First related death
The death of a woman suffering from H1N1 swine flu in Scotland is a sad reminder that this is not always a mild infection. This is not only the first confirmed death in Britain, but the first outside of the Americas.
But it is not a signal that the virus is getting more virulent or that people are at any greater threat. The vast majority of the 1,200-plus people who have had the virus in the UK have experienced mild symptoms and then fully recovered.
Throughout the world, swine flu does present a slightly higher risk to those with existing respiratory illness, asthma, cardiovascular disease and obesity. It's worth remembering that seasonal flu kills several thousand people in the UK each winter. The difference with H1N1 swine flu is that the virus is almost exclusively targeting people under 65.
It is likely that cases in the northern hemisphere may tail off in the summer months, with a much bigger outbreak in the autumn. The virus can't be stopped altogether, but everyone can help to slow its spread by observing simple hygiene measures, and by staying home if they get the virus.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~59~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Good to see something posted that isnt completely negative for a change. The real amount of cases in the uk is probably ten times what is reported, the vast majority of people in the US who have had it havent even alerted the authorities, let alone needed medical treatment. The same is happening in Australia. the thousand or so cases are the very tip of the iceberg.
This is a good thing, the more people who catch it, the more it will spread out, rather than everyone getting sick in the same month and grinding the country to a halt. Its nowhere near as deadly as intially estimated, and i figured out a true death rate based on US figures today for a friend whos having a hard time dealing with swine flu.
First the the conservative estimate from the New York health authorites...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/nyregion/11flu.html?_r=1&ref=health
So lets just put this into context, half a million cases in new york, essentially no tamiflu given out, and 12 deaths... Im not a mathematician but they are VERY low odds of dying! I just worked the death rate out, 0.000024. So one in every 41 thousand people die from swine flu.
Yes thats an estimate in NY, but the real figure is likely to be higher, and even if you half that figure, quarter it even, the death rate is tiny, much smaller than seasonal flu.
Complain about this comment
The H1N1 continues to be the most followed case of flu in human history. Yet we still seem to be in the dark to many details. This really exposes humans lack of foresight and knowledge limit. But what I find troubling is the medias constant coverage and search for bad news is really just fear mongering. The world over, hospitals are full of people sick from a myriad of diseases. Many die of unknown sickness and because the "dots" haven't been connected a possible "pandemic" passes with out being noticed. Mr Fergus Walshe's confident photo in the top corner appears to one of a antagonist and not a journalist. But then again, if his assignment is to keep the masses in a unwarranted state of fear, he is succeeding.
Complain about this comment
It is extraordinary that the hysteria keeps beingwhipped up again and again with this. Why did you not note that the individual had pre-existing conditions? How many people have died of MRSA this year? How many people died from diy accidents? Could go on, but one death from someone who was already sick doesn't make this a lead story. Have you not gone back and looked at the SARS outbreak. That hysteria was exceptional, but you can bet your last pound that the news won't drag people on and pick them up on their apocalyptic and incorrect comments much as those who essentially were totally wrong about SARS weren't told you were humilating wrong. In the last 20 years not one person has died on a scheduled airliner flight either coming in or leaving the UK. 75000 have died on the roads in that time. Apparently that isn't news! i would suggest that one previously ill peron dying of the flu isn't either
Complain about this comment
Sorry to hear about the lady who died. Condolences of course to her family.
It is useful though to know basic health information about those who unfortunately succumb: it helps the public put things into context. If all we hear is news of deaths and no other information then many people will panic needlessly when in fact one needs generally to be severely asthmatic or have congestive heart failure, be immuno-suppressed, etc, before flu (of any type, not just swine flu) becomes a serious enough illness to kill.
For the general public, if you're normally healthy and you've had a nasty send-you-to-bed-for-a-week bout of flu in the past then it doesn't look like swine flu is going to be any more lethal than that flu you've had before. I know I've had that 'literally couldn't get out of bed for 6 days' normal flu before and survived. I see no reason why swine flu should be any different. Not pleasant (in the same way that a stinking cold isn't exactly fun) but not lethal in the normal everyday course of events.
Think of pandemics this way: scientists could discover a bug that simply gave people a chronic itchy elbow for a week. It could be the most contagious bug ever and spread like wildfire. It would still qualify as a pandemic inasmuch as it spread widely and unconstrained but it needn't be especially fatal, if at all. Pandemic really only describes spread.
