(Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

[prepdeb]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

Is this that article/thread you're talking about?

http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2593&highlight=reinfection+viral+load

 

[Okieman]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

There is a link between infection and the amount of virus a person is exposed to, but I have not seen where severity of the disease is linked to the initial exposure amount. Or said another way, there does not appear to be a linkage to disease severity based upon the number of viral particles one breathes in or is exposed to at initial infection. Severity of the disease is linked to the subsequent viral load which develops within the host, but this has to do more with the replication of the virus within the host rather than the amount they were exposed to in the beginning.

Common sense seems to dictate that if one is exposed to more virus at the beginning then the virus would have a bit of a head start replicating and thus would produce more severe disease. But as it has been explained to me, the initial amount of virus pales in comparison to the efficiency of the virus to replicate within the hosts cells. So, the severity is more linked to the virulence of the virus itself and the host's immune response to fight it off, or lack of effective immune response. If I have understood this correctly, the disease severity is dependent upon the virus itself and the host, not initial viral exposure. Initial amount of exposure does influence whether one is infected or not though. That is why schools are such a great place for the virus. Many hosts crowded together. This produces more infections, but apparently not necessarily more severe disease.

I'm not a virologist. I'm just stating my understanding of how this works based upon what I have read.

 

[Okieman]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

I've wondered whether the governmental officials who decided to give the guidance to schools to continue as normal really gave much thought to the relatively simultaneous infection (all with a few weeks) of all the school kids with the U.S. I think they looked at severity of the disease and decided that it as a rule was not as severe as seasonal flu, but did not take into account the sheer weight of numbers getting sick within a much much shorter time period than seasonal flu.

Yeah, it might be less severe for most people, but it is much more infective, and by allowing all the schools to start at once (relatively) they insured a school wave of disease would peak everywhere in the U.S. all at the same time. Why? Either ignorance, or economics, or they decided to infect all the kids as quickly as possible before the disease mutated into something much worse (state sanctioned flu parties with an emphasis on education and sports/band/etc.). So...if officials in the know squawk and holler about the evils of swine flu parties then that leaves ignorance or economics as the cause for allowing a school wave pandemic peak to occur.

 

[tropical]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

I think post #23 is a good answer to the question posed in #19;
question:
"which is better, a controlled infection in which one knows the time of their infection and the need to avoid at-risk people, or an uncontrolled infection which could occur tomorrow, or the next day, or at the peak of the pandemic wave, and not know to avoid infecting at-risk individuals?"

Must work in infected environment, with people thinking its not a big deal, without vaccines and without masks/gloves, is contrary of a safe environment, and could make deads in all age group in the same facility, as seen from FT news threads.

It's much better take your chances in open air, with individual shielding decisions, or at least to be vaccinated.

Schools are not the only facilities where more shielding measures will be welcomed.

The duration and quality of the immunity to this pandemic flu strain seems stil unsure, and maybe based on weak legs if there were multiple re-infections, or relapses, during several months.

If this will have a world duration of a year, or more without changings, why not be exposed later when vaccines will already exist, not sooner.

If this will change in time and drift, or if other strains will surge, than the first infection will not give enaugh immunity for the next drifted strains.

Researchers also didn't state that is better make flu parties.

And finaly, as said in post #23:
"it is much more infective, and by allowing all the schools to start at once (relatively) they insured a school wave of disease would peak everywhere in the U.S. all at the same time."

Would be the above better, or worst, to the already JIT, and streched health systems worldwide ...

 

[Rainbow Lake]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

Parents Throwing Swine Flu Parties

Doctors Warn The Parties Are Extremely Harmful


ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI-FOX2now.com) - It isn't a trend exactly sweeping the nation, but some parents are throwing "Swine Flu" parties so their children will intentionally be exposed to the illness. Doctors warn parents these parties can be extremely harmful to children. Some parents say they believe if their kids are exposed to the H1N1 strain early, they'll only come down with a more mild case. Doctors at Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center say it's a bad idea.

Infectious Disease Specialist, Doctor Dennis O'Connor says he doesn't understand why people would want to have such a party. "Intentionally exposing your child to the virus has no medical benefit at all"

Doctors say it also comes with dangers and could mean your child becomes more ill. Dr. O'Connor says how sick you become depends on how many of the viruses you are exposed to.

