Probably nothing to do with swine flu, but look:

How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09...Tear-Apart-DNA

And now some more on that internet censorship:

http://www.storefrontbacktalk.com/se...-site-outages/

Very disturbing.

Not quite as disturbing as what begins this process...

I have friends that don't really pay attention to anything. Neither do their parents.

The magnitude of neglect is a sobering instance you have trouble understanding.

They'll get prescribed anti-biotics for a flesh wound on a kid as a preventive measure.. You know why? Because the doctor probably had a sneaking suspicion that these people might live in a filthy house (as it indeed is).

IOTW, the doctor must realize that these people live in the sort of place where preventive action against bacterial infection would be necessary.

Anyway, that's how this sort of mess comes about, I would imagine. There's a point where I start to wonder if the powers that be don't realize that human error can be predictable, and what's predictable can be controlled.. Can TPTB control stuff based on, not specific instances, but what's observable within human beings. Sometimes a dude will do something so small and uninteresting, but that little idiot action killed somebody else.. I wonder if they can calculate, and operate with that in mind.

If so, one could say, "Let's just give these people all these different items, and then eventually it'll work itself out naturally."

Nice article. Now they need to do some experiments to match the theory they developed. By the way, for those who prefer their science closer to the source, the paper is here. Of course the actual title of the paper is much more boring and mundane than Slashdot's version.

Hate to say it man, but you're falling down on the job. That article has almost no paranoia or hysteria in it. In fact it comes dangerously close to providing a balanced and well-thought out arguement. For example, the article concludes with:

I mean come on! Obama's inherent evility is never mentioned? Where are the black helicopters? Where are the diabolical gubmint agencies bent on forcing us all into slave labor camps? Sheesh, this one is hardly worth even a minor rant.

Yeah, I guess I gotta try harder.

http://lifestyle.ca.msn.com/health-f...entid=22373888

I found this to be a very good article. It's long, so have patience. It talks about the mixed messaging the public is receiving, the "why do I need this since it's a 'MILD' virus" question and a host of similar things.

I'm pretty much a centrist. I don't buy into the whole conspiracy angle. If it's true, then I guess I'm f*cked, it's the risk I'm willing to take - just like for those who refuse the vaccine would be similarly f*cked if they get fatally ill (ok ... worse, cuz they'd be dead, but there is something to be said for "death before slavery"). I accept the validity of science, of the long term efficacy of vaccines and ... (warning ... this is only for the strong of stomach, so avert your eyes if you are squeamish) ... by and large I ... wait for it ... tend to trust "the authorities" - particularly when cross-border/cross-interest groups are delivering similar messages.

Having said all that, I too have had my concerns about taking the vaccine, about the necessity of taking it and about subjecting my kids to it. After an enormous amount of research and sourcing, I've come to my conclusions. I've done my reading about the mercury levels and have accepted that (a) elemental mercury != "mercury" and (b) that you get as much (or more) from eating a can of tuna. (note - there will be those who don't eat tuna for that very reason, but it's a risk I've already accepted and besides, I eat tuna about as often as I get a flu vaccine). I'm also, now, comfortable with what the adjuvant is and does and why it's being used in certain jurisdictions - and why it's not in others.

Since my kids are females in the 10 - 14 range, I've decided that, given that the virus seems to be disproportionally attacking females (~67%, depending on the study, the jurisdiction and the date of the data), that it's particularly harsh for the under-20 crowd, and given the significantly increased risk-of-exposure from being at school, the vaccine (with its acknowledged non-conspiracy-theory-driven risks) is a lesser risk than the disease.

I also buy into controlling the spread of the virus - for three reasons:

The first is that this flu has been identified as a pandemic because of its transmissability, not because of virulence (see my earlier post on the definition of "pandemic"). If it comes to pass that the projected infection-rate of 30 - 40% occurs, there is the high risk of significant economic impacts (depending on which specific service sectors are most severely hit). So controlling the spread, reducing the number of people who cannot/will-not go to work, has meaning for me (particularly given the fragile on-and-off economic "recovery").