A vanishingly small percentage of people are going to get properly ill because of swine flu and the vast majority of them would have been equally ill with normal flu. While we need to know what to do to protect ourselves from it (in the same way as any other illness like winter vomiting or colds or food poisoning, etc) it's just another normal bug in the grand scheme of things. Looking at the media response anyone would think it was the black death or ebola that was spreading like wildfire. In a year's time we'll all look back and wonder what all of the fuss was about.
Complain about this comment
Good to see people finally using their heads! Nice comments guys.
I love the mass media these days. For some silly reason i had faith in the BBC, i think because it was the "nations broadcaster" or something, i should of realised its just sky news without the ad's. Same shallow conten, same desperate headlines to grasp your clicks and hits for their site.
Complain about this comment
Re: Underlying health conditions
Comment 3, suggests that because the lady had underlying health conditions she was "already sick", this is not true.
It would help if the media could underline what these health conditions are, from my understanding they include:
-being obese
-being under 2 or over 65
-having Asthma
-having Emphysema
-being pregnant
-having an immune defficiency
now firstly, this list includes a lot of people. So saying oh she was already ill, is not accurate, nor the main point. Saying these things make you more susceptible is including a lot of people in the at risk category. The term is used to try and reassure people, to try and say it won't happen to you, but that is a backhanded compliment as it simultaneously slights many people who do have these conditions.
Secondly, not all of these are illnesses are they? Being pregnant, oh well that's a shame, being of a certain age, oh dear that's a shame too.
And asthma, how widespread is that?
This term paints a picture of someone already under the weather getting another illness that finishes them off, but that is at best inaccurate and at worst plain wrong.
So there needs to be more transparency about these issues and more care taken when banding about the term underlying health conditions.
Complain about this comment
Thanks to all for their comments. News about this death emerged yesterday evening and details are still coming through. For the record, in all my BBC reporting first on the Ten oclock News last night, but also Today, 5live etc - I have pointed out that this patient had underlying health conditions, as does our main story on this sad case. I did say in this post that those with health problems are at greater risk.
Complain about this comment
At risk of sounding cynical, some of the messages we are receiving from the the health authorities, rather sound like Lance Corporal Jones' "Don't Panic!" Somehow they don't really reassure.
I don't follow how John Oxford comes to the conclusion that now the virus has escaped into the general population and, therefore, will be being passed on increasingly in day to day contact between increasing numbers of people, the chance of picking up the virus is remote.
As it spreads within the community, the risk must surely increase. Realistically, most homes and offices (buses or tube trains or whatever) are NOT hospital isolation wards or other controlled environments. Or is he saying that the virus is not actually particularly infectious - i.e. that you need to be exposed to a significant amount of contaminant for a significant time? If so, why doesn't he say that clearly?
Perhaps he is really implying that the 'reported' cases of this flu variant are not likely to increase significantly and quickly, perhaps due to the public and/or GPs (or other medics) not testing for it and not reporting it.
I mean managing the spread of this infection hardly seems to be some GPs current priority - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8097155.stm
Whatever, given that this is seemingly an infectious virus that has been flown in from abroad, it does not fill me with confidence that it has escaped into the community so easily. That does no bode well for any thoughts of dealing with the aftermath of say a terrorist event involving viral or bacterial infected materials.
Complain about this comment
Other than reducing the resources needed in the short term so we can stock pile, I see little benefit of slowing the spread of this virus.
It seems the scientific community have accepted that we cannot stop this until the virus has run its course. Is there benefit in ensuring as many people have encountered the virus as early as possible to build natural immunity and therefore reduce the risk of mutated more dangerous virus'?
I know that we naturally fear disease, but once applauded chicken pox partys for kids should make a return IMHO
Complain about this comment
This blog is actually very good. I have tested the water and found that all of my comments have been accepted, none rejected. I feel that what we have to say, is being allowed, and there is no censorship blocking our views. Well done Fergus and well done BBC. I do not think Fergus is trying to instill a sense of panic, rather the reverse. Fergus starts of with a debate question and we, the blog writers are having our say, REALLY having our say.
My condolences to the family who have lost someone to swine flu. I hope you are getting all the support you need at such a difficult time.
Don;t worry Sutara, I am sure you and your family will be just fine.
Complain about this comment
Sutara,
What you write about GPs is offensive.
I am a GP in one of the outbreak areas. We worked here most days until late night until we had a semblance of control - for the moment. But that does not stop us to be - quite rightly - worried about matters such as those raised by the BMA.
