90% of flu
deaths, yes. But all the age-related data that I could find for the latest outbreak was about
patients - how many people became infected. Becoming infected is not a very big deal if you get ill but then you get better. But if the large majority of the deaths this time are among the elderly and those with medical problems then most of the population doesn't need to panic. They need to concentrate on not spreading the disease further, not on demanding to be taken into intensive care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by merlinmaxwell
Controlling any potential fatal virus (or bacterium) is a good thing, perhaps we should all be compelled to have two weeks supply of food in stock and obey governments orders to stay put. Discuss...
|
I've never seen an account of any analysis the government might have done, but we've had flu outbreaks pretty much for ever, routinely with 20,000 deaths a year (if the death rate is 2% that means a million people getting the disease) yet the health service deals with the extra load rather than imposing the economic burden of insisting on stockpiles, recruiting more police to enforce it and keeping people away from work. I can't imagine the idea hasn't crossed their mind. So I guess they must have considered it and rejected it.
It's not as if they do nothing. They spend a good deal on offering the vaccine to nearly half of us (
25 million last year). The take-up rate is less than 50% though, except among the over 65's. There are also messages about good hand hygiene and about staying away from others if you do get sick. Where the whole isolation approach goes belly up of course is if the flu is transmissible before you get any symptoms.
Cheers,
GJ