SERIOUS BS ALERT ...?
Who died and made you the Czar of BS Alerts...?
The original post was a link to a graph and a map of USA flu situation from Google Trends. The second posting from the same contributor showed a CDC map that showed the status of the flu incidence in different states. What was BS about these posts?
The methodology for the Google trends graphs and maps is available at the link provided. The methodology for how CDC reports the weekly influenza activity is available at the CDC website (link included).
The posts from the initial contributor merely reported that the flu activity in USA for this week exceeded previous data (see CDC graph included below).
What was the BS that you were alerting us about? Do you think that the Freepers are a bunch of morons who can not tell BS from fact unless you alert them?
The CDC website reported that during the period of August 30 – September 19, 2009 there were 10,082 influenza related hospitalizations and 936 deaths across the United States. For ordinary people, who may not be as educated and learned in epidemiology as you seem to be, this is still a significant number of deaths in a period of about 3 weeks.
You wrote a 4-5 paragraph post that was essentially nothing more than your opinion. You did not cite any sources for your assertions. You did not explain what made you singularly qualified to tell us to "Go on with your life."
I respectfully submit to you, that in my humble opinion, you are the one full of BS!
Link to CDC website:
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/updates/us/
dude. chill.
The BS remark was about the google ‘how many flu-related search terms have been entered?’ data, *not* the CDC reports.
I follow the CDC data pretty closely. I RECOMMEND the CDC sites to folks who want the straight scoop.
Perhaps I didn’t word it to your satisfaction ;-) but my point was actually to have people look at the CDC data: about real epidemiological trend data, read guidance to clinicians, FACTS about morbidity and co-morbidity, complications and so on. It is also important to compare the data for THIS virus to prior H1N1-A outbreaks.
While the google search data may be interesting from a social perspective — as an indicator of interest, nee ‘hysteria,’ it is clearly not a direct indicator of the spread and impact of the H1N1-A/ swine-origin influenza (SOI). Sure it’s an interesting coincidence, perhaps tightly correlated in their SEMs, but I can’t see any causal relationships. The CDC data ARE far better indicators.
NET: I AGREE with the CDC methodology and their data, and the integrity of their reports. I was ONLY calling BS on the scientific/medical value of the google search trends and transactions data.
REM: The “Go on with your life” comment is what I believe (yes, my opinion) you should derive from the data and the CDC data/findings/trends: that
(1) H1N1-A SOI is clearly not a population killer,
(2) is relatively mild in its impact as a pathogen (especially compared to ‘bird flu’or ANY H5N1 virus),
(3) is implicated in an above average number of respiratory failure deaths due to
(a) increased testing/diagnosis for SOI, and
(b) SOI is more of a ‘killer’ than general flu season strains in recent years, but
(c) deaths directly attributed to SOI are *below* epidemic levels according to the CDC (see the fluview pages)
Finally: I do not think you or FReepers in general are a “bunch of morons who can not tell BS from fact unless you alert them”. I meant merely to call into question and perspective the google trends data versus the science and integrity of the CDC, AND YES, alert people to the actual risks/impact of a SOI infection versus what the media and our civil government are hyping. I again encourage all to read the CDC’s guidance to Clinicians. There you will find that the CDC is well-aware of the moderate threat presented by this virus in its present form, and has guided the medical community with a very typical and reasoned response to a genuine outbreak/pandemic.
As far as my being full of BS — I often am ;-), but not this time.