Regular Flu vs Swine Flu

I came across this article about that regular flu kills about 250.000-500.000 people a year and H1N1 4000 people this year so far. I saw a lot of companies selling H1N1 protection kits one including biologic warfare body suit. Any of you guys are investing 25$ on H1N1 vaccine, taking it one step further buying Military grade protection or doing nothing at all? CNN almost made it like it is a hype so what is your take? I have a newborn son therefore me and my wife took all the flu shots available in the market. Thinking of purchasing the stock of flu shot making pharmaceutical companies, am I late?

CNN regular Flu vs H1N1

lol wow don't fall into the hysteria around H1N1.

I didn't and won't get either the regular or swine flu shot. I think I have a better chance of getting struck by lighting than dying from H1N1 . My wife who is pregnant and teaches elementary age children (pretty high risk) has also chosen not to get the flu shot because she feels it hasn't been tested enough. She talked it over with her doctor that agreed with her, she is taking some precautions like being extra careful around sick kids and washing/sanitizing hands more frequently than usual, but nothing crazy or way out there. As you stated way more people die from the flu than from H1N1 so I don't think we have much to worry about there.

As for the pharmaceutical stocks I think the H1N1 flu hysteria is already priced into them. I wonder about the lawsuit potential that the makers of flu shots could face for the debilitating injuries suffered by a small percentage of people that have taken the vaccine? Maybe they are protected from lawsuits (probably should be unless grossly negligent), but if they aren't the aftermath of H1N1 could be a field day for lawyers seeking damages.

ergenekon said: I came across this article about that regular flu kills about 250.000-500.000 people a year and N1H1 4000 people this year so far. I saw a lot of companies selling N1H1 protection kits one including biologic warfare body suit. Any of you guys are investing 25$ on N1H1 vaccine, taking it one step further buying Military grade protection or doing nothing at all? CNN almost made it like it is a hype so what is your take? I have a newborn son therefore me and my wife took all the flu shots available in the market. Thinking of purchasing the stock of flu shot making pharmaceutical companies, am I late?

CNN regular Flu vs H1N1First, it's H1N1, not N1H1.

If you have insurance, it should actually cost you only a couple of dollars, not $25. Our seasonal flu vaccinations cost us $2.42 each.

Since the vaccine is made exactly the same way that seasonal flu vaccines have been made for decades, I don't think that any extraordinary testing is required.

Yes, you are late buying stock in pharmaceutical companies. Also keep in mind that H1N1 is not the only thing going on in the industry right now. The companies risk being wiped out by government intervention.

Xnarg said: ergenekon said: I came across this article about that regular flu kills about 250.000-500.000 people a year and N1H1 4000 people this year so far. I saw a lot of companies selling N1H1 protection kits one including biologic warfare body suit. Any of you guys are investing 25$ on N1H1 vaccine, taking it one step further buying Military grade protection or doing nothing at all? CNN almost made it like it is a hype so what is your take? I have a newborn son therefore me and my wife took all the flu shots available in the market. Thinking of purchasing the stock of flu shot making pharmaceutical companies, am I late?

CNN regular Flu vs H1N1First, it's H1N1, not N1H1.

If you have insurance, it should actually cost you only a couple of dollars, not $25. Our seasonal flu vaccinations cost us $2.42 each.

Since the vaccine is made exactly the same way that seasonal flu vaccines have been made for decades, I don't think that any extraordinary testing is required.

Yes, you are late buying stock in pharmaceutical companies. Also keep in mind that H1N1 is not the only thing going on in the industry right now. The companies risk being wiped out by government intervention.

Typo corrected, however Regular flu seems to be killing more people then H1N1 even though vaccine is available everywhere ( last I paid 25 dollars, apparently our insurance coverages are not the same). If we are to declare emergency why aren't we declaring emergency for all FLU viruses around. It seems to be CDC data supports that H1N1 is dangerous but regular flu kills more, i don't get it.

ergenekon said: chimeer said:
As for the pharmaceutical stocks I think the H1N1 flu hysteria is already priced into them. I wonder about the lawsuit potential that the makers of flu shots could face for the debilitating injuries suffered by a small percentage of people that have taken the vaccine? Maybe they are protected from lawsuits (probably should be unless grossly negligent), but if they aren't the aftermath of H1N1 could be a field day for lawyers seeking damages.

As far as i know CDC issued immunity to the makers of this shot due to pandemic emergency.

Google search on immunity

The government handles claims due to vaccine injury, and there is a cap on damages. Why do you think that is?

All this protection does is encourage inadequate testing of new vaccines and allows for the rapid distribution of these inadequately tested vaccines while protecting the manufacturer's profits. And good luck filing a claim and proving to the government that you or a family member were damaged by a vaccine, unless you have deep pockets to appeal to the US Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

geebeebee said: It seems that you are falling into the hysteria of the dangers of the flu shot.

The manner in which the H1N1 flu shot was manufactured is the same manner in which vaccines have been made for like 50 years. Furthermore, pregnant women, especially those around tons of kids, are at a much higher risk, and H1N1 has proven to be particularly harmful towards pregnant women, certainly worse than lightning strikes.

