Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 07:50 PM Oct 2014

Ebola Is Bad. But the Flu Is Worse.

As we stare with horror at the ravages of Ebola, it is easy to overlook an old familiar foe: the flu. Ebola has claimed fewer than 4,000 lives globally to date, none in the United States. Flu claims between 250,000 and 500,000 lives every year, including over 20,000 in the United States—far more American lives than Ebola will ever claim.

Ebola is no joke: The Centers for Disease Control project 1.4 million cases of the disease worldwide by January in a worst-case scenario. But by comparison, the 1918 pandemic killed an estimated 50 to 100 million worldwide. The United States simply cannot afford to be complacent about flu preparedness.

Getting ready for the flu is a complex endeavor, relying on surveillance, detection, communication and detailed response plans. The United States has been fine-tuning its response plans since it first released a national flu pandemic strategy in 2005. The linchpin of the strategy is timely access to an effective flu vaccine.

And that’s where the trouble lies. Ten years ago this week, the United States lost nearly half its flu vaccine supply overnight when British regulators detected contamination at a manufacturing facility. U.S. flu planners, who had been eyeing the reemergence of a deadly form of bird flu (H5N1), were deeply shaken. If the manufacturing base was too frail to service seasonal flu, how would it respond to a pandemic?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/ebola-is-bad-but-the-flu-is-worse-111662.html#ixzz3FbIE3mER



Kendall Hoyt is assistant professor at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and author of Long Shot; Vaccines for National Defense.

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

ozone_man

(4,825 posts)
1. Excellent point!
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 08:09 PM
Oct 2014

In the unlikely case that the ebola virus becomes airborne, then that would be catastrophic.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
5. Bleeding from the eyeballs sounds worse than flu.
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 11:44 PM
Oct 2014

I get the point and agree that flu has been more deadly, but something about Ebola makes most horror movies look like picnics. It is more the thought of it, I think, with most people.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
11. Get it? People die all the time, so worrying about a virus with 70-90% lethality is just silly-pants
Thu Oct 9, 2014, 03:13 AM
Oct 2014

Or something.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
12. Something tells me that yearly Ebola vaccine is going to hurt like hell.
Thu Oct 9, 2014, 03:23 AM
Oct 2014

Oh wait, that's right. There is no vaccine to protect from Ebola.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
15. Risk assessment: flu spreads easily and kills rarely; ebola spreads rarely and kills easily
Thu Oct 9, 2014, 03:56 AM
Oct 2014

I'm personally more worried about the flu, but you can do the math yourself.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
16. It's also well-nigh impossible to contain the flu, so beyond getting a shot and washing your hands
Thu Oct 9, 2014, 03:59 AM
Oct 2014

Regularly, "worrying" about it is pointless.

On the other hand, if people had taken ebola more seriously in April, this could have been contained.

 

Drayden

(146 posts)
6. The daily post about the flu?
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 11:46 PM
Oct 2014

It's getting old. Lemme correct some things: flu deaths are unknown, because they are estimated. Second, even the CDC lists it as 3000-40,000 a year, a wildly varying number. Third, flu virus is rampant here. If the Ebola virus became as rampant here as flu, many, many, many more would be dead. Why? Because ebola is much deadlier than the flu.

Response to Drayden (Reply #6)

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
8. Um...if you get the flu, you'll very likely survive unless you have other health issues
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 11:55 PM
Oct 2014

If you get Ebola, you'll likely die.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
14. I'll be happy to get an ebola vaccine once one is available.
Thu Oct 9, 2014, 03:34 AM
Oct 2014

Although one hopes with any luck an effective vaccine could be given to ring any outbreaks and effectively stop them. You wouldn't need to vaccinate everyone.

I'd imagine if and when one is widely available vaccinating at-risk populations near the reservoir of the virus; fruit bats or whatever, may be a good idea.

Getting the yearly flu shot is on my list for the next week or so.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ebola Is Bad. But the Flu...