Medical professionals say the best way to avoid H1N1 is to continually wash your hands. Alcohol based hand sanitizers are also very effective.

http://www.fox13now.com/news/ktvi-swine-flu-parties-090409-story,0,3093020.story

How can a parent even consider this when they see the news articles about children who were PERFECTLY HEALTHY and died from H1N1?

How would a parent know that THEIR CHILD would not be one of the perfectly healthy children that die from exposure?

If you are a parent considering this game of Russian roulette, just imagine how you would feel if your child was one of the perfectly healthy children who died as a result of participation in such a "party."

Be sure and read the "cytokine storm" posts. Put briefly, some healthy young people may die because of "friendly fire" as their very strong immune system battles the virus.

 

[gsgs]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

a common concept is the 50% lethal dose in mice.
They measure these doses in the labs.
That wouldn't make much sense when it doesn't depend on the dose

 

[B.C.]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

Originally posted by Pathfinder.
http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124164

H1N1 Virus Spreads More Rapidly In Countries With Temperate Climate

Last Updated on Saturday, 05 September 2009 10:07
Written by Brunei Times
Saturday, 05 September 2009 09:29

Bandar Seri Begawan - The Influenza A (H1N1) virus could spread more rapidly in both quantity and severity in countries with temperate climates and frequent seasonal changes like the United Kingdom, in comparison to countries like Brunei, where there are only wet and dry seasons.

While there is currently no data on H1N1 virus itself, it can be assumed that the virus shares similar properties with that of the seasonal influenza virus.

'As we all should know by now, flu-causing viruses are spread through droplet secretions and contaminations of the surroundings," said the Ministry of Health's RIPAS H1N1 Committee before elaborating that there are many factors that can affect how long H1N1 virus can survive outside of the human body.

"How long the influenza survives in airborne droplets seems to be influenced by the levels of humidity and UV radiation: with low humidity and a lack of sunlight in winter probably aiding its survival," it said.

In its periodic statement on the H1N1 update, the committee, comprising designated clinicians (doctors) involved in the management of the pandemic said the virus was estimated to be able to survive for one to two days on hard, non-porous surfaces such as plastic or metal, for about 15 minutes on dry paper tissues and only five minutes on skin.

The virus will, however, survive for longer periods if it is present in mucus, and last indefinitely when frozen, it added. It also said that the virus , "are inactivated by heating to 56 degrees celsius for a minimum of 60 minutes, as well as acids at a pH value of lower than two".

The committee also clarified some doubts regarding the production of antibodies after the patient had been treated with Tamiflu. It stated that, in most cases, the clinical symptoms correlate well with the viral load, which means that a higher amount of virus in one's body will result in more severe symptoms.

"In a well person, higher viral loads tend to induce higher immune response, resulting in higher antibodies level. Therefore, even with a course of Tamiflu treatment, which lowers the viral load, you are very likely to develop antibodies," it said.

"However, for those who have sub-clinical symptoms (very mild) or no symptoms at all but confirmed to have the infection, it is currently not known whether antibodies will develop or not especially if Tamiflu had been given either as treatment or prophylaxis (preventative treatment)."

It was estimated that the hit rate of the pandemic is recorded to be around 20 to 30 per cent.

"This, however, does not necessarily mean that all will be equally affected," it said, adding that a majority of those infected will have the milder form whilst a smaller proportion will have the more severe form.

Not everyone who has contracted the virus will develop all the classical symptoms, according to the committee.


http://www.brudirect.com/index.php/2...e-climate.html

 

[Okieman]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

gs- I don't think LD50 is used in influenza research. Or is it? I know it is used in toxicology studies. I know initial dosage is important in measles, and some another disease, I don't remember which one, but I don't think it is used for influenza. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Over on FW I started a diary concerning the potential of crowding to cause more severe disease. I found a couple of scientific papers which alluded to the possibility but did not have any type of proof. There is much data concerning it causing infections, but I've not come across any which indicate more severe disease. Crowding of people increases the overall mortality within a population due to more people becoming infected. (See troop ships and trains during the Spanish Flu.) But it apparently did not cause more severe disease within the individual. The attack rate increased due to the crowding but the case fatality rate was thought to stay pretty much the same. If more people get sick then there are more deaths simply due to the sheer increased numbers of people ill.

