Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI in Mexico

    We have not changed the title of this thread because the border report does still indicate a dramatic increase in ILI in week 14 for the Aquilas clinic in Cuidad Juarez.

    This requires scrutiny.

    So what is happening here?

    Clearly there is a flu outbreak in the Juarez/El Paso area. The PAHO report indicates A/H1N1 activity this year in: Ecuador. Mexico, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Colombia, Honduras, Jamaica and El Salvador.

    Furthermore, this reports recommends vigilance for the Americas and implementation of pandemic preparedness plans. This is prudent action.

    So what does the average person do? Stay alert to flu activity in your community. Contact your health practitioner about flu and the flu vaccine. Wash your hands frequently. Stay out of crowded areas. If someone gets sick in your household, contact their health practitioner and keep them isolated away from other family members. Now is the time to stop smoking, and also, lose those extra pounds.

    As we have seen, A/H1N1 can be very deadly to pregnant women. If you are pregnant, take special precautions regarding flu prevention. Some are listed above. Contact your health practitioner about the flu about what you can do.

    There are a lot of rumours about A/H1N1 at this time regarding this outbreak and the PAHO report. People always question the motivations of people who are "hyping" the level of discourse.

    This is not the case here at FT. We operate this site as parents. Some of us are medical doctors, some have PhDs, but mostly, we are moms and dads.

    We are very concerned about the spread of A/H1N1. In fact, the pandemic is really not "over". The world is experiencing the continuing waves of A/H1N1 that started in 2009. All persons should be vigilant about this disease because, as time progresses, the evolution of the genetic code of the various A/H1N1 strains will render the vaccine less and less effective. Anti-viral medicine that has worked so well in the past is gradually losing its effectiveness too.

    And, there is always the chance that A/H1N1, which is fully humanized, may pick up some genetic characteristics that might make it more lethal. The currently circulating A/H5N1 is a candidate for this process.

    Overall, it is our recommendation that all persons in the world remain vigilant about the flu. The pandemic is not over, and in fact, with the novel strains of A/H5N1, trH3N2 circulating we are in a more dangerous position than ever.

    If you have any questions about what is going on in your community and you do not trust the media and/or government officials, then look around. How many people do you know are sick with the flu or severe respiratory illnesses? Are they hospitalized? For how long? Are they young? Pregnant? Are there lines outside the emergency rooms? The pharmacies? Is it difficult to contact your doctor because their patient load has suddenly increased? Are staple food products disappearing off the shelves of your grocery store?

    You are not powerless. You can look for yourself.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI in Mexico

      someone else to help typing such numbers into the computer
      so we can make charts and statistics ?
      These are often only available in .pdf


      Mexican reported H3 numbers show a H3-wave in Mexico in weeks 30-52, 2010
      but apparantly nothing in Juarez

      do those regions that had H3N2 also have H1N1 now ?
      I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
      my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI in Mexico

        There have been no new reports since the April 9 report. In previous months it appears the reports were issued weekly.


        In the 200-2010 flu season reports were issued weekly from October - May, inclusive:

        2009 - 2010 Influenza Surveillance archives

        October Reports

        Week Ending 10/03/09
        Week Ending 10/10/09
        Week Ending 10/17/09
        Week Ending 10/24/09
        Week Ending 10/31/09
        November Reports

        Week Ending 11/07/09
        Week Ending 11/14/09
        Week Ending 11/21/09
        Week Ending 11/28/09
        December Reports

        Week Ending 12/05/09
        Week Ending 12/12/09
        Week Ending 12/19/09
        Week Ending 12/26/09
        January Reports

        Week Ending 01/02/10
        Week Ending 01/09/10
        Week Ending 01/16/10
        Week Ending 01/23/10
        Week Ending 01/30/10
        February Reports

        Week Ending 02/06/10
        Week Ending 02/13/10
        Week Ending 02/20/10
        Week Ending 02/27/10
        March Reports

        Week Ending 03/06/10
        Week Ending 03/13/10
        Week Ending 03/20/10
        Week Ending 03/27/10
        April Reports

        Week Ending 04/03/10
        Week Ending 04/10/10
        Week Ending 04/17/10
        Week Ending 04/24/10
        May Reports

        Week Ending 05/01/10
        Week Ending 05/08/10
        Week Ending 05/15/10
        Week Ending 05/22/10
        Week Ending 05/29/10






        So......err......what is the deal?

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward



          The %ILI has been revised dramatically downward for Weeks 12, 13, and 14 as compared with the chart from Week 14. Also, the links to the reports for Weeks 13 and 14 have been deactivated. If that was an error, then it was a whopper. The only other possibility is that somebody didn't like the data. It is interesting that the number for Week 12, which was only slightly above baseline, has been revised down below baseline. I can understand an error with the Week 14 number, but changes to three weeks worth of data is suspicious to me. It's as though someone did not want to show and increasing trend in %ILI.