Not trying to change your mind, to each their own, but wanted to debunk the anti-vaccine hysteria.

The world needs vaccine testers and for that I applaud you. I have already done my time with experimental vaccines (anthrax) thank you very much.

I was talking about my personal risk of being killed by H1N1 not my wife's, she has significantly more risk than I do. Which we both recognize at the same time the overall risk is relatively minor according to the CDC estimates 22 Million people have contracted H1N1 and ~4k have died. Some quick math says that one in 5500 people that get H1N1 die from it or .00018% of all the people that contract this virus die from it.

Regardless there is a lot of hysteria over what has amounted to nothing.

Repost:

Have you taken THE swine flu...

Another swine flu death..

It's a sad state of science education...

chimeer said: Rueters said: Seasonal flu has a death rate of less than 0.1 percent
Reuters said: He came up with a range of mortality from swine flu ranging from 0.007 percent to 0.045 percent.
Sources
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/12/h1n1.flu.deaths/index.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58E6NZ20090917
First of all, that's one scientist's opinion and is based on older info. More recent studies conclude:
"The mortality rate from swine flu has been variously estimated at between 0.2 and 1.23 percent, according to the country or region or social group that is analysed.
At its lower range, this estimate is akin to the death toll from ordinary, so-called seasonal flu, of around 0.1 percent."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5heJZS4nEMLHOi...

Also, the comparison to the number of seasonal flu deaths is misleading b/c most of the people who die from seasonal flu are sick and/or elderly whereas H1N1 has primarily been killing younger folks.
"Younger people also appear to be getting the most severe cases of pandemic flu. The median age of patients requiring hospitalization is 20, according to the CDC. In fatal cases, the median age is 37. Those figures are in stark contrast to the seasonal flu, which is most likely to sicken people who are elderly, very young or chronically ill. More than 90% of fatal cases involve senior citizens."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/18/science/sci-flu-mysterie...

geebeebee said:

Not trying to change your mind, to each their own, but wanted to debunk the anti-vaccine hysteria.

Agree, but for the record, the correct clinical term is "delusion" as in "anti-vaccine delusion." It is a fixed, false belief that is completely unfounded medically and which has absolutely no basis in reality. I am generally LESS successful arguing with these (usually) mothers than I am persuading my schizophrenic patients that they really aren't from another planet. And no, I am not exaggerating in any way.

chimeer said: lol wow don't fall into the hysteria around H1N1.

I didn't and won't get either the regular or swine flu shot. I think I have a better chance of getting struck by lighting than dying from H1N1 .

Actually I ran the numbers the other day assuming similar virulence to Spanish flu and your are at least 600X more likely to die from H1N1 than lightning, but only about 6X more likely than just dying from any other purpose. Check out some actuarial tables.

1) "Famous epidemiologists" (and I say it this way because I read it a couple years ago - it was attributable to an excellent source which I am not going to take the time to Google now because the Colts game starts soon) say - In a perfect world, the absolutely safest thing to do for each family or person (and also curiously enough absolutely the cheapest thing to do for each family or person), would be to NOT get the (fill in the blank - 1) H1N1 vaccine, or 2) regular vaccine) themselves, BUT for everyone else that this family or person comes in contact with to get it.

That way, the family or person in question would not have even the slightest chance of suffering any side effects from that vaccine (circa. 1976 - Gerald Ford - swine flu... remember?), since of course they did not receive it, AND they will have an extremely low chance of catching the flu from others, since 99.999% of all others whom that family or person comes in contact with will not have said flu, since they WILL have been given the vaccine.... Unfortunately, such a situation is of course impossible in real life.

Kind of like the economics of farming. From the perspective of each individual farmer, the best outcome would be for that farmer to receive perfect weather, while literally all his neighbor farmers do not. Thus he will have high yields, yet overall prices will be high because most farmers did not have high yields.

2) One reason that H1N1 gained so much attention is that EARLY data from Mexico hinted that this strain had a 1/15 mortality rate in kids when first discovered down there, and not much mortality at all in older folks, whereas the normal curve in normal flu is a bell - it differentially kills the young AND the old but not the middle - not so with H1N1. The old folks seem to get a pass, statistically speaking.

3) H1N1 is turning out to be yet another disease/epidemic/”horrific” event that is impacted by geographical/climate/temperature/biological/cultural/cleanliness issues. Remember killer bees, which gradually were moving up from Brazil? I bet the last time you hear abut them was when they were approaching the Rio Grande, right. Remember the fear-mongering? Where are they now?

I've had the piggy flu (i tested positive for H1N1 but negative for influenza A). While it was no fun, it also wasn't any worse than the regular flu.

BTW, if you think you have the flu, verify with your insurance company before having the test performed. The test is very expensive, and many insurers do not cover it. Luckily, mine did.

RedCelicaGT said: I've had the piggy flu (i tested positive for H1N1 but negative for influenza A). While it was no fun, it also wasn't any worse than the regular flu.

