Ann Schuchat @ CDC May 28th, 1:00 pm:
"And that's really because of no reporting over the long weekend. Internationally, the W.H.O. is reporting 13,398 confirmed cases in 48 countries with Singapore and Bahrain being most recently added to the list. Here in the U.S. our official count today is 8,585 probable and confirmed cases. We're aware of 12 fatalities and 507 hospitalizations." ...........
Mike Stobbe: Hi, thanks for taking the question. Actually two. First one tailing on to Betsy's -- could you remind us what were the attack rates for the pandemics in 1918, 1957, and the one in the late '60s? And my second question had to do with probably New England Journal of Medicine released two pieces of news yesterday. A group of three Columbia researchers, if I understand it correctly, ended by saying that the immediate ancestors of the novel swine flu virus have been around unnoticed for about two decades. Could you help me understand, is that consistent with what you all at the CDC have been saying? Or is that a little different?
Anne Schuchat: The, let me say something about attack rates and the pandemics of the past. When we did our pandemic preparedness planning, we had certain assumptions about attack rates that were on the range of 30% or so. But what's important to say is that the pandemic, the big difference in a pandemic is less the attack rate than the, in our planning assumptions, was the severity. That you know, quite a few people get influenza, even with seasonal influenza. But that expected deaths would be quite different in the 1918 scenario, versus a 1957 or '68 scenario. So some of our assumptions were that a lot of people would get sick, but what would be the proportion that needed medical care, hospitalization, or that might die. We are right now seeing this sort of 7% to 10% range of community attack rates, which is lower than that pandemic 30% situation. But of course, there are reports that there are some places in Mexico for instance that did have a petty high attack rate, as the virus passed through the community. And remember in some of those places that we're measuring things, it's not over, there are still cases. So these would be snapshots in time. The second question that you asked was not about attack rates.
Dave Daigle: It was the New England Journal of Medicine.
Anne Schuchat: You know, I actually haven't read that yet, so I'm not going to be able to comment, I'm sorry.
"And that's really because of no reporting over the long weekend. Internationally, the W.H.O. is reporting 13,398 confirmed cases in 48 countries with Singapore and Bahrain being most recently added to the list. Here in the U.S. our official count today is 8,585 probable and confirmed cases. We're aware of 12 fatalities and 507 hospitalizations." ...........
Mike Stobbe: Hi, thanks for taking the question. Actually two. First one tailing on to Betsy's -- could you remind us what were the attack rates for the pandemics in 1918, 1957, and the one in the late '60s? And my second question had to do with probably New England Journal of Medicine released two pieces of news yesterday. A group of three Columbia researchers, if I understand it correctly, ended by saying that the immediate ancestors of the novel swine flu virus have been around unnoticed for about two decades. Could you help me understand, is that consistent with what you all at the CDC have been saying? Or is that a little different?
Anne Schuchat: The, let me say something about attack rates and the pandemics of the past. When we did our pandemic preparedness planning, we had certain assumptions about attack rates that were on the range of 30% or so. But what's important to say is that the pandemic, the big difference in a pandemic is less the attack rate than the, in our planning assumptions, was the severity. That you know, quite a few people get influenza, even with seasonal influenza. But that expected deaths would be quite different in the 1918 scenario, versus a 1957 or '68 scenario. So some of our assumptions were that a lot of people would get sick, but what would be the proportion that needed medical care, hospitalization, or that might die. We are right now seeing this sort of 7% to 10% range of community attack rates, which is lower than that pandemic 30% situation. But of course, there are reports that there are some places in Mexico for instance that did have a petty high attack rate, as the virus passed through the community. And remember in some of those places that we're measuring things, it's not over, there are still cases. So these would be snapshots in time. The second question that you asked was not about attack rates.
Dave Daigle: It was the New England Journal of Medicine.
Anne Schuchat: You know, I actually haven't read that yet, so I'm not going to be able to comment, I'm sorry.