Israeli official: Swine flu name offensive

[Craneman 2]

What makes you think the Pigs are not offended.

[fozzie 41]

Who gives a ** if its called swine flu!!!! Just because you don't eat pork doesn't mean that anything named after it is offensive. That guy is a complete and utter douchebag!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You can bet that if there is a worldwide pandemic of some deadly disease - and the human race is on the brink of extinction, we'll have special commissions to chew over the terminology.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Private Pike

[Peikko 1,575]

I guess a flu pandemic would solve global warming though, think positive. That and male pot smoking reducing fertility. My understanding was though, that as flu's go, this one isn't particularly aggressive and respects vaccination. The people in Mexico that are most affected are, strangely young, healthy males - but those apparently are the people least likely to be vaccinated against it. At least, that was the last thing I read about it - information may have been updated.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not the Andromeda Strain.

[scandal 951]

I guess a flu pandemic would solve global warming though, think positive. That and male pot smoking reducing fertility. My understanding was though, that as flu's go, this one isn't particularly aggressive and respects vaccination. The people in Mexico that are most affected are, strangely young, healthy males - but those apparently are the people least likely to be vaccinated against it. At least, that was the last thing I read about it - information may have been updated.

How would a pandemic solve global warming? Confused me there.

Flu vaccines in stock are not effective against this strain, there are no effective vaccines at this time. Antiviral drugs (tamiflu etc.) are likely to be effective, we don't know yet.

[Peikko 1,575]

Global warming is caused by massive consumption of energy reserves. Reduce the population of the world significantly (as a result of illness/war/famine) problem solved until the populations reach those kinds of proportions again.

As I understood it, the reason why young healthy males were most at risk is because they are the least likely to be vaccinated against flu as a precautionary measure. Those who are are much less likely to catch it - and the evidence is they are not - however as I said, I read this on Friday so if there is new information, I have not read it yet.

Once you have the flu, there is no vaccine or treatment that is particularly effective. You are aware, are you not that flu accounts for a large proportion of premature deaths in all countries all the time?

Edited April 27, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[MsAnn 0]

no more kosher menudo, or gefilte fish tacos for los amigos..

OMG LOL kosher menudo!

[pedroh 21]

someone got it

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think they can dose you with anti-viral drugs, but there is no

Incidentally - history channel has that series Life After People, about exactly what would happen to the environment if man vanished from the face of the Earth. Caught an episode last night - was actually very interesting. Things would revert to nature really quite quickly.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

So now they should have called Bird Flu "Chinese Death Fever" or something like that? This guy is moron, plain and simple.

I second that, Avian Flu was avian flu therefore swine flu IS swine flu. A trend was started why change it just because a nutcase doesn't seem to like the stupid name?

naming it Mexican Flu doesn't bother me IF the prior flu would've been called Chinese flu

There has been 100+ deaths BUT still I don't like the name! ...imbecile

Edited April 27, 2009 by TävôLuDô

[scandal 951]

Global warming is caused by massive consumption of energy reserves. Reduce the population of the world significantly (as a result of illness/war/famine) problem solved until the populations reach those kinds of proportions again.

Significantly, being the operative word. Current world population is well over 6,000,000,000. How many of those would you expect a flu pandemic to kill?

Take the 1918 flu as a model (data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu) -

High end estimate of 100 million killed worldwide, from a total global popluation at the time of 2 billion. That's a ratio of 5%, in a pandemic acknowledged as extremely lethal, when public health countermeasures were non existent. Even assuming a death toll that large, or heck - double it - you would still kill off only 600 million, leaving 90% (5.4 billion) humans left. At the rate of current human population expansion this would dent projected growth only temporarily. To the extent that global warming is directly correlated to human population size (arguable), you'll need more than a pandemic to halt it.

As I understood it, the reason why young healthy males were most at risk is because they are the least likely to be vaccinated against flu as a precautionary measure. Those who are are much less likely to catch it - and the evidence is they are not - however as I said, I read this on Friday so if there is new information, I have not read it yet.

There is no vaccine for this strain.

Once you have the flu, there is no vaccine or treatment that is particularly effective. You are aware, are you not that flu accounts for a large proportion of premature deaths in all countries all the time?

Antiviral drugs work after infection, to mitigate the symptoms of the disease. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiviral_drug

Yes - I am aware that flu is a major killer.

[MariaBonita 11]

Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman said the reference to pigs is offensive to both religions and "we should call this Mexican flu and not swine flu," he told a news conference at a hospital in central Israel.

** you, jackoff.

The jerk gets an f'u from me too!

[Peikko 1,575]

Global warming is caused by massive consumption of energy reserves. Reduce the population of the world significantly (as a result of illness/war/famine) problem solved until the populations reach those kinds of proportions again.

Significantly, being the operative word. Current world population is well over 6,000,000,000. How many of those would you expect a flu pandemic to kill?

Take the 1918 flu as a model (data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu) -

High end estimate of 100 million killed worldwide, from a total global popluation at the time of 2 billion. That's a ratio of 5%, in a pandemic acknowledged as extremely lethal, when public health countermeasures were non existent. Even assuming a death toll that large, or heck - double it - you would still kill off only 600 million, leaving 90% (5.4 billion) humans left. At the rate of current human population expansion this would dent projected growth only temporarily. To the extent that global warming is directly correlated to human population size (arguable), you'll need more than a pandemic to halt it.

As I understood it, the reason why young healthy males were most at risk is because they are the least likely to be vaccinated against flu as a precautionary measure. Those who are are much less likely to catch it - and the evidence is they are not - however as I said, I read this on Friday so if there is new information, I have not read it yet.

There is no vaccine for this strain.

Once you have the flu, there is no vaccine or treatment that is particularly effective. You are aware, are you not that flu accounts for a large proportion of premature deaths in all countries all the time?

Antiviral drugs work after infection, to mitigate the symptoms of the disease. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiviral_drug

Yes - I am aware that flu is a major killer.

You do realise of course, that my tongue was firmly stuffed in my cheek when I said that? (Re global warming).

I am not very convinced that anti viral drugs work that effectively. Call me skeptical on that. However, that does not alter the main point that I was making, ie, those who have been vaccinated as a preventative measure are not catching the flu, hence it is not as dangerous as a flu that such a vaccination does not work for. It is far easier and more effective to vaccinate against a disease than to try to control it once millions of people are infected - not to say cheaper which rather amounts to a more effective control of a disease.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

They should just give flu a number. It's really silly to try to lay 'blame' on the population where an outbreak of a disease occurs. These things are not (normally) manufactured and released but are a random set of circumstances.

It does have a number H1N1.

"Swine Flu" is sexier...