BTW, if you think you have the flu, verify with your insurance company before having the test performed. The test is very expensive, and many insurers do not cover it. Luckily, mine did.

I had it to, it wasn't all that bad. The hardest part was not being able to be around the family and stay in my room, watch tv, sleep, and surf the net.

VBMcGB said: Since this discussion isn't really financially-oriented, I'm zapping it over to OT.Don't you mean plopping?

katx said:

ETA: BTW, I heard on TV multiple times that H1N1 vaccines are free to the provider. The government is footing the bill. However, providers can charge an administering fee but cannot charge for the vaccine itself.

I talked to a provider with a huge geriatric practice over the weekend . You lose or make zero profit in charging an administering fee. Anything free means they have to be kept in a separate refrigerator, away from their own supplies. One of the nurses have to keep track on the temperature over the next few years and log them to ensure they are chilled properly. They actually have to go out and buy a new mini fridge just for it. The test costs $300 and not many insurance companies are covering it. So it is a guessing game unless the patient wants to foot the bill.

The government is not footing the bill. The tax payers are.

katx said: 1. You lose on the administering fee if you do not charge enough. Math says that you can make money on it if you charge enough or lose on it if you do not charge enough. I do not see your point.

2. I do not know why anything free must be kept separate. But even if so, that should/could go in the administering fee.

3. I do not know if the vaccines are supposed to be kept over the next several years. It seems we do not have enough supplies for this year yet.

4. I do not see why the cost of test is relevant here.

5. I would like to see an evidence that ins companies are not paying for a legitimate test of a legitimate disease.

6. Your last point is a semantic point. It can be said about anything gov expenditure. I do not think there is any dispute in the facts of this matter (who pays what).

He is running a business. He would like to make a profit every time if possible. If you charge enough, would the patient willing to pay the difference is the question.

I did not mean this H1N1 vaccine will be kept over several years. Whenever you stock a particular vaccine, the temperature requirement may be different. Keeping track of the fluctuation over a period of time is required. Hopefully not too much up's and down's. That was the same challenge years ago when the chickenpox vaccine came out. The resistance to stocking it was the temperature requirement.

When you get something free, technically it has to be kept separate from your own stockpile of other vaccines. You are supposed to keep a log of it and replenish as needed with proper documentation. Part of it is to prevent fraud and part of it is typical government hassle. Some hospitals that serve a large indigent population even turn down special Medicaid pricing for products that are hugely discounted because they don't want the hassle of separate storage and accounting.

Insurance companies do not move that fast in covering everything legitimate. For example, it took them a few years to decide to pay for screening for osteoporosis. Then another year or so to decide how often a woman should get a follow-up DEXA scan to assess how well is she responding to therapy for osteoporosis.

katx said: I do not know. But is that not true with any other procedure? Are clinics mandated to offer H1N1 vaccines?

I am not an expert on this. I am not sure if it can be mandated. I do know sometimes a clinic will tell a patient we don't stock this and please go to your local health department. It seems more often with vaccines.

It can simply the resistance to stocking a new vaccine and the associated costs. Sometimes a clinic will wait until, say, the Academy of Pediatrics officially endorses a vaccine as part of the regimen before giving it. I cannot break it down for you. Some clinics simply designate a nurse to draw blood and administer vaccines all day long versus bringing a patient in with an appointment to reduce the cost.

I did a lot of contract negotiations with hospitals and managed care organizations in my previous life. Once in awhile the government would offer this kind of program. The pharmacy directors always love the pricing and then declined to sign. It was always the requirement in paperwork and separate storage that killed the deal. May be it is not the government fault. My read is they don't want to spend extra manpower to comply and so no deal. This is specific to Medicaid or indigent pricing only, not the usual contracts.

As for whether a clinic will be reimbursed or not. The chance is it may or may not. My friend is probably not too crazy about spending extra time to test the system and see if he will be reimbursed or not. You know many times insurance companies will reject a claim without being very specific. Then the clinic has to second guess if it was the coding, typos, or what and then re-submit.

BrianGa said: katx said: why is H1N1 problem portrayed as a more severe/important problem?Because of potential mutations like this might be.
Good news then.
The fatality rate of that flu is less than 0.02%
The fatality rate of H1N1 worldwide is .8% link (numbers in paragraph 5).
The fatality rate of H1N1 in the US is .11% (same article)

So that flu is roughly 40 times less deadly than H1N1.

BrianGa said: kamalktk said: BrianGa said: katx said: why is H1N1 problem portrayed as a more severe/important problem?Because of potential mutations like this might be.
Good news then.
The fatality rate of that flu is less than 0.02%
The fatality rate of H1N1 worldwide is .8% link (numbers in paragraph 5).
The fatality rate of H1N1 in the US is .11% (same article)

So that flu is roughly 40 times less deadly than H1N1.Fine, but not all mutations are necessarily so tame.
The real problem is fear. Ukraine's PM is welcome to visit me anytime though.

My friend at work has been diagnosed with H1N1. She worked on Monday sick. =( We are doomed.