Check out the FAQ,Terms of Service & Disclaimers by clicking the
link. Please register
to be able to post. By viewing this site you are agreeing to our Terms of Service and Acknowledge our Disclaimers.
FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster.
The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website.
By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.
I haven't read that severe symptoms should be required.
AFAIK, asymptomatic should work fine.
And protection is never 100%, 90% is very good
I agree totally that many people have been tested and show immunity and can not remember illness. I would be very interested to see a study that shows how many confirmed cases do not have immunity when tested later.
I haven't read that severe symptoms should be required.
AFAIK, asymptomatic should work fine.
And protection is never 100%, 90% is very good
It has always been my understanding that, in healthy individuals, the more virulent the infecting organism or infection, the greater the immune response (with corresponding antibody titres). I know you like hard evidence, but I don't have a study readily available at the moment. When I find one, I will pass it along.
I could understand that for T-cell immunity, where the virus
must come to the cell in question, so it can be protected.
But not for humoral (B-cell), when it's in the blood,
no severety required here.
On further reflection, I suspect you are correct. I have confused humoral and cell-mediated immune response. If I remember correctly, there was a concern about individuals being treated with acyclovir in early chickenpox and whether they formed antibodies, despite a milder infection. The evidence is yes, they do mount an appropriate antibody response.
I haven't seen much from Niman lately, but he recently posted some comments on this topic:
Weak Immune Response In Mild Cases Driving Re-Infections? (10/10/09 16:02)
Buffalo School Outbreaks Raise H1N1 Re-Infection Concerns (10/08/01 12:45)
I'm not sure if I can copy this here, but essentially there seem to be a lot of reinfections in patients who did not have fevers with their initial bout. Not much info on the severity of the subsequent infection.
I'm not sure if I can copy this here, but essentially there seem to be a lot of reinfections in patients who did not have fevers with their initial bout. Not much info on the severity of the subsequent infection.
Are they proven to have had swine origin H1N1 the first time round? I can't believe there were many doctors sending off samples for testing from patients with no fever. I guess if they had confirmed influenza A in the off-season, you can assume it was H1N1, but again, how many doctors were running the flu tests on patients without a fever?
I'd lay at least a moderate sum of money that there's a lot of people who had some random feverless cough or cold over the summer, decided they had H1N1 and are now once again self-diagnosing a second infection. That is, this particular observation has more to do with man-flu than swine flu.
When the budget/insurances payed institutions are pretty vaccant with tests conductions,
and when many GP's follow the non-tests-if-not-temp/hospitalized mantra,
displacing generic "flu-like" / "viroses" / "atypical" diagnoses mambo,
the many affected folks are pushed to be half-self-made doctors, to asses their individual recurrent or out-of-season symptoms into a context of an WHO declared worldwide pandemic stage maximum phase (6).
Now, every senior human without persistant chronic respiratory illness,
when having a summer cold,
could pretty well feel the diference from an actual strange summer illness with heavy cough / laringo-throat / synus/ear inflamations
(all that sometimes with medium-high temp.),
which seems to be an pretty ordinary symptoms pattern for this pandemic flu wave,
compared to few coughs / sneezes / leaking nose, ordinary summer cold symptoms.
Or maybe we must act as this pandemic does not exist at all ...
to not ruin its worldwide "perfect handling" picture ...
Are they proven to have had swine origin H1N1 the first time round? I can't believe there were many doctors sending off samples for testing from patients with no fever. I guess if they had confirmed influenza A in the off-season, you can assume it was H1N1, but again, how many doctors were running the flu tests on patients without a fever?
I'd lay at least a moderate sum of money that there's a lot of people who had some random feverless cough or cold over the summer, decided they had H1N1 and are now once again self-diagnosing a second infection. That is, this particular observation has more to do with man-flu than swine flu.
I agree. It is all very nebulous. People talking as if it is fact. I have yet to see any proof of second infection (documented).
Anne Schuchat doesn't epect NYC to be protected from wave 1
they looked at 50 cities and found no protection wave1-->wave2
I believe that the Doctor's point was that since only about 10% of New Yorkers (and others in the remaining states) were likely infected during the first wave, that there was still a target rich environment for the virus in a subsequent wave until the population could be vaccinated. I have not seen or heard anyone from CDC indicate that a person infected with Swine Flu in wave one, has little immunity in wave two or three. So I believe that they are speaking of the population as a whole, not individuals.
"Herd immunity describes a type of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a portion of the population (or herd) provides protection to unprotected individuals. Herd immunity theory proposes that, in diseases passed from person-to-person, it is more difficult to maintain a chain of infection when large numbers of a population are immune."
Why would herd immunity "last for 2 months". If there are 2 month waves, it is not because people lose their immunity but rather because the prevalence of the virus itself fluctuates for various reasons.
Although in theory illness may be superior to vaccination in creating protective immunity, widespread vaccination has managed to reduce or eliminate many illnesses over the decades. It has been very effective in protecting vulnerable populations from influenza
There is no data to suggest 20% - 40% of the population has immunity. It is all speculation; not based on fact.
***** ignores New York City (and London). Why are they spared ?
Was these schools in Buffalo also hit in wave 1 ?
CDC should show their data from those 50 cities, so it can be
checked and discussed.
> New York City health officials now believe that while only 10 to 20 percent of New Yorkers
> were reported ill with flu last spring, as many as 20 to 40 percent may have been exposed
> to the disease and developed immunity that has prevented it from spreading.
some health officials ? most health officials ?
Is it all just speculation ?
they could do some serology - and maybe did.
they could have done some more questioning of the people to find
out who had had it - and probably did.
They may well have more information than we.
It sounded a bit as if they had come up with the 20-40% because
they thought that so many were needed to explain the herd immunity
why NYC is spared now.
That would be hard to explain with only 10% being infected,immune.
Remove those 10% and we have a city with 7.5M instead of 8.3M,
a little less densely populated, but why should those remaining
90% be less vulnerable to the virus than some other city
with 7.5M ? Being less densely populated doesn't usually protect cities
from flu.
But we know from seasonal flu that these 10% are indeed
sufficient to provide herd-immunity since seasonal waves
end. They go down when only ~10% of the population are infected.
So, why does herd immunity occur ? I assume it's because the
superspreaders are no longer dangerous because of immunity.
The average number of flu-critical contacts is going down.
That would mean, flu-sufferers are more often superspreaders
than other people
Remove these 10% of superspreaders from a city and they should be safe. (?)
Well, removing immune people also increases the contacts between susceptible
people .
And we have the modelings which apparantly can explain this all.
> Resurgence in areas hit hard previously are not an indication
> of reinfection, but rather new infections among the population
> that were spared previously (and don't have immunity).
why were they spared previously while living through a whole wave
but not now when they just only help to build a new wave themselves ?
Tweet
Comment