Thai expert: swine flu milder than normal flu which kills 30%!!
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Despite having 2 deaths due to Swine flu of apparently healthy
individuals, Thai Minister of Health deemed Swine Flu less dangerous
than normal flu because normal flu will kill 30% of patients.
Avian flu and Sars BOTH kill about 60%. Which flu kills about 30%?
Not even Spanish flu can kill 30%, only about 5%.
One self appointed expert in scm even deemed that normal flu routinely
kills people older than 2 and younger than 60.
I have yet to see any evidence of it yet.
TYPE-A (H1N1) VIRUS
Flu death toll rises to 2
By The Nation
A-40-year-old woman and a 42-year-old man in Bangkok have become the
country's first two fatalities linked to the type-A (H1N1) influenza
virus, Public Health Minister Witthaya Kaewparadai announced Saturday.
Ads by Google
Avoid Swine Flu
Stock up on Medical Supplies, Find list of Farmasi Near You!
www.701panduan.com
Swine Flu Realtime
Get the latest updates on infection, deaths and more.
www.ubalert.com
Bangkok Hotel
Great discounts on Luxury Suites Room in Bangkok online Booking Now!
www.WindsorSuitesHotel.com
Witthaya told a press conference that the woman fell ill on June 8 and
wa admitted to a private hospital seven days later with high fever and
pneumonia.
She was given oseltamivir anti-viral drug for five days but she her
condition worsened and she died on June 20.
The second victim fell ill on June 18 with fever and running nose.
He was admitted to a hospital on June 23 with high fever, coughing and
pneumonia.
He was also given oseltamivir anti-viral drug but his condition
worsened and he died on Friday.
Despite the deaths, Witthaya pleaded the public not to panic.
He said so far 1,209 type-A (H1N1) flu cases have been reported in
Thailand. Of these, 1,190 patients have been cured and 16 are still
inside hospitals.
He said 90 per cent of the cases recovered by themselves.
Witthaya said the type-A (H1N1) influenza has much lower fatality rate
than normal influenza which killed about 30 to 40 per cent of
patients.
CKSF
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
> On Fri,26Jun200923:15:38-0700(PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
> Ahmad" <othm...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/06/27/national/national_30106194...
...
> >One self appointed expert in scm even deemed that normal flu routinely
> >kills people older than2and younger than60.
That was my statement.
>
> >I have yet to see any evidence of it yet.
>
> That is because you don't know squat. Take this as a primer -
>
> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/507558
>
> Seasonal flu killed0.3/100,000people aged5-49every year in the US
> from1979to2001. That's not per100,000infections, that's per head
> of population. Roughly15,000deaths.
Assuming a population of 300 million that is 0.3/100,000*300,000,000.
That is 900, certainly not 15,000 and these include those with
previous medical conditions.
>
> I've seen a super fit professional Rugby player (22YOA) with no other
> health issues die within a week of influenza - though of course
And this guy is older than 20.
Swine flu also kills teenagers without any proven medical conditions,
certified by families and doctors, and recorded in world newspapers.
Unlike your guessing with your "I see".
> healthy people aged5-49aren't the group at greatest risk. If you
> don't have any immunity, you can still be in serious trouble, no
> matter how fit you are.
This swine flu will kill even more than 900 in a year between the age
groups of 5-49 as is currently being proven. Even perfectly healthy
teenagers die of Swine Flu.
Even without immunity, there is still treatment with Tamilflu. To die
even with this treatment, shows how virulent swine flu is compared to
normal flu.
Saying that Swine flu is milder than normal flu is just utterly stupid
and irresponsible.
>
> But your claim that seasonal flu doesn't kill healthy people aged2to60is nothing more than childish nonsense from a profoundly ignorant
You still have not proven your case at all. Only your so called "see",
without any clue as to the victim's true state of health. One
footballer even died because of a heart attack. One even still played
despite having a bad heart problem.
> person who is so ignorant that he can't recognise the limits of his
> knowledge, nor learn from his mistakes. Apparently blinded by the
You think you are the only one who knows your limits. You don't even
have any to begin with, as shown by your stupid analysis of the fact
that you try to present.
> most profoundest of arogances and conceits, he is blind to his own
> limitations and interprets criticism of his nonsense as the stupidity
> of others, rather than wiping away his own ignorance in the light of
> that criticism, it reinforces his belief in his own superiority.
You think seem to think that I'm superiour because I can prove you
wrong with facts.
Unlike your case of being unable to prove a single case, even with
facts that you submit.
If that were the case, I am indeed honoured, not that I care much
about it.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Paul Saccani
> Perth, Western Australia.
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
> On Mon,29Jun200907:13:53-0700(PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
...
> >>http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/507558
>
> >> Seasonal flu killed0.3/100,000people aged5-49every year in the US
> >> from1979to2001. That's not per100,000infections, that's per head
> >> of population. Roughly15,000deaths.
>
> >Assuming a population of300million that is0.3/100,000*300,000,000.
>
> >That is900, certainly not15,000and these include those with
> >previous medical conditions.
>
> And you have the temerity to claim that others don't know basic
> mathematics!
>
> You are so utterly without a clue it is almost shameful to expose your
> ignorance.
>
> What is22times900? Why, it is19,800, essential a third higher
What does every year means???
That figure of .3/100,000 is for every year.
This data is consistent with the pandemic data as well. It is
negligible compared to the current Swine Flu that affects similar age
group that numbers more than 40 so far, IN SUMMER.
> than the statistic I gave you. Evidently, you don't understand that
> an annual death rate over22years isn't the same as the number of
annual also means every year.
So annual death rate, is the death rate for ONE YEAR.
> deaths in ONE year.
I think you should go back to primary school mathematics class.
...
>
> >Swine flu also kills teenagers without any proven medical conditions,
> >certified by families and doctors, and recorded in world newspapers.
>
> As does seasonal flu, unlike your assertions. Your statement was
At the rate of 0.0003 % based on your data, but not on your stupid
interpretion of annual and "every year".
> wrong, if you have any guts, you will admit it. You will look much
> less of a fool if you do.
How can I admit to be as utterly stupid as you are?
...
> >This swine flu will kill even more than900in a year between the age
> >groups of5-49as is currently being proven.
>
> Those statistics were for the USA, and your claim is without any merit
> whatsoever.
So you think Australia is special?
You have suffered as much as USA so far, unlike UK that had taken so
much precautions.
And yet UK got infected months earlier than Australia. Actually, only
Victoria is that bad.
...
> >You still have not proven your case at all. Only your so called "see",
> >without any clue as to the victim's true state of health. One
> >footballer even died because of a heart attack. One even still played
> >despite having a bad heart problem.
>
> Ah, the "storm of drivel" defence.
These are facts which you can confirm yourself if your really care.
...
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
> On Wed,1Jul200907:37:53-0700(PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
...
> >> >> Seasonal flu killed0.3/100,000people aged5-49every year in the US
> >> >> from1979to2001. That's not per100,000infections, that's per head
> >> >> of population. Roughly15,000deaths.
Remember your original stupid assertion due to poor command of
mathematics.
...
>
> Dickhead, I pointed to15,000DEATHS over the period. You asserted
Now you say it is for the 22 year period, i.e. 900x22.
> that there were only900!
There were only 900 per year for ages 5-49
Compared to 30,000 for all ages.
If you want to compare the total for 22 years,
it will be 20,000 for ages 5-49 compared to
30,000 x 22 = 660,000 for all ages.
Those dying of common flu in the age groups 5-49 is still
insignificant compared to all groups.
Swine flu will not just kill 20,000 it will kill 500,000 within the
same age groups as current data indicates. Saying that common flu is
more deadly than Swine flu is just utter nonsense.
Swine flu is more than 10 times deadlier than common flu, and this is
with treatments with respirators and tamilflu.
Without respirators and tamilflu, the death rate will be much higher
as shown in Mexico at the early stages, which triggered the pandemic
call by WHO.
We are fortunate that Swine flu is still treatable, making it appear
less deadly than it really is, but still much more deadly than common
flu because it strikes larger groups and produce higher fatality/
mortality rate.
...
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
> On Thu,2Jul200908:41:53-0700(PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
> Ahmad" <othm...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >On Jul2,7:47 pm, Paul Saccani <sacc...@omen.net.au> wrote:
> >> On Wed,1Jul200907:37:53-0700(PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
> >...
...
> >Swine flu will not just kill20,000it will kill500,000within the
> >same age groups as current data indicates. Saying that common flu is
> >more deadly than Swine flu is just utter nonsense.
>
> Scientists don't simply pull figures out of their arse and pretend
Of course they don't but they make sound mathematical analysis based
on the current data. Not on stupid hunches that you tend to make.
> that they are facts in order to win arguments. That's the little
> piece of ethics that you seem never to have learned.
BAsed on the latest real data from CDC, not the estimated data,
manipulated to make pneumonia to be 50% due to flu, that figure of
20,000 in 20 years is over inflated.
As scientists, you should know the meaning of 0.0003%, i.e.
insignifant, although it may amount to milliions in 100 years as you'd
like to point out. This is based on CDC's ESTIMATED flu deaths,
instead of the REAL flu deaths.
You can read about it from the CDC data in 2001. Even the latest data
should indicate the nature of the data, i.e. estimated versus real
confirmed tests.
This is so unlike the current Swine flu deaths. None of which was
attributed to flu at all.
If you don't see these data as clear proofs that swine flu is much
deadlier than common flu, you are just an arrogant idotic bastard, as
I kept on telling you based on your racists attitudes.
>
> >Swine flu is more than10times deadlier than common flu, and this is
> >with treatments with respirators and tamilflu.
>
> That hasn't been our experience, nor is it in any way indicated in the
> available statistics.
So you think Australia is special, compared to Mexico?
What an arrogant bastard.
>
> You shouldn't confuse your mathematical and logical skills with the
> real thing.
It is just an analysis based on available data. Nothing to be proud
of.
>
> >Without respirators and tamilflu, the death rate will be much higher
> >as shown in Mexico at the early stages, which triggered the pandemic
> >call by WHO.
>
> More sad bullshit. The pandemic call by WHO was on the basis of the
> attenuated infections in Australia.
You are refering to Pandemic Level 6. But WHO had 6 stages of Pandemic
calls.
The earliest one was in response to the Mexican flu deaths. It was
immediately set to level 3, if I can remember correctly.
>
> >We are fortunate that Swine flu is still treatable, making it appear
> >less deadly than it really is, but still much more deadly than common
> >flu because it strikes larger groups and produce higher fatality/
> >mortality rate.
>
> Yeah, except that in the real world, it doesn't.
Your real Australian world that is far fetched from data in Mexico,
Canada and Argentina.
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
> On Mon,6Jul200904:46:27-0700(PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
...
> > Even the latest data
> >should indicate the nature of the data, i.e. estimated versus real
> >confirmed tests.
Why don't you refer to the data quoted by the New Zealander's
researcher??
>
> The corresponding table for2005lists1,812directly from influenza -
> 2001is a cherry picked year of low activity.
Why only 1,812???
What happened to your 30,000???
Disappeared in the ESTIMATED figure, didn't it?
I don't cherry pick because I only have data published in News. If you
have the full data, why don't you compare all, instead of picking the
2005. What happened to 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 etc.
The quoted data for 2001 was from a researcher, not me, who had
analysed various data as well, but picked 2001 as a good example. It
was explained in the original article.
I don't have any comment except to quote from the article his
conclusion.
>
> You pick data that suits you, rather than analysing the available
> data.
A data is still a data. Unless you come up with a contradicting data,
INSTEAD OF JUST ESTIMATES.
Your quoted data, 2005lists1,812 is good, but you failed to conclude
that your 30,000 estiMATED flu deaths is just way off target.
...
> >It is just an analysis based on available data.
>
> No, it is an analysis based on the data of an atypical year, cherry
> picked to make an unethical argument. This is then reinforced by your
> own incompetence.
data is still data, unlike YOUR COMPLETE absence of data, relying
instead ON ESTIMATES, that are way off target.
