Posted on 11/08/2005 6:09:11 AM PST by Seizure
"Tamiflu is not a vaccine or a cure for the flu..."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Antibiotics are for bacteria, not viruses.
Alot of people have trouble with the after affects of the flu causing follow up bacterial infections. I know I have recovered from the flu only to suffer from a sinus and chest infection.
The antibiotics are for the infection in the lungs, that is triggered by the flu. According several physicians I have seen on the vaious networks, the lung infection is what kills the patient.
Yup. It's pneumonia that kills in most of the flu cases. I got a flu and pneumonia shot this year.
Bacterial pnuemonia? The purpose of anti-virals is not to let it get so far that complications develop. Once the infection is there, the elderly and immuno-compromised are virtually done for, antibiotic or no.
Here is another drug, same class as Tamiflu. Just to let everyone know because Tamiflu has an extremely limited production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanamivir
"Once the infection is there, the elderly and immuno-compromised are virtually done for..."
In the case of the Great Flu Epidemic of 1918, most of its victims were between late teens and late twenties.
We also didn't have an organized health system in place to deal with it. Young people coming back from the War were carrying it.
I would hope the US has come along way health wise since 1918.
Last year, our family doctor prescribed a regiment of Tamiflu for my husband, because of some preexisting conditions which made him vulnerable to the flu. The instructions were to take Tamiflu upon the first symtoms of the flu -- with the effect that it would lessen the severity. My hubby did indeed get the flu last year, and by his taking Tamiflu, he was sick for only 2 days, as compared to 2 or 3 weeks duration without Tamiflu.
This year, with all of the talk about bird flu, we asked our doctor if he would give us, each, a perscription of Tamiflu for this flu season. We are both in our 60s.
He agreed, so now we have our Tamiflu onhand. I hope we don't need it, but if we do, we have it. Some Freepers have expressed that Tamiflu will not help. But it makes sense to me to take a few measures.
Without insurance benefits, a prescription for one person costs about $70.
"We also didn't have an organized health system in place to deal with it."
The point that I made was that young adults will be at just as high a risk...just as vulnerable to death as the rest of the population.
Well, we had an organized health system in place when HIV came on the scene. It hasn't been effective in stemming the tide.
"The instructions were to take Tamiflu upon the first symptoms of the flu..."
It may be effective as a proactive treatment for some people. I will not be effective for all people and perhaps not against this strain of flu.
Additionally, I have heard numerous doctors on the same vaious networks discouraging people from running to their doctors to get Tamiflu.
There will be many people who will not have Tamiflu on hand when they start feeling the onset of flu symptoms. They may also have a very difficult time getting to the doctor to get a prescription. Then it may be too late.
Are you comparing a blood borne, as well as sexually transmitted virus to influenza?
I am noting your implication that a modern universal healthcare system is better able to handle and prevent outbreaks of serious viral (blood borne or sexually transmitted) infections. If you are arguing that our modern system can reduce the effects of the symptoms, thereby making the patient comfortable while he dies, then I will agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.