145 replies to this topic

[Dmitri]

In light of the Swine flu epidemic I've switched over to my anti Swine flu regimen. 750 iu of D3 a day. Up from 500. I'll let you know how it works out.

That seems quite low, scientists believe people should be taking 2,000 IU a day; at least from new articles or studies that have been released during the past few months.

[biknut]

In light of the Swine flu epidemic I've switched over to my anti Swine flu regimen. 750 iu of D3 a day. Up from 500. I'll let you know how it works out.

That seems quite low, scientists believe people should be taking 2,000 IU a day; at least from new articles or studies that have been released during the past few months.

2000, humm I may need to adjust my dose upward for a while.

I just saw on the news that 3 cases have already been detected here in Dallas. Then they showed people getting off buses from Mexico. It said the Swine flu will spread fast because nobody has a natural immunity to it.

[rwac]

Injecting a little humor into the swine flu issue:

xkcd:
"Bad flu epidemics can hit young adults hardest because they provoke their powerful immune systems into overreaction, so to stay healthy spend the next few weeks drunk and sleep-deprived to keep yours suppressed."

http://www.xkcd.com/574/

[bgwithadd]

Boost your immune system to prevent infection is the only reliable option.

That's kind of ironic, as the stronger your immune system the more chance you will kick it if you have cytokine storm.

[Skötkonung]

I'm not too worried about it as this will likely end up being mostly media hype, but I did manage to purchase some Tamiflu as a precautionary measure. A doctor at a private practice clinic gave it to me without any objection (makes me wonder what else I could get??).

[kismet]

Boost your immune system to prevent infection is the only reliable option.

That's kind of ironic, as the stronger your immune system the more chance you will kick it if you have cytokine storm.

Yes, but we're not talking about boosting the immune response even if we're saying "stronger immune system". There are many important aspects to a good immune response (and only select aspects will play a role in viral infections) and many supplements have antiviral or antibacterial properties of their own.
Vitamin D will merely "boost" the innate immune system (most probably) by increased production of the defensin cathelicidin. No cytokines involved. And apart from that vitamin D is known to modulate and actually 'calm' the T cell response AFAIK.
Local zinc is said to act by modulating adhesion molecules. I don't know how systemic zinc actually works. EGCG, I believe, has antiviral properties of its own. Increased cytokine releases are not involved. What worries me, is that probably neither of those supplements has been shown to work (or even tested) in reliable human models of infectious disease. Unfortunately, the efficacy of antivirals is nothing to write home about either.

Edited by kismet, 27 April 2009 - 02:00 PM.

[Matt]

What worries me, is that probably neither of those supplements has been shown to work (or even tested) in reliable human models of infectious disease. Unfortunately, the efficacy of antivirals is nothing to write home about either.

Check out the study I cited here for Green tea http://matts-cr.blog...ecome-sick.html (ref at the bottom)

[biknut]

A friend just called and told me they sent his children home and closed their elementry school for the rest of the week because of some suspected cases that turned up. It's in Richardson Texas, a burb of Dallas.

I upped my D to 4000 iu today. I've read that 5000 a day is probably safe.

[Matt]

Even 10,000, 20,000, and EVEN 30,000 IU is safe to use for upto 3 months. i think theres some studies which have shown you'd have to take 30K everyday for months to cause toxicity. I wouldn't take these doses long term, but anything below <1000 IU is not going to achieve much in terms of prevention of disease and infection.

[Matt]

I'm still a bit confused on the numbers being reported. So the thread level has been raised to 4, it seems to be now in several countries around the world including the UK, and the 2 people in the UK have spread it to others who are now having flu like symptoms. But I keep hearing the word 'mild'. Even ordinary Flu is anything but mild usually.... So I still don't quite understand why the death toll is rising in Mexico yet around the world there has been no confirmed deaths. Is this simply because anti virals?

[HaloTeK]

Adequate vitamin D status usually helps protect against the flu -but I doubt it will have too much impact on your immune response against the "Swine Flu" (because it is a new hybrid). Remember, the hardest hit were in Mexico-- and there skin type is probably adapted to the amount of sun they receive there (am I right to assume that most of them probably have adequate vitamin D)?

They also happen to really like refined sugar in Mexico -- just look at the amount of sugar in their soda drinks (compared with the US). While vitamin d mediates immune response-- if you consume too much sugar on a daily basis-- your body will be in a heightened inflammatory state.

Almost forgot to add that I would use lactoferrin and alkylglycerols in my battle against the flu. Both of these substances have been shown to fight infection and mediate immune system response.

Edited by HaloTeK, 27 April 2009 - 11:09 PM.

[biknut]

A friend just called and told me they sent his children home and closed their elementry school for the rest of the week because of some suspected cases that turned up. It's in Richardson Texas, a burb of Dallas.

I upped my D to 4000 iu today. I've read that 5000 a day is probably safe.

