Guest Speed Racer Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 That's the problem, as all the sick school kids in NYC should demonstrate. But they were infected inside the U.S., right? And the person who contracted it and returned to NY completed all travel prior to news of a possible epidemic, right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Unless you have evidence to the contrary, by the time this outbreak was widely reported, international tourists had already been in and out of Mexico countless times Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 And looking at the history of the country when is the last time our govt. told us the truth and did something that actually was for the public's health and safety?Pearl Harbor? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Don't know if someone mentioned this already but we have our 1st confirmed case in Mass...*sigh* Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 So now that it has been confirmed why allow it to be spread to areas that would otherwise be unaffected if not for U.S. travelers bringing back the virus? [HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER USE ALERT]If 6% of Americans will be affected negatively by a measurement of 40 discomfort units (DU) if no restrictions are in place (by contracting the flu and recovering, contracting and dying, or knowing someone who has contracted and died), and 20% of Americans experience 60 DU (in revenue loss for travel, business loss because of restricted travel, or swine flu spread within the U.S.) with travel restrictions in place, then it harms fewer people to leave travel as-is. To sum:RESTRICT TRAVEL: 20% Americans experience 60 DUNO RESTRICTIONS: 6% Americans experience 40 DU Seems to me this is the sort of calculus they're using on the travel restrictions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 [HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER USE ALERT]If 6% of Americans will be affected negatively by a measurement of 40 discomfort units (DU) if no restrictions are in place (by contracting the flu and recovering, contracting and dying, or knowing someone who has contracted and died), and 20% of Americans experience 60 DU (in revenue loss for travel, business loss because of restricted travel, or swine flu spread within the U.S.) with travel restrictions in place, then it harms fewer people to leave travel as-is. To sum:RESTRICT TRAVEL: 20% Americans experience 60 DUNO RESTRICTIONS: 6% Americans experience 40 DU Seems to me this is the sort of calculus they're using on the travel restrictions. Probably, but like all govt. calculations they seem to have it backwards as it will now affect travel etc. across the entire country once it spreads in the major cities, instead of making the tough choice at the outset and actually getting control of the situation, at least in your own country. The biggest problem with the equation is relying on Mexico to control the spread quickly, which seems completely unrealistic given people's limited access to medicine outside of major cities, where it will spread. But from what I understand, they are already pulling people of planes who are showing symptoms or were in a exposed area, regardless of citizenship. In fact most other govts. are doing that and halting import of any of our meat products, including beef. We have not even heard of food restrictions in this country. So I have my doubts as to how effective such a calculation would be and the truth of a lot of claims being made. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Then why did Vilsack announce yesterday that you can not get this from pork yet other govts. are burning their pork supplies? As far as I knew there has not been one diagnosed case of swine flu in an actual pig. And if that's true, where did it come from? It had to come from somewhere.There has been no reported case of animal-to-human transmission in the U.S. They're investigating whether "patient zero" in Mexico got it from a pig, but even that has not yet been confirmed. The problem comes when the virus jumps from swine to humans, and then mutates into a strain that can be transmitted between humans. That's why there's more concern with this than with a regular flu, it's a new strain and they don't know the full effects yet. Other countries destroying their swine populations are potentially creating far more problems than they're solving (starting with adding to the public panic factor). This is related to the bird flu scare from a couple of years ago, in that humans generally can't get bird flu, but pigs can. In areas where birds and pigs live in close proximity, a flu strain can jump from a bird to a pig, and mutate into a strain that can then be passed to humans. Pigs are the incubators, even in cases where the flu doesn't necessarily affect them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 There has been no reported case of animal-to-human transmission in the U.S. They're investigating whether "patient zero" in Mexico got it from a pig, but even that has not yet been confirmed. The problem comes when the virus jumps from swine to humans, and then mutates into a strain that can be transmitted between humans. That's why there's more concern with this than with a regular flu, it's a new strain and they don't know the full effects yet. Other countries destroying their swine populations are potentially creating far more problems than they're solving (starting with adding to the public panic factor). This is related to the bird flu scare from a couple of years ago, in that humans generally can't get bird flu, but pigs can. In areas where birds and pigs live in close proximity, a flu strain can jump from a bird to a pig, and mutate into a strain that can then be passed to humans. Pigs are the incubators, even in cases where the flu doesn't necessarily affect them. That was my understanding too, so Vilsack's statement was puzzling. And IMO premature at best and completely untrue at worst given other govts. actions. I personally would not recommend eating a ham sandwich right about now ,no matter what they say is safe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NightOfJoy Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 [/b] That was my understanding too, so Vilsack's statement was puzzling. And IMO premature at best and completely untrue at worst given other govts. actions. I personally would not recommend eating a ham sandwich right about now ,no matter what they say is safe. What about pork chops? Is it safe? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 That was my understanding too, so Vilsack's statement was puzzling. And IMO premature at best and completely untrue at worst given other govts. actions. I personally would not recommend eating a ham sandwich right about now ,no matter what they say is safe.On what do you base that recommendation? Are any other forms of influenza transmitted by the ingestion of cooked and/or cured meat? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 [/b] That was my understanding too, so Vilsack's statement was puzzling. And IMO premature at best and completely untrue at worst given other govts. actions. I personally would not recommend eating a ham sandwich right about now ,no matter what they say is safe. That's what you took from my post? Even if you could get the flu from being in close proximity with a live pig (not likely in the US at this point, though still potentially possible), no, you cannot get swine flu from eating pork. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 [/b] That was my understanding too, so Vilsack's statement was puzzling. And IMO premature at best and completely untrue at worst given other govts. actions. I personally would not recommend eating a ham sandwich right about now ,no matter what they say is safe. You do know that there is a difference in getting it from a pig or from pork right? Pork, the meat, processed etc... you can not catch swine flu from, at least not according to the way my world works. Pigs/swine if you will, apparently you can catch it from the live animals. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PigSooie Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 So, swine flu is trichinosis? I hate people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lamradio Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Please God.. Not bacon.. For the love of God, not my bacon.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NightOfJoy Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 So pigs are bad, gotcha. What about boars and hogs? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 That's what you took from my post? Even if you could get the flu from being in close proximity with a live pig (not likely in the US at this point, though still potentially possible), no, you cannot get swine flu from eating pork. Like I said you may be right just don't think you know for sure. Here's something you were wrong about in your previous post I did not bother correcting. But don't think there is only one viewpoint and right answer about this. Swine Flu Genes From Pigs Only, Not Humans or Birds http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/...e/#previouspost The earliest cases occurred in the town of La Gloria in the Mexican state of Veracruz, not far from a large and notoriously unsanitary hog farm operated by Granjas Carroll, a subsidiary of giant American food company Smithfield Foods. Vercruz residents and some journalists have alleged that the virus could have evolved in the farm Quote Link to post Share on other sites
plasticeyeball Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 all that being said, i'm having pork chops on the grill tonight. i think the bbq sauce acts like a condom. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I could go for a BLT about right now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I blame hogzilla. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Like I said you may be right just don't think you know for sure. Here's something you were wrong about in your previous post I did not bother correcting. But don't think there is only one viewpoint and right answer about this.Well, as far as the influenza virus being transmitted by ham thing, there is the viewpoint of science, which tells us that never in recorded history has there been evidence of a person contracting influenza from ham (except, perhaps, from ham which has come in direct and immediate contact with a human carrier of the virus with poor personal hygiene), and then there is your viewpoint. But by all means, continue to push the Typhoid Hammy theory. It's kind of entertaining watching you find ways not to admit you're wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 9 cases in Chicago, although all are mild. I must admit, having dozens of employees from Mexico gives me some pause. Many of them travel to Mexico frequently. Who knows who they are in contact with outside of work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Well, as far as the influenza virus being transmitted by ham thing, there is the viewpoint of science, which tells us that never in recorded history has there been evidence of a person contracting influenza from ham (except, perhaps, from ham which has come in direct and immediate contact with a human carrier of the virus with poor personal hygiene), and then there is your viewpoint. But by all means, continue to push the Typhoid Hammy theory. It's kind of entertaining watching you find ways not to admit you're wrong. You are skipping the step of the processing in the same plants as the virus exists. The pigs being moved to market and potentially polluting the processing plant. Maybe they package it in the states, but I doubt it. If it's as new and powerful as they say then the food supply must be dealt with. Did I say it was likely to happen? No. But the closest comparison is the bird flu, which was never allowed to get to this stage. China destroyed the birds immediately. So I don't know what will happen. But every other country is taking that precaution but somehow that gets dismissed here but whatever. It's unlikely to get down to the consumer level but not of contaminating the processing plants. It's insane not to deal with the source, allow open travel to infected areas and then claim you are trying to contain this mystery virus. It's funny you zero in on one point and ignore the other points I have made. Given the recent performance of the FDA you have more faith than I do. You do remember other contaminated food that made it to market right? But somehow this is different because the same govt. tells you it's ok now? The tomato scare was also from the water and this virus supposedly also affected the water so it's not as far as stretch I guess as you think. I hope I am wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I still don't see where what you posted proves that what I said was wrong. I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with the food supply chain in the U.S. and Mexico. I would even agree with you that unsanitary conditions at those sites lead to food-borne diseases. And, that unsanitary conditions can be a breeding ground for disease in the swine population, including the flu. But what I am saying is, you will not get influenza from eating pork. If that's what you're worried about, you're worried about entirely the wrong thing. There's plenty to be worried about, don't borrow trouble on this one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Swine Flu Alert Raised to Level 5Global outbreak deemed 'imminent'; nations ramping up precautions http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30398682/?GT1=43001 WHO notches up swine flu pandemic alertGlobal outbreak considered imminent; vaccine efforts will be ramped up "The World Health Organization raised its pandemic alert for swine flu to the second highest level Wednesday, meaning that it believes a global outbreak of the disease is imminent. WHO Director General Margaret Chan declared the phase 5 alert after consulting with flu experts from around the world. The decision could lead the global body to recommend additional measures to combat the outbreak, including for vaccine manufacturers to switch production from seasonal flu vaccines to a pandemic vaccine. "All countries should immediately now activate their pandemic preparedness plans," Chan told reporters in Geneva. "It really is all of humanity that is under threat in a pandemic." That's martial law for all those not paying attention. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.