H1N1: a perfect example of fear-mongering

[Zeus]

Wasn't nearly the epidemic everyone made it out to be and infact ended up fizzling out before the vaccine was even available. Even the doctor who thought the fear-mongering was justified couldn't confirm the vaccine actually did anything. It was more of a "golden egg" (direct quote) for the pharmaceutical companies

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/03/ ... -fear.html

[SineSwiper]

Didn't I say this 6 months ago?

[Kupek]

Search for what I've said on the topic. I'm tired of repeating myself.

[Julius Seeker]

Welcome to last year.

[Zeus]

Didn't I say this 6 months ago?

I said the same thing too. But now we've got empirical evidence to support our theory.

[Kupek]

No, you don't. What you have is a lack of evidence that H1N1 was as large a threat as feared. That's not the same as evidence that H1N1 was not as large a threat as feared. It's possible that severe reactions by the authorities prevented the outbreaks from being as bad as feared. Deaths is also not the only way to measure severity; strain on the healthcare infrastructure is important. Search the forums for what I've said previously.

Showing up at work without getting into a car accident is not evidence that you don't need to wear your seatbelt.

[Shrinweck]

Well, hey, better safe than losing 33% of the populace.

[Zeus]

No, you don't. What you have is a lack of evidence that H1N1 was as large a threat as feared. That's not the same as evidence that H1N1 was not as large a threat as feared. It's possible that severe reactions by the authorities prevented the outbreaks from being as bad as feared. Deaths is also not the only way to measure severity; strain on the healthcare infrastructure is important. Search the forums for what I've said previously.

Showing up at work without getting into a car accident is not evidence that you don't need to wear your seatbelt.

I despise the search in this stupid program, I'll never use it again.

The doctors actually addressed the over-reactions saying even with all the fear-mongering that was going on, by the time there was a vaccine available, it came out so late that it most likely did nothing (see the last sentence) and the virus itself had fizzled (according to the one doc). Also, the one doc called the outbreak "fairly small". This doesn't necessarily refer to the number of deaths but rather the reach of the virus itself. And the fear-mongering doc's response? "I didn't die so it wasn't a waste of money". Thanks, pal, why don't you try to use a more original response.

And let me ask you this: if (work with me here) the vaccine came out after the flu started to fizzle out, what would end up putting more strain on the healthcare system, the additional people who got the flu (assuming no vaccine) or the purchase and delivery of the vastly over-priced vaccine and the public going nuts constantly calling and asking for advice or a shot? My wife's a nurse and let me tell you, they were going nuts over there leading up to and during the roll-out of the vaccine. All those extra hours from the nurses and adminstrators, the set-up of clinics all over the cities in larger venues, the docs and nurses working overtime....that's what put a strain on our healthcare system up here. And who benefits the most? Drug companies, and that's the point of the fear-mongering and this post.

And this article certainly supports my theory.

[Kupek]

The article has two doctors. one saying "it was an overreaction," and the other saying "it probably wasn't." There is, again, no evidence of a lack of efficacy, but a lack of evidence of efficacy.

[Zeus]

The article has two doctors. one saying "it was an overreaction," and the other saying "it probably wasn't." There is, again, no evidence of a lack of efficacy, but a lack of evidence of efficacy.

But both agreeing that the "solution" had little or no effect. Considering that the majority of the fear mongering was focused around the development and distribution of a vaccine, there's strong evidence towards a severe over-reaction to what is considered by the professionals who measure this stuff a relatively minor outbreak that appears to be fueled by a relatively small group of self-interests (and I'm not just talking about the pharmaceutical companies). Even the fear-mongering doctor doesn't dispute that, he simply feels that there some merit to the severe over-reaction. So, when you have the WHO saying "it was pretty minor" and a proponent of the over-reaction admitting the actual solution had little or no effect, there is strong support - a little evidence, even, if not efficacy - to the theory of fear mongering. That you can't deny.

Since I actually got you conversing for once, let me ask you a semi-related question then, Kup: since you're dealing in hard science, do you or your colleagues consider the social sciences to be "real science"?

[SineSwiper]

My kid's doctor said that if you get the nasal version of the H1N1 vaccine, my kid might catch it if he happens to play with my nose or something, since that version is a live virus. It really got me thinking just how many kids have gotten sick before they passed out this kind of information to doctors everywhere.

[Kupek]

But both agreeing that the "solution" had little or no effect.

No, that's what I keep saying. This is what the article said:

Both experts agreed it's not clear that the vaccine did anything to stop H1N1 from spreading.

This is what I keep saying: there is a difference between evidence of a lack of efficacy, and a lack of evidence of efficacy. The quote from the article says the latter. As to what else the doctor said, you're putting words into his mouth - he didn't refer to it as a "severe over-reaction." He clearly does not think it's an over-reaction. Let's also make a clear distinction between what the health authorities say, and what the media says. It is the health authorities responsibility to report the threat of a serious problem. Threats are possibilities, not certainties. That we didn't have a serious problem is not evidence that the health authorities were wrong. Nor is it evidence that they were right, and that their precautions averted disaster. However, it's prudent to take measures to avert disaster when we think there is a significant chance it will occur.

Again, I'm ignoring the media. I'm only talking about what the health authorities said.

As for the social sciences, that's really too broad of a question. I'm usually much, much more skeptical when I read of a result. Also, I'm not even necessarily considered a scientist. What exactly computer science is is a topic of debate.

[RentCavalier]

I said this from day one. News agencies LOVE a good scare. Kept our pockets lined with some fresh silver, and we only benefitted from the ratings. Though, since the Govt. issued the vaccine out for free, I wonder who REALLY paid for this whole affair?

Though, to be less cynical, we did react well. We monitored the borders, assessed the threat, addressed it quickly and efficiently, and very few lives were lost. The biggest problem was a lack of vaccine, and demand was only ratcheted up because...why? Oh yeah, CNN said that we should all be scared. Funny world.