They just said on the news the school is Canyon Creek elementary in Richardson Texas. Dallas is going to get hit pretty hard, because we have a lot of travel between Dallas and Mexico.

I'm not afraid of getting it because I've had bad flu illnesses in the past and survived. I'll probably end up getting it though because my Kung Fu school is full of children many of which go to school in Richardson.

[stephen_b]

Dr. Steve at Grouppe Kurosawa is recommending flax lignans with high prelignan content.

[Mind]

This continues to follow a typical media generated mass hysteria path. It always starts in some foreign country (outside Europe or the U.S.), it is not an "ordinary flu/bug" (or has a new acronym), details on who caught it and the number of fatalities is always in question, it kills healthy young people, etc... This strain of the flu could have very well started in the U.S. - tourist travel to and from Mexico is in the thousands every day. Maybe this version of the flu is something to be concerned about, but I am wary. I have seen too many "super bug" hype stories in my lifetime. Just think about how concerned everyone is, even though there is so much missing information.

1. What is the percentage of people dying from the flu in Mexico? I have heard no hard statistics. Is it 1 in 100? is it 1 in a 1,000? I heard 4 different stories reporting 4 different numbers of total fatalities today. One said it "might be 100". One said it was exactly 149. Why is everyone so scared when we don't even know whether or not the mortality rate is higher than any other flu outbreak?

2. Is it really the swine flu? One expert on ABC this morning said it wasn't exactly swine flu but some sort of mutated combination of bird flu, swine flu and regular human flu.

3. What are the case histories of those who have died and how many actually had the strain (or strains) that everyone is concerned about? Were these people REALLY in perfect health? Did they has access to proper nutrition or medical care? Any other infections? Overweight? Smokers? Drug addicts? No one outside of Mexico has died (from what I have heard so far), and yet everyone is getting wildly hysterical? 40,000 people every year die of the flu in the U.S. (approx. 500,000 around the world)

4. Do we have any stats on how many people on average contract swine flu every year and how many fatalities there are every year?

5. Why are people so quick to throw around the words epidemic and pandemic? Don't we have definitions for these terms? Holy crap...100 or so people die in Mexico, we don't have a clue what the true mortality rate is, and PANDEMIC is on every news channel. What the hell is going on here.

It is not that we shouldn't be concerned about the super bug scenario but media generated mass hysteria causes at least two problems:

a. It desensitizes populations to a real future threat.

b. It creates a serious mis-allocation of resources (this was especially true of West Nile Virus - a non-lethal virus - which followed the typical media-generated hype cycle.)

First of all, there needs to be a coordinated warning level system based on data such as what the WHO has. Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc... Here in the U.S. the Obama administration issued a public health emergency and then said "don't worry, don't panic" - kind-of a mixed message. Shouldn't an emergency be reserved for when people are dying (remember no one has died of this strain of the flu in the U.S. as of today and at least a few dozen have contracted it.

Just to close on the point I made in a couple other threads about the value of our "social immune system". In my view, it is analogous to our individual immune systems. Just as there is communication throughout our internal immune system, world travel makes sure we have communication throughout our social immune system. It has been speculated that the 1918 flu virus was more fatal because it had picked up 5 different mutations at once. Each mutation would not have been trouble by itself, but in combination they were deadly. Because of our integrated world, each virus (and bacteria) is communicated to a substantial majority of the population each year and most of us pick up immunity to them. Each year there are small mutations that might make us a little ill (or not at all), but we all mostly pick up immunity to these non-lethal forms. If we lived isolated (quarantined), then certain populations would cultivate viruses with several mutations - which in combination would be deadly outside that particular sub-group (and this did happen when Europeans first traveled to North America, is it speculated that over 90% of Native Americans died because of deadly communicable diseases). I speculate that we haven't had a major pandemic in almost 100 years precisely because the world is more integrated and continued travel makes a DEADLY pandemic LESS likely.

Of course we should look for remedies to the common cold and the flu. Too many people die of the regular flu each year to not be concerned about it. Eventually I am sure we will come up with an advanced technological fix for viral and bacterial born diseases. In the meantime, I am not sure if we should try to stop every non-lethal bug in its tracks, because the transmission serves a function. It keeps our social immune system healthy. We should instead focus on helping those with weaker immune systems survive. I suspect we are living in the last decade under threat from a natural pandemic. I am much more worried about what might soon be created in a human laboratory - something that neither our individual or social immune system has seen before.

[Dmitri]

This continues to follow a typical media generated mass hysteria path. It always starts in some foreign country (outside Europe or the U.S.), it is not an "ordinary flu/bug" (or has a new acronym), details on who caught it and the number of fatalities is always in question, it kills healthy young people, etc... This strain of the flu could have very well started in the U.S. - tourist travel to and from Mexico is in the thousands every day. Maybe this version of the flu is something to be concerned about, but I am wary. I have seen too many "super bug" hype stories in my lifetime. Just think about how concerned everyone is, even though there is so much missing information.