The second relates to demand placed on health services. At this point, whether the disease is "real" or not, whether the public is in a "panic" (they *think* they/their kids may have H1N1) or not (kids/parents staying home because they really *are* sick, either with H1N1 or another flu-like ailment), there is clearly an escalated demand on health services. Currently, in Ontario, they are experiencing "peak flu season" demand - and we've got another 8 - 9 weeks of this to go - with the very real potential to swamp the system. So ... getting vaccinated will do one/all of (a) truly control transmissability, therefore reducing health-system demand (this is a positive self-reinforcing loop, fewer people are sick, fewer carriers, fewer people exposed, fewer people get sick ... rinse, repeat) and/or (b) that the vaccine has a placebo affect (if the disease was never "real" or as transmissible as first thought), having the effect of reducing system-demand. A corollary of over-demand is that to wade through the people who are sick (but not sick enough to be at the hospital), to wade through the people who are sick but could have avoided it through vaccination and to wade through the people who simply "think" they "may" be sick, will compromise the safety of the people who are truly critically ill - whether with H1N1 or from a wholly unrelated life-threatening affliction. I will be ROYALLY PISSED if someone I know and hold dear dies because they cannot get treatment due to the system being clogged by weenies that are ill because they refused the vaccine, those that are there that are in a panic and don't need real services and those that were infected by the weenies who refused to get vaccinate. (Note - these people would only be "weenies" if the system gets clogged - otherwise, it doesn't matter to me).

The third rationale relates to the mutation of the virus. From my limited understanding, one of the significant fears of this (type of) virus is that, given the behaviour of its class-profile, it runs the risk of mutating to a much more virulent strain. My further (imperfect) understanding is that given that the base strain would remain the same, that immunity (either from natural exposure or from the vaccine) would bestow a "limited" immunity to the mutated version - the worst effects (i.e. DEATH) would be ameliorated, at least to some degree. (If someone with immunology knowledge would comment on that, it'd be appreciated). For mutations to occur, there needs to be either an outside agent ("radiation" for example) and/or a long "period of time" (relative to the organism's life span). Which is to say that the chance of mutation has a direct relationship to the organism's number of generations and replications ("births"). If you control the rampant spread of the virus, you control the number of generations and reduce, perhaps virtually eliminating, the likelihood that the particularly feared mutation will occur.

Frankly, I was considering not getting the vaccination for myself because I am older, I'm male and I don't have any underlying conditions. Apparently those "old farts" of us may have some natural immunity from the possibility of being exposed to an earlier strain. Ok, so I was born after 1957, but 1959 is pretty close. (I am happy to accept donations to the mng-will-never-be-able-to-retire fund.)

However, given my own thinking around controlling the spread of the virus, I'm going to pony up and get poked.

With apologies for the long rant, I suggest you take a read of the article. It doesn't cover every aspect (such as Squalene (sp?)), but, for me, it covers enough and it fills in some of the process-gaps (e.g. the "rushing the product" concern).

Yes, I'm sure various elements of the article can be picked apart, particularly by those who like to pull a single sentence or two out of context ... for example:

....... If you take MEDICINEX you will not die; in 24 hours you may see signs of illness. ...

and posting it as:

....... If you take MEDICINEX you will not DIE; in 24 hours you may see signs of illness. ...

I like the article because it speaks to the centrists who have concerns and worries. It will never convince those who believe that there is a conspiracy. It might not even convince someone who is on the margin - as I was. But it might.

As a PS - if someone refuses to take the vaccine (allergy reasons notwithstanding), should they be eligible for critical care treatment if they contract the virus and require ICU interventions to live? Even if allowed to receive treatment, should they get shuffled back to the end of the treatment line if someone who either had the vaccine or hadn't the chance to be vaccinated requires the same space? (Vaccines aren't effective for some - 15%? - of persons injected/treated.)

The easy answer is "first come, first served" (Tex - haul out that ethics book ... ). However, it becomes much harder when "the rubber hits the road" if you have thousands of vaccine-treated people who cannot get access to critical care service (even not related to H1N1) because the skeptics are taking up resources.

End of the day, my own belief ("halting the spread" notwithstanding) is that the risk of a fatal H1N1 encounter is generally low for healthy men from 30 - 65 years old, and particularly low for healthy men between 50 and 65.

