Obama gets billions for ‘pandemic’ Swine Flu

for a 'pandemic' they had to redefine the word in order to use it, without the new defination there would be no 'pandemic'. It figures, more money.

 

Thas't not true. A pandemic is defined as an epidemic illness that spreads to multiple countries simultaneously. An epidemic is defined as a rapidly and extensively spread of infection affecting many individuals in an area or a population at the same time. The spread of H1N1a categorically qualifies as both a pandemic and epidemic. that doesn't mean it's not overblown by the media, but it meets the qualifications, and those qualifications are the same now as they have been previously.

Also, aside from the fact that the link in the OP is from a crackpot conspiracy theorist website, the article is from June of 2009.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aeE_7PAb6.Kw

So far, the death rate of the swine flu is less than .018%, according to my calculations, and I am wicked good at math. But because I just hates to brag, I leave myself open for correction.

 

It matters not how good you are at math, nor what the actual numbers are, we have been informed in no uncertain terms that the swine flu is both pandemic and epidemic.

Don't even think about questioning it.

 

Hmmmmmm!

6 Billion people in the world.

55,000 infected.

6,000,000,000 people.
55,000 infected.

Isn't that the same as saying 55 cases in 6 million.......

 

There was a thread here rescently, in the last couple of weeks, that shows they had to alter the defination of 'pandemic' in order to call h1n1 a pandemic. So if your debating that this is the wrong thread.

 

1) It is a good thing that electron microscopy and chemical characterization of microorganisms have never been a prerequisite for response to infectious diseases or public health officials would never have the time to respond to outbreaks in a manner that would actually be effective at controlling their spread.

2) If the author is trying to insinuate that nobody has seen this virus, then I present to you an electron micrographic image of H1N1 Human swine-flu influenza virus published in Nature magazine. Here are some more images from the CDC.

 

Your estimates of infection are off by a factor of 10. It might be because you are relying on old data and there are 10 times more infections since your data.

So the death rate is 1.2% of infections. 1 out of every 100 people.

Just for comparison, the death rate of normal influenza in the state of New South Wales, Australia is 12.1 deaths per 100,000 or 0.012%. Link. So the swine flu appears to be 100 times more fatal than regular influenza. Still low at 1.2% compared to things like ebola, but not insignificant.

 

Why are the C.D.C's and the W.H.O's numbers so different ?

 

The CDC probably only tracks infections in the US.'

If you are talking about the 22 million number by the CDC, the WHO is only tracking laboratory confirmed cases of swine flu. There are many others that are unconfirmed and that probably explains the large CDC number for infections. So the 1.2% number is high because it does not account for laboratory unconfirmed infections.

It is possible that there are 100 times as many unconfirmed cases as there are confirmed cases. That would make 50 million cases which is just under 1% of the world population. Then it would bring the swine flu death rate to the same level as the normal flu. My guess is that it is somewhere in between 1.2% and 0.012%.

 

There is a lot of room between those two numbers.....just sayin'.

 

Also, the C.D.C. is a .gov site. Since they are the ones pushing this, if there was an inflated stat, my guess is it would come from there.

Again, just sayin'....

 

http://cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n1.htm


http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/

 

Yes. The number of unconfirmed cases is usually much higher than the number of confirmed cases for something like influenza where many people have mild cases and do not even make a GP visit before recovering. Most GPs would not swab every flu-like illness they see since treatment is the same regardless of what strain of influenza it is. I would consider swabbing every flu-like illness I see as a waste of health resources. However, with the increased vigilance surrounding H1N1, there is likely a public health initiative to encourage GPs to swab more so that there is more data to track the progress of the virus. It is good public health policy in this situation because of the potential savings from minimizing the outbreak of H1N1 is much greater than the cost of the extra swabs. But this would not be normal practice for most flu seasons.

 

The thread you're referring to claimed a change in wording on the WHO site. This has nothing to do with that. In reality, though, the wording wasn't "changed" on the site in the manner that WND claimed. WND was actually looking at two completely different pages on the WHO site that were addressing two separate topics. There was no "redefinition" as WND claimed.

 

Your data is either very old or very inaccurate. See below from just one country:

Note that is 250,000 just in the Ukrane.

 

His data is both. Note the date on it, which is June of 2009, not to mention, it's a crackpot conspiracy website that's being cited. Regardless of the source, the data in and of itself is easily shown to be inaccurate (even for June of '09).

 

I'm not sure that this "Swine Flu" epidemic is as bad as the Obama administration is saying. Considering his propensity to lie, this might just be another attempt to gain more control over the gullible American public.

As far as Flu shots are concerned. I have not found them to be very effective at all. Just more money for the pharmaceutical industry.

 

A fatality rate of .028%.