 

[Okieman]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

B.C., it has been established that the viral load within the host does influence the severity of the disease in that individual. What is up in the air is whether the initial "dosage" of viral particles has an effect upon the severity of the disease within an individual. So far, I've not seen anything which says it does.

If a person gets a particular strain which is highly efficient at replicating within the hosts cells then this has potential of causing severe disease. Also, if the host immune response is weak in fighting the virus then this also has the potential of causing severe disease. But, what part does the initial dosage of the virus have? This is pertinent to what was mentioned in the first post of this thread:

Dr. O'Connor says how sick you become depends on how many of the viruses you are exposed to.

So far, I've been unable to find anything which supports that statement.

 

[Okieman]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

Folks, so no one misunderstands, I am not recommending swine flu parties.

I just don't see much difference in them and what our government is doing in giving guidance to schools to continue through an outbreak even as the absenteeism goes very high.

 

[B.C.]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

If a person gets a particular strain which is highly efficient at replicating within the hosts cells then this has potential of causing severe disease. Also, if the host immune response is weak in fighting the virus then this also has the potential of causing severe disease. But, what part does the initial dosage of the virus have? This is pertinent to what was mentioned in the first post of this thread:

Dr. O'Connor says how sick you become depends on how many of the viruses you are exposed to.

So far, I've been unable to find anything which supports that statement.

I misunderstood the question and posted to hastily. em Thanks for your reply.

Folks, so no one misunderstands, I am not recommending swine flu parties.

I just don't see much difference in them and what our government is doing in giving guidance to schools to continue through an outbreak even as the absenteeism goes very high.
Reply With Quote

I was telling my husband this morning that sending the kids to school tomorrow is like sending them to an orgy, nothing like the chicken pox parties we went to IMHO. As seen else where, we will see the results of the governments decision in the weeks to come.

 

[JetStuuby]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

This is an interesting topic.

If H1N1 is assumed to be causing 99% of Influenza infections at present and if 10% or 30% of the population is going to catch it in the first few months, then it seems very likely that if you work in a role where you interact with a lot of people, or if you visit a city gym then there is a fairly high chance that you will get H1N1.

Now if you are a school student, who meets with 30+ kids in a class room for 6-8 classes a day, then isn't that much the same as attending a swine flu party?

I'm not recommending anyone intentionally get sick, but if the following two assumptions are correct, then isn't getting an early infection a preventative measure?

Assumption 1: Initial expose to the virus may convey immunity to later related variants of the virus.

Assumption 2: Our major concern is that the virus will mutate to something that is more lethal than it presently is

If these assumptions are true, then there certainly is logic to attending a swine flu party in the early months of the pandemic. IF the assumptions are true

 

[Rainbow Lake]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

Folks, so no one misunderstands, I am not recommending swine flu parties.

I just don't see much difference in them and what our government is doing in giving guidance to schools to continue through an outbreak even as the absenteeism goes very high.

I suppose the difference lies in random chance contact versus conscious voluntary exposure.

Okieman, I understand your feeling about why children are being allowed to flow back to school eventhough we can fully predict a major increase in the virus's spread. The same thing had crossed my mind and I mused about what could be done/could have been done. Did some parents know their child was sick but sent them to school anyway? Did the parents not know because the symptoms were not obvious?

As to the viral load - I forget where I read it, but I read somewhere that the outcome was a confluence of HOST + VIRUS + ENVIRONMENT .

 

[gsgs]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

thinking again at it --- no, severety shouldn't depend much on the
initial load, we would have read about it, if it would.

They must have tested it in mice. It could be different for different viruses.
They use several measures for the virus-concentration in studies,
e.g. mouse-lethal-dose or mouse-infectious-dose

with these keywords it might be possible to find the studies

 

[Flufreak]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

B.C., it has been established that the viral load within the host does influence the severity of the disease in that individual. What is up in the air is whether the initial "dosage" of viral particles has an effect upon the severity of the disease within an individual. So far, I've not seen anything which says it does.