I think we're lucky that this doesn't look like the bad-assed 1919 scenario (touch wood). Perhaps it's the world-wide "fire drill" for when that scenario comes-a-callin - cuz it looks like an operational cluster-f*ck as it's being handled now.

Another article of note (WAY shorter) with some good take-aways:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0...lu_icu_burden#

Have a nice weekend and a safe (and calorie-filled) Hallowe'en.

For those of us that are not conspiracy focussed, and yet are truly paranoid (go figure that one out) ...

If one accepts that there is a pandemic occurring and that there is some rational degree of risk, then the notion of sending the kids out to fill up a sack with candy'n'stuff, each morsel of which has been fondled by one (or more) people before their attempt to avoid being "tricked" by the kids by buying them off with treats, seems a little contrary, no?

I understand that the virus will survive on surfaces for up to 48 hours (probably longer on more porous and less environment-exposed surfaces like clothing). So ... none of the new candy for my kiddles until 72 hours after collection night. I'll bribe them with candies that I alone have mauled in 48 hours leading up to spook night.

Yeah - I'm probably overreacting. On the other hand, if I'm gonna be serious about this, then I really should "walk the talk".


mmmmmmmm (virus-free) candy! ... lol

Heh, shhhhhh! Good grief, just what CBC News needs: another angle from which to focus on the *(&$&%^ Swine Flu Pandemic (sic). If you're a CBC News watcher (as I am as we only have 2 channels) you'll have noticed that the rest of the world has apparently come to an absolute stand-still, with absolutely nothing at all news-worthy happening anywhere on the planet, since the "pandemic" has taken over the world.

Grr..

Sasha

Some of the main premises of the article state (underline emphasis is mine):

Somehow, this report just doesn’t add up. The premise comes down to the fact that a sharply increased bandwidth load will disrupt sites. That makes sense, but the argument that homebound workers and students will cause that sharp increase in bandwidth is where this argument falls apart. Isn’t it likely that the homebound workers would simply be downloading and sending the same files they would have at the office, making the overall bandwidth impact a wash? To get nitpicky, we can assume that a flu-infected worker might be downloading less than at the office because the worker would have to spend some of that time dealing with flu-related activities (that seems to be the least graphic way of describing it).

Item 1: "... downloading and sending the same files they would have at the office, making the overall bandwidth impact a wash(?) ...".

Incorrect: While perhaps that may be true in some circumstances, a significant amount of work is based on file-accessing, which is driven by internal network access to internal files. Email routing, while certainly through the internet, is accessed, once it has passed through the firewalls, on internal servers as well. So receiving emails would require the extra step of logging in externally, or having them routed directly to the home email address (which virtually any security conscious organization would be loathe to do). This would be true of both webmail and work-server-accessed operations.

If workers suddenly had to stay at home, all sorts of files at work would then have to be accessed, downloaded and uploaded-back-to-work. Collaborative work, previously managed internally through corporate servers, would generate traffic back and forth between both colleagues and management. Many organizations have document version control and retention, necessitating even more traffic. End-of-day work summaries, reports and document filing may well be required, where no such activities were previously required (and certainly had little or no internet impacts).

For very large corporations who have large, distributed intranets, videoconferencing would now require distribution to/from worker's homes instead relying solely on corporate servers. I also suspect (but do not know) that many corporate servers do data/file compression while most home computers will not automatically do the same.

Also, if there are multiple documents that are required for work, instead of opening up a number of them locally and blissfully alt-tabbing between them, now *many* rationally potential source documents would need to be transferred for the worker to have any semblance of efficiency.

Not only that, but a file that is shared may have to be either downloaded or checked every time it is needed, beyond a 24 hour period, just in case it had been modified (or replaced) by someone else.

Workers needing to access archived files may have similar issues, but will have a two step process of unarchiving the file from home, then downloading it.

So, this particular base premise, that the bandwidth impact would be a "wash" is true only on a narrow set of assumptions. What assumptions are those? It would be really useful, if the writer thought this through and articulated them instead of the facile (and incorrect) "Isn't it likely that ..." presumption? No, it's not "likely". Possible? Sure. Rational? Perhaps. Likely? Basing a foundational argument on an assumptive "likely" ... fail.