If we have to work in reduced circumstances due to lack of resources - no ambulances, no hospital beds, patients who in good times might have done well in hospital will have to stay at home and possibly die - then being sued for matters beyond our control is not right. And if the government expects us to take (lack of) resources actively into account when making decisions then it needs to accept (some) responsibility.
Regarding death in service payments - I expect my trade union to raise such matters. Saves me from having to worry about my family when doing things which are a lot more dangerous than my and your normal life. Lack of such payments seems to affect mostly locums (freelance doctors) who have no fixed place of work (but cover sickness or holiday absences) and might fall sick following shifts here or there or anywhere. Death in service benefits are only paid to people who are in a contract at time of death.
These freelancers have (unlike us fulltime GPs) no legal obligation to work (not being tied into a contract of any sort) so the government should at least ensure that rising to the challenge does not affect them disproportionately negatively.
Complain about this comment
to ScottishGP
What can we do as individuals, to help make your job easier?
If you have some time, could you list what you want us ordinary folks to do to help.
What can the government do to make your job easier?
Do you need volunteers to do basic jobs like filling in forms, visiting, and delivering stuff?
Complain about this comment
11. At 09:25am on 15 Jun 2009, ScottishGP wrote:
"Sutara,
What you write about GPs is offensive."
No - it's called dealing with realities. If you read back on these blogs it wasn't me who raised the issues of some GPs who had seemingly be quite disinterested in some possible swine flu cases.
It may well be a minority of GPs who are not testing possible (even probable) cases, but it is a factor that needs to be considered, along with patients who chose not to even contact their GP or any other health professional, in terms of assessing the meaningfulness of the current statistics being bandied about as facts by the health authorities.
As for the reporting of 'death in service' benefits raised by your profession's union(s), may I remind you that in many densely populated urban areas, many patients rarely see the actual GP they are registered with and the actions of locums and 'out-of-hours' cover doctors are more likely to impinge upon them than the actions of their actual GP.
This occurs perhaps more rarely in less populated rural areas, but having lived many years in the London suburbs, I can vouch it happened to me, and those near and dear to me, frequently.
Complain about this comment
sensibleoldgranny,
Thanks. The main thing to do right now is to respect the advise given by everyone:
If you are ill, make contact by phone, do not turn up in casualty or surgery with flu symptoms. You gain nothing, but put others at risk if yor really have the illness.
Regarding volunteering: We maintain a list of people in the surgery with skills and time, willing to volunteer when needed. We had an excellent response when we asked for drivers to ship material etc about and this was really highly appreciated. If things get worse for everyone, this might again be a very much needed help.
Sutara - exactly. Locum doctors are a absolute necessity (particularly if we permanent GPs get sick or die) and if they are not adequately protected by the NHS pension scheme (which covers all us permanent staff against death in service), they will feel a fair bit more hesitant to expose themselves to risks for which they have no contractual obligation whatsoever.
So, do yourself a favour and take such concerns seriously instead of harping on about doctors not wanting to work. We are fathers and mothers like everyone else and worry about our kids in times like this. But to add to that a fear of a financial disaster for the orphans is not necessary.
Complain about this comment
14. At 11:23am on 15 Jun 2009, ScottishGP wrote:
"Sutara -
So, do yourself a favour and take such concerns seriously instead of harping on about doctors not wanting to work."
Whilst I accept that you are clearly either stressed out, or just have an unfortunate patronising manner, I will state categorically that, if you read the post, I made one caveated remark about a current news story which hardly amounts to "harping on about" anything.
And, again if you read what I actually said, I did not accuse anyone of 'not wanting to work', the remark was about prioritisation.
Complain about this comment
"I did not accuse anyone of 'not wanting to work', the remark was about prioritisation."
Yes. And while we can work on other things (the outbreaks are still localised) our union pushes the things which should be sorted by the time things go bad.
Our trade union has tried to get these matters resolved for over a year.
Complain about this comment
I thought that if the Muslim terrorists we were all so afraid of didn't have scruples about biological warfare on human or other targets or contact with certain domesticated animals, it would be quite trivial for them to make foot and mouth disease universal and permanent in the United Kingdom, which would be a real economic blow. Maybe they don't have such objections, they just never thought of it. In which case, whoops.
As for the flu, if it was going to be impossible to stop people bringing it in by air then why was any kind of prevention attempted? It looks like a waste of time, money, and public understanding of the issues. What's the message now, go ahead and catch it, you most probably won't die?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS