<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Study on Swine Flu</title>
	<atom:link href="http://72.10.34.174/vss/2009/05/new-study-on-swine-flu/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://72.10.34.174/vss/2009/05/new-study-on-swine-flu/</link>
	<description>An ARC Collaboration</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 03:21:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: alakoff</title>
		<link>http://72.10.34.174/vss/2009/05/new-study-on-swine-flu/comment-page-1/#comment-39777</link>
		<dc:creator>alakoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 19:28:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropos-lab.net/vss/?p=426#comment-39777</guid>
		<description>A key claim from the study, reported by Donald McNeil in the NY Times, relates to our earlier discussion of which prior pandemic should serve as the exemplar in developing a response strategy:  &quot;Researchers estimated that the current flu would act more like the 1957 Asian flu than like the 1918 Spanish flu.&quot;  This is based on their estimate of clinical severity: a fatality rate of .3 percent to 1.5 percent.  Aside from this very wide range, there would seem to be a few problems with this estimate, and with the comparison to earlier pandemics: (1) the fatality rate in 1918 is not known - though it is estimated at 2.0 - 2.5 percent; (2) the total number of cases (vs. fatalities) in Mexico - ie. the denominator in calculating the fatality rate - is not known; and (3) the fatality rate is likely to be much higher in places with poor basic health care and lack of access to antivirals.  As the NYT article puts it: &quot;Poor countries with young populations, disorganized public health measures and substandard hospital care appear much more vulnerable than wealthier ones.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A key claim from the study, reported by Donald McNeil in the NY Times, relates to our earlier discussion of which prior pandemic should serve as the exemplar in developing a response strategy:  &#8220;Researchers estimated that the current flu would act more like the 1957 Asian flu than like the 1918 Spanish flu.&#8221;  This is based on their estimate of clinical severity: a fatality rate of .3 percent to 1.5 percent.  Aside from this very wide range, there would seem to be a few problems with this estimate, and with the comparison to earlier pandemics: (1) the fatality rate in 1918 is not known &#8211; though it is estimated at 2.0 &#8211; 2.5 percent; (2) the total number of cases (vs. fatalities) in Mexico &#8211; ie. the denominator in calculating the fatality rate &#8211; is not known; and (3) the fatality rate is likely to be much higher in places with poor basic health care and lack of access to antivirals.  As the NYT article puts it: &#8220;Poor countries with young populations, disorganized public health measures and substandard hospital care appear much more vulnerable than wealthier ones.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

