Oh, you mean the couple with a flu that's not deadly or important in any way, but was hyped by the media in order to gain off of fear?

It can be deadly (but usually only in people with underlying health problems). But then, so can ordinary flu.

The bigger problem with swine flu, than deaths, is the impact that it could have on the work force. Because most people don't have an immunity to it, the chances are most people will catch it, and the impact of all those people being off sick (particularly in areas such as health care) could be huge.

If we get patients with suspected swine flu we've to wear special face masks. Not because there's a high chance of us dying from being in contact with that patient, but because if even just a few doctors and nurses have to take a week off sick, it has an impact on the health care of other patients.

Anyway, my point is that while it isn't particularly deadly, it IS important and will have major implications.

But so can the regular flu, or many other common viruses that the public may or may not be aware of. The only way Swine Flu would be a problem is if everyone were inflicted at the same time, and that hasn't even been the case. 20,000 people in the United States have been afflicted so far, which is next to nothing IMO, and they have all been scattered across the United States and not at the same time.

The regular flu, while yes, it can have effects not the workforce, should not have the same impact as swine flu potentially could, because (a) people are more likely to have a natural immunity to regular flu and (b) there is a vaccine produced each year for the most likely strain of regular flu. So people with underlying health problems, and health care workers should have been vaccinated, limiting the impact of the virus on society.

Swine flu currently has neither of those things (although a vaccine should be available soon).

The experts are predicting that the virus will be more widespread on the expected second wave around September, October, so although the effects haven't been huge yet, they still could be. It just hasn't reached that stage yet.

Still, hopefully a significant number of people will be vaccinated by the second wave.

I do agree the media has been causing more worry over swine flu than is necessary, however, it does pose a real threat (not a deadly one though) to society if it continues to spread.

What is the opposite of ideal? Where everything just goes completely wrong rather than the belief that everything will go perfectly?

What you're suggesting is that the swine flu could possibly pose a threat and drastically screw with the way society works on the chance that out of 400,000 people, all of them will be employed and hold some significance within their company, AND that it would all happen at the same time.

Firstly, they're predicting that the number will be significantly higher by September. Secondly, it doesn't take a lot of people to be off sick for to have a significant effect, particularly in health care (and probably other industries too, although health care is the only one which I know much about).

We had just two members of staff off sick from our department last week, which resulted in operating lists having to be cancelled and patients told they weren't getting their surgery and sent home to wait a few more months. Now, neither of those doctors had swine flu and they were just off for a few days. If they had had swine flu, they would both have been off for a week (as that is what is being recommended by public health). Also, with an incubation period of several days, the chances are they already passed it on to at least a couple of people at work, before they developed symptoms... so then those people will be off for a week... more surgery cancelled.

The numbers wouldn't have to be huge, but becaue of the way in which the virus spreads and the lack of a natural immunity or a vaccine, it can have significant effects.

Another example... we only have a three bed ICU. There is currently 4 patients in intensive care units in Glasgow with swine flu. If we were to have the same number (only 4) admitted to our hospital, requiring intensive care support, we would have to close our unit to ANY other patients. (Plus, at at least one ICU in Glasgow, a couple of doctors have then caught it from the patients, further stretching the hospital's ability to cope). This would mean critically ill patients would have to be transferred in ambulance across the country, and that we'd have to cancel more elective surgery (as we admit at least 2 or 3 post op patients a week) Again, the numbers are small, but the effects could be significant.

My point was simply that you can't say swine flu isn't important in any way (and my information comes not from the media but from the public health department who are constantly updating us on what to do, should we start to see a lot of cases... thankfully my health district hasn't seen any yet).

you know it never even once occurred to me that health care would suffer greatly if it spreads. that is something actually worth worrying over, rather than freaking out over getting it and dying.

i more don't want to get it because i don't want to pass it on to the people are work that have infants. i can put up with feeling sick, but i don't want to unintentionally harm someone else's child.

I expect it will cause problems for other areas of society too (particularly emergency services, who like us, work a shift pattern - police, ambulance, firebrigade etc, maybe also banks, postal services, schools, universities and others), but it's only health care in which I can personally see where the problems are likely to arise (and where public health are anticipating them to arise), because that's where I work.

my bosses are worried about people at work getting it because we're exposed to the public. we touch customers hands and conduct wine tasting, so there is a potential to catch it for us. i'm not particularly worried, but if i were working in health care i probably would be.

that's definitely a story to tell the grandkids!