women
  
• Adults and children who have asthma, chronic pulmonary, cardiovascular, hepatic, hematological, neurologic, neuromuscular, or metabolic disorders such as diabetes;
  
• Adults and children who have immunosuppression (including immunosuppression caused by medications or by HIV)
  
• Residents of nursing homes and other chronic-care facilities.
  

Staying aware and informed is the way to keep yourself healthy but not at all guarenteed!

[tourleadersi]

The main concern about this one is the kill ratio that it currently appears to have. Common Flu is far more widespread for the moment, and therefore appears to kill a lot more, and like Dengue fever therefore appears to be of greater concern. The thing is that it seems that more people that catch this one are dying (some stats have it as high as 5% whilst common flu is below 1%). Therefore preventing the spread (or attempting too) is a rational step. The WHO are saying that its too late to prevent it though, so it does seem like this is a reaction after the horse has not only bolted, but has made it to the next field, mated, raised a championship winning foal and is now off to glue factory.

Where are you getting your stats from? In the UK there have been over 10,000 cases so far and it made the news a couple days ago that there was the first death of a person who didn't have a pre-existing health condition.

Going back to where I got my stats from I have realised that the reports that I did read were out of date by now, and were written during the hysteria stage of the moo flu. I wasnt attempting to use stats to bolster my argument, as I am actually not buying into all the scare tactics. What should be of concern to everyone is not how many have died to date, but the ratio of deaths. It is valid because this illness is only in its infancy. If it does go on to have a kill ratio of 0.0057% as stated in a previous post, and Thailand does see 30 million infections, then yes 170 000 will die. That is a number that should concern all of us. As this illness is spreading quickly and statistcis are being continually updated, I am sure you will find plenty of other stats will be out of date within days as well.

[Publicus]

Most of this, if not all of this, would have been avoided if the US had closed its border with Mexico, and the US and Canada banned all flights to and from Mexico, in the VERY FIRST days. ALL of the early reported cases in the US and Canada were of kids vacationing in Mexico and bringing the virus back to their schools. Also, why close the border? Hate to put it bluntly, but most Mexicans travel to the US, not Guatemala!

Once the virus spread in the US and Canada, it was impossible to control it. Almost all the FIRST new cases in the third world are from Americans/Canadians traveling and from locals coming back from the US and Canada.

It's a chain reaction, it had to be cut at the source, it wasn't. Reasons? political. The US played "politically correct" with Mexico.

The US and Canada are working WITH Mexico in this. The three countries of North America are working together and coordinating with other countries on other continents.

Did the WHO or the UN advocate closing any borders anywhere in the world? The OAS? We know no such thought was considered, much less advocated by knowlegable, reasonable and thoughtful officials and organizations whether national, regional or global.

Reasonable and responsible officials are doing what reasonable and responsible people do, to include NGOs and other organizations. We're cooperating, some Chulalongkorn doctors notwithstanding.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Also, I see the WHO just raised eyebrows by announcing it no longer will maintain a running count of the number of N1H1 cases globally. WHO today made the statement very quietly as an item of brief mention that was buried among numerous items in its daily report sheet.

The news was highlighted and pointed out by the politically neutral Council on Foreign Relations, a respected private organization based in New York City. The report was further confirmed in a New York Times piece 16 July.

So there won't be any more global stats gathered or reported by the WHO about the spread of the virus. Who now would gather such data??? How do we know the global picture from this point forward?

According to the CFR, WHO says millions of people have one kind or the other of common flu anyway and that, as in the US, almost all cases are mild. Additionally, WHO says that diagnosing the flu is a burden to the labs in poor countries as are the gathering and reporting of accurate data in such countries.

Methinks the WHO is tired of working overtime for the past several months. It simply sounds like the WHO is falling down on the job.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Publicus

[stub]

And it IS interesting to see that Thailand DOES rate significantly higher than any other Asian country.

I captured two screen shots which I think TV readers may find interesting:

Asian infections / deaths:

World statistics for past 30 days:

Hi.

Your charts are actually a great example of the baseless hysteria. For the first one, the fatality rate is not shown at all. All this graph tells you is that Thailand has 4000 confirmed cases, which compares highly to other nearby countries. The only thing this might tell you is how much testing is going on - perhaps Thailands infection rate is half of what it is in, say, the Philippines but 4 times as many tests are being done so this chart shows twice as many confirmed cases in Thailand. This of course will feed back, the more people get worried, the more testing is done and the higher the confirmed rate will climb into a spiral of panic.

The second clearly shows that the fatality rate isn't growing in proportion to the number of people probably infected. It is actually a positive good news graph, but sticking the cumulative chart in the middle is a cheap trick to make it look bad (of course the cumulative graph is going to go up).

[Publicus]

Despite my concern however I wouldn't argue with the assertion by the WHO that much of the supposed H1N1 data it has been receiving has a less than reliable scientific basis.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Publicus