          I might also add that there is no explanation (or even mention) of the chart revisions. Such a substantial revision of three weeks' worth of data, particularly in a region where there has been significant concern over recent cases and deaths, is certainly warranted.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	Week 15 NM-Mexico Border ILI.png
Views:	1
Size:	33.0 KB
ID:	654691
          "I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish that He didn't trust me so much." - Mother Teresa of Calcutta

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward

            I uploaded the report from week 14 onto our server here. The week 14 report also contains the figures for week 13.

            Most of us trackers have seen news reports etc. disappear after questions are asked.

            I agree. A revision to public health data should be accompanied by an explanation at the time of revision.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward

              Here are the 2 weeks side-by-side for comparison.

              BTW, Sharon, did they ever say why that one hospital had so much more than the others?

              Click image for larger version

Name:	Border ILI.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	75.9 KB
ID:	654692
              The salvage of human life ought to be placed above barter and exchange ~ Louis Harris, 1918

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward

                Dr. Lopez said the 355 number was a mistake so, therefore, there was no huge difference between the Aguilas clinic and the other clinics.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward

                  That still doesn't explain why they changed the numbers for Weeks 12 and 13 at the same time.

                  Originally posted by sharon sanders View Post
                  Dr. Lopez said the 355 number was a mistake so, therefore, there was no huge difference between the Aguilas clinic and the other clinics.

                  "I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish that He didn't trust me so much." - Mother Teresa of Calcutta

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward

                    Originally posted by JimO View Post
                    That still doesn't explain why they changed the numbers for Weeks 12 and 13 at the same time.
                    Agreed. Odd.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward

                      you mean, the graph was changed ?
                      the numbers in the old reports are still the same

                      they just removed Aguilas from the list
                      I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
                      my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward

                        Yes, they changed the graph. Sharon pasted them side by side. What puzzles me is that they not only changed the value for Week 14, but they also changed the Week 12 value so that it is now below baseline.
                        Originally posted by gsgs View Post
                        you mean, the graph was changed ?
                        the numbers in the old reports are still the same

                        they just removed Aguilas from the list
                        "I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish that He didn't trust me so much." - Mother Teresa of Calcutta

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward

                          Originally posted by JimO View Post
                          Yes, they changed the graph. Sharon pasted them side by side. What puzzles me is that they not only changed the value for Week 14, but they also changed the Week 12 value so that it is now below baseline.
                          Indeed the graph have changed and the links to the original data for weeks 12 - 14 have been deactivated.

                          Originally posted by sharon sanders View Post
                          Dr. Lopez said the 355 number was a mistake so, therefore, there was no huge difference between the Aguilas clinic and the other clinics.

                          I checked archive of the border reports back to 2007. (link) For the past four years the reporting format has been the same. It has always been weekly counts, not cumulative counts, or running averages. I think Dr. Lopez needs to provide more of an explanation of the "mistake", especially a recurring "mistake" over three reporting periods.

                          For those who are curious, I have attached the original pdf files from weeks 12 -14 showing the higher numbers than are shown on the current graph.

                          BISN Week 12.PDF
                          BISN Week 13.PDF
                          BISN Week 14.PDF
                          http://novel-infectious-diseases.blogspot.com/

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward

                            the files are still there





                            what could have been the "error" ?
                            they counted vaccinees as ILIs ?
                            one doctor changed the rule, what counts as ILI ?


                            --------------------

                            they also renamed the April reports as March reports
                            I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
                            my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward

                              week 16: http://nmhealth.org/flu/documents/We...10-11.Wk16.pdf
                              week 17: http://nmhealth.org/flu/documents/We...10-11.Wk17.pdf
                              week 18: http://nmhealth.org/flu/documents/We...10-11.Wk18.pdf
                              week 19: http://nmhealth.org/flu/documents/We...10-11.Wk19.pdf


                              Aguilas is in again in week 17 , 4 ILI out of 276 total patients
                              I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
                              my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: New Mexico Surveillance in Border Region - Dramatic Jump in ILI Revised Downward



                                the US-military reported "clusters of H1N1v at US-clinics near the
                                Mexican border in mid-January 2012


                                mixin1771 [12:26]: deaths in mexico from H1N1 up 67% in one week
                                mixin1771 [12:26]: The total number of deaths from AH1N1 flu reported by Mexico’s Health Secretariat up to Feb. 9 was 81, with another 54 the following week.
                                mixin1771 [12:27]: deaths from the AH1N1 strain of flu from Jan. 1 to Feb. 16 represents 91 percent of the 149 fatalities from the different types of flu now active in the country.




                                El Paso:
                                01 131 95 25 6 2 3 2
                                02 118 87 21 4 3 3 1
                                03 133 90 30 8 3 2 4
                                04 95 64 25 3 2 1 3
                                05 102 74 17 5 3 3 4
                                06 66 47 11 4 1 3 4
                                07 106 76 19 6 2 3 3
                                08 100 78 16 3 1 2 1
                                09 111 78 26 3 3 1 4
                                10 116 78 29 6 1 2 7
                                11 89 69 15 2 3 - 6
                                12 114 81 24 6 2 1 8

                                I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
                                my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X