Item 2: "... we can assume that a flu-infected worker might be downloading less than at the office because the worker would have to spend some of that time dealing with flu-related activities. ... "

Incorrect: "We can assume that ..."? Well, maybe and only maybe. It's hardly a "given" and certainly not a patently obvious enough assumption to be able to found an entire dismissive argument on.

People are being encouraged to "stay at home" if they are "feeling unwell" or are "sick". People will not have to be "stuck on the toilet" ill or "coughing-fit-hospitalize-me-now" stricken. I recognize that many people cannot afford to trivially take time off because they have a "sniffle" and will be pressed to go in to work anyway (even if they should be staying home to reduce contagion). Nevertheless, we it's virtually certain that we will see a significantly greater uptake in being homebound if the spread of the virus is even close to projections.

It is not unreasonable to assume that many workers may (yes, "may", not "will") be sent home by their employer if they even appear to be ill. Either that or suddenly lepers will be welcome in society with open arms, a hug and a peck on the cheek. (ok - extreme example, but I don't think it's far off).

People - at least certain people, a lot of certain people ... are afraid. They do not want to be near anyone who is ill, appears to be ill or even talks about how their *kids* are sick but *they* are fine. Many people will be able to do plenty of work when at home. Sure, a certain percentage will be at 0% and will require rest, rest and nothing but rest, but a significant number will likely be sent home as a precaution - not because they "cannot perform work" but because they are (or are seen as) disease incubators or carriers.

By way of reminder, the delicately referred to "flu-related activities" (the run run runnnnsss? or the up-up-upchucks) are not typically or necessarily influenza issues. Coughing, fever and respiratory issues are the primary effects. Granted that if this was 1919-virulence-level, the writer's assumption may have more credence, but - as has been mentioned ad nauseum, this flu is, at least so far, "mild" for the vast majority of persons - making the vast majority "sick" enough to warrant home-quarantine, but not sick enough to be groaning in bed, curled in a fetal position.

In fact, (ok, not supportable fact), there is just as likely to be *more* internet-intense activities from computer use at home if the worker is feeling a bit foggy, less focused, sitting by the computer in case an email from the boss comes through, and killing time at the computer downloading or streaming a movie, playing an MMPORG or even just surfing (none of which, one presumes, they do at work).

Item 3: Ok, this one is mine, not one mentioned in the article.

ISPs: There are a limited number of ISPs. Or rather, of source ISPs. Many of the small ones simply purchase bandwidth from the biggies and reselling to consumers. If you truly have tens of thousands of people suddenly accessing the internet and using it in different ways and times than previously, that demand will be spread across a relatively few providers - even if it looks like the traffic is being spread out over many. Of course, if there just aren't that many homebound workers, than it's all moot - but that's the point - the envisioned scenario of homebound numbering beyond the potential 10's of thousands, into the 100's of k's or beyond. The demand could be profound.

Many homebound workers may be *perfectly healthy* and are forced to stay home and provide supervisory and precautionary care for their kids.

Frankly, I'm not sure if the overwhelm-the-net scenario would occur even if there is a huge crush of homebound people - I just have an issue with the articles assumptions and conclusions based thereupon.

I can tell you that at my work, one meaningful issue is that our own servers don't have a practical limit in accommodating a huge new demand for outside access - creating a ceiling (albeit high) to how much worker-home/work-server activity can be conducted.

Ok. That's it ... done for the weekend. Be safe, have fun.

lol ... yeah, frankly, I'm getting weary of the whole debate. There is so much noise out there that I think that even *if* this virus goes bananas, there will be so much media fatigue, that getting people to listen to an *urgent* message will be difficult, at *best*.

2 channels? ... bad enough ... but with one - half your access - being CBC? ugh ... poor girl!!

Under "WTF where they thinking"??

Man, United must be wincing at this one.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/c...entid=22448504

That might be part of the whole deal..

Someone planned to initiate "The boy who cried wolf" syndrome. Now when it's actually necessary, it won't exist due to popular omission. Why do they wanna do that?

Lol. I'm just kidding.

or am I?

Just as a note, do watch the events in the Ukraine closely, I've heard this is where they planned for it to start. It may be just misinformation, tho. Think Baxter accident # 2.