Your data of 1,812 is not that far off from 257 confirmed flu deaths,
compared to 30,000 ESTIMATED.
>
> The available data shows a very different picture, but you haven't
> looked at it.
>
Why don't you look at your data of 1,817????
Unless you don't consider it as data, while CDC ESTIMATE of 30,000 is
TRUE data!!!!
Idiot.
...
> >> More sad bullshit. The pandemic call by WHO was on the basis of the
> >> attenuated infections in Australia.
>
> >You are refering to Pandemic Level6. But WHO had6stages of Pandemic
> >calls.
> >The earliest one was in response to the Mexican flu deaths. It was
> >immediately set to level3, if I can remember correctly.
>
> Well, yes, they do. Ranging from Pandemic Phase One - No pandemic
> threat, all the way to phase6- an actual Pandemic.
>
> Phase3indicates a potential threat, not a Pandemic.
Even you use the phrase "pandemic call" for the level 6.
It is just a "call", i.e. warning.
Even right now, with declaration of level 6, many people still don't
believe that a Pandemic actually happening. There is no pandemic in
places where there are no Swine Flu.
>
> So, once again, you are talking crap, because you don't have the first
> clue about what you are talking about.
Maybe you'd like to rephrase your "pandemic call" into something more
serious, if you still think that you are not talking crap.
I only read what WHO was trying to explain from the various levels of
Pandemic.
You instead just want to look stupid.
...
> >Your real Australian world that is far fetched from data in Mexico,
> >Canada and Argentina.
>
> No, it isn't. It is actually completely consistent with that data,
Yes indeed. The lack of use of Tamilflu and use of respirators for
Mexico in the early stages. Mexico managed to reduce fatality by
introducing these measures.
It is an indication of how serious Swine Flu is compared to common
flu.
Mexico does not need to use Tamilflu and respirators in large numbers
for people with common flu symptoms earlier.
> but you do not have even one tenth of the understanding necessary to
> appreciate this.
These are all facts that you and idiots like you refuse to face up to.
And these are facts, which you ignore while relying on your limited
Australian response, and not quoting the facts that you are in, such
as the use of Tamilflu and number of Respirators used.
Mexico is very open about it and has won praises from WHO, unlike
Australia.
As a result, Mexico has recovered, but Australia has become worse. You
pay for your idiocy.
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:29:01 -0700 (PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
...
> >It is an indication of how serious Swine Flu is compared to common
> >flu.
> >Mexico does not need to use Tamilflu and respirators in large numbers
> >for people with common flu symptoms earlier.
>
> Blindly repeating this, without knowing what you are talking about
> counts for little.
Why don't your read the news and use your brain to gather the facts
instead of satisfying your stupidity.
...
> >These are all facts that you and idiots like you refuse to face up to.
>
> What's more likely, that all the leading experts in this field are
What? Leading experts that have no data to back them up at all? Apart
from their hunches?
> idiots, or that a lunatic with no medical training from Sabah is an
> idiot?
You don't need to be intelligent to read the news about researchers
from all over the world. Just honestly.
Have you ever read any other medical journals apart from your own?
Research after research had been published proving that Swine Flu is
much more virulent than Common flu, and yet you and your pet EXPERTS
refuse to admit it.
Anyone with a little bit of honesty and reading skills should be able
to figure this out, that all facts lead to the only conclusions that
Swine Flu is much more virulent than common flu. Only idiots don't
believe in any fact at all. So much for your so called medical
training. All of you need to go back to school to learn mathematics,
the very basic ones.
...
> >Mexico is very open about it and has won praises from WHO, unlike
> >Australia.
>
> More crap from an ill educated ignoramus with delusions of adequacy.
You mean WHO actually praise what Australia is doing, i.e. so sure
that Swine flu is much milder than common flu?
Only Mexico and now Japan had won such praise, and they got it not by
pretending that Swine Flu is milder than common flu.
Japan has zero fatality so far and I'm pretty sure now, that Japan
will have more fatalities from common flu than Swine Flu now, not
because Common flu is milder but because they have taken actions
against Swine flu, whereas they didn't respond similarly with common
flu.
...