If a person gets a particular strain which is highly efficient at replicating within the hosts cells then this has potential of causing severe disease. Also, if the host immune response is weak in fighting the virus then this also has the potential of causing severe disease. But, what part does the initial dosage of the virus have? This is pertinent to what was mentioned in the first post of this thread:

[I]Dr. O'Connor says how sick you become depends on how many of the viruses you are exposed to.[/I]

So far, I've been unable to find anything which supports that statement.

I'll try with simple logic and mathematics!
Case A: 1 successful virus
Case B : 1000 viruses enter cells

For sake of the argument, we'll say each cell produces 1000 viruses per 11 hour cycle.
We'll also say your body is alerted to the threat at 2000 viruses, but that proteins the virus can produce may give the virus up to a a 48 hour "free pass" to delay the alert, as shown in a recent study. We'll also say a cytokine storm is possible if the viral count is greater than 500 trillion at time of alert.

At 55 hours:
Case A: 1 trillion viruses potentially have been produced, you have been fighting for 7 hours now, you may or may not have some symptoms, your body easily wins the battle.

Case B: 1000 trillion viruses have you feeling pretty bad. You are 1000 times as sick as Case A. If you are a cytokine storm likely person, it may be triggered, good luck! If your lungs are a good fit for the virus, you may be headed for the ICU or the morgue.

The point: starting point is key. Give me $1000 at 6% interest, or $1 at 15% APR, at 20 years , guess (or calculate) who is still richer. The growth rates may vary between people, it is true, but in either situation, the starting point makes all the difference.

Argument B:
Forget everything I just said, and think about your real life exposures to colds and flu in your past. I can easily recall a number of instances where I was majorly exposed and was really sick as a result. (I'm talking about oral exposure or trapped with a not caring sick person.)

 

[Laidback Al]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

Assumption 1: Initial expose to the virus may convey immunity to later related variants of the virus.

This is a hope rather than an assumption. Given that people generally do not develop immunity for season flu from one season to the next, it is not clear why exposure to a novel flu virus now will convey some kind of immunity to a new variant later on.

Assumption 2: Our major concern is that the virus will mutate to something that is more lethal than it presently is.

That is one of our concerns. Another major concern is the rate at which people infect each other with this virus. Even though we are not seeing a high fatality rate, there are a substantial number of hospitalizations. If too many people get sick at the same time, the hospitals will be overrun and more people may die. We could see increases in deaths even if the lethality of the virus does not change.

 

[gsgs]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

so, why do pandemics stop ?
We get some immunity which converts the virus
from pandemic to eaonal.

 

[gsgs]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

you can't separate case A and B like this.
Make case C : I start counting only after the 2nd replication
cycle of case A with 100M "initial" viruses.
Will it be 100M times more severe than A ?
No. Immunity sets in, the virus is running out of
new cells to infect. This just only happens earlier than
in case A, the peak is earlier.

Another point is, that with an initial load of 1000 viruses
you will have some mutations. E.g. one of them
could be Tamiflu-resistance or enable the virus
to enter cells with 2-3-receptors.
So the 1000-load infection is more flexible.

There was the paper recently posted by IOH, that
NS prevents parts of the immune system of getting
active in the first 2 days, and then it starts suddenly.

So it's important what happens in the first 2 days
and a bigger initial load may give some advantage.

But I don't think it's much

 

[gsgs]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

when you get small loads, not enough to cause infection,
does it still provide some (short-time) immunity ?

strategy: expose yourself to many small loads, not sufficient
to cause disease.
Or expose yourself to dead,defect viruses, e.g. in rooms with UV.
Or eat viruses. Does that induce some immunity ?
__________________

 

[Flufreak]

Re: (Harmful) Swine Flu Parties again - why NOT to do it

My understanding is that a threshold of exposure is needed to provoke immunity, thus the vaccine studies now in progress to determine dose needed. The reason why has to do with immunity mechanisms, as well as conservation of the body's resources. Too low a threshold and you end up with allergies and auto-immune disorders.