1. What is the percentage of people dying from the flu in Mexico? I have heard no hard statistics. Is it 1 in 100? is it 1 in a 1,000? I heard 4 different stories reporting 4 different numbers of total fatalities today. One said it "might be 100". One said it was exactly 149. Why is everyone so scared when we don't even know whether or not the mortality rate is higher than any other flu outbreak?

2. Is it really the swine flu? One expert on ABC this morning said it wasn't exactly swine flu but some sort of mutated combination of bird flu, swine flu and regular human flu.

3. What are the case histories of those who have died and how many actually had the strain (or strains) that everyone is concerned about? Were these people REALLY in perfect health? Did they has access to proper nutrition or medical care? Any other infections? Overweight? Smokers? Drug addicts? No one outside of Mexico has died (from what I have heard so far), and yet everyone is getting wildly hysterical? 40,000 people every year die of the flu in the U.S. (approx. 500,000 around the world)

4. Do we have any stats on how many people on average contract swine flu every year and how many fatalities there are every year?

5. Why are people so quick to throw around the words epidemic and pandemic? Don't we have definitions for these terms? Holy crap...100 or so people die in Mexico, we don't have a clue what the true mortality rate is, and PANDEMIC is on every news channel. What the hell is going on here.

It is not that we shouldn't be concerned about the super bug scenario but media generated mass hysteria causes at least two problems:

a. It desensitizes populations to a real future threat.

b. It creates a serious mis-allocation of resources (this was especially true of West Nile Virus - a non-lethal virus - which followed the typical media-generated hype cycle.)

First of all, there needs to be a coordinated warning level system based on data such as what the WHO has. Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc... Here in the U.S. the Obama administration issued a public health emergency and then said "don't worry, don't panic" - kind-of a mixed message. Shouldn't an emergency be reserved for when people are dying (remember no one has died of this strain of the flu in the U.S. as of today and at least a few dozen have contracted it.

Just to close on the point I made in a couple other threads about the value of our "social immune system". In my view, it is analogous to our individual immune systems. Just as there is communication throughout our internal immune system, world travel makes sure we have communication throughout our social immune system. It has been speculated that the 1918 flu virus was more fatal because it had picked up 5 different mutations at once. Each mutation would not have been trouble by itself, but in combination they were deadly. Because of our integrated world, each virus (and bacteria) is communicated to a substantial majority of the population each year and most of us pick up immunity to them. Each year there are small mutations that might make us a little ill (or not at all), but we all mostly pick up immunity to these non-lethal forms. If we lived isolated (quarantined), then certain populations would cultivate viruses with several mutations - which in combination would be deadly outside that particular sub-group (and this did happen when Europeans first traveled to North America, is it speculated that over 90% of Native Americans died because of deadly communicable diseases). I speculate that we haven't had a major pandemic in almost 100 years precisely because the world is more integrated and continued travel makes a DEADLY pandemic LESS likely.

Of course we should look for remedies to the common cold and the flu. Too many people die of the regular flu each year to not be concerned about it. Eventually I am sure we will come up with an advanced technological fix for viral and bacterial born diseases. In the meantime, I am not sure if we should try to stop every non-lethal bug in its tracks, because the transmission serves a function. It keeps our social immune system healthy. We should instead focus on helping those with weaker immune systems survive. I suspect we are living in the last decade under threat from a natural pandemic. I am much more worried about what might soon be created in a human laboratory - something that neither our individual or social immune system has seen before.

Before these cases there had never been deaths from swine flu because this is the first time humans have contracted the virus (according to the media) and WHO has raised the level to 4, they said it's only 2 levels from being considered a full blown pandemic. However, they did say it could be stopped if people took precautions.

Like I mentioned before the media sensationalizing it and health authorities being quick about containing it could have stopped the spread of the other flu outbreaks, so I have no problem with them doing it now. If people simply ignored it and something did happen the health authorities would be blamed, I don’t think they want that to happen and we should be happy that they're actually doing their jobs. After all in the 1980s many people died or were infected with HIV/AIDS because most people and the media ignored it in the early years. It makes perfect sense for other countries to discourage their people not travel to an area that has been hit the hardest with the disease. Also, the Spanish Flu in 1918 killed around 40-50 million people and HIV/AIDS has infected and killed millions as well, so how can you say there hasn't been a major pandemic in 100 years?

You also mentioned we should help those with weak immune systems but from what we have seen thus far, the disease is killing the young (those between 20-50) and healthy. Cytokine Storms are likely causing the deaths which happens in people with healthy immune systems not weak ones.

Edited by Dmitri, 28 April 2009 - 12:59 AM.

[synaesthetic]

I'm not too worried about it as this will likely end up being mostly media hype, but I did manage to purchase some Tamiflu as a precautionary measure. A doctor at a private practice clinic gave it to me without any objection (makes me wonder what else I could get??).

I don't think swine flu is a media hype conspiracy to sell Tamiflu, but someone is going to be making alot of money because of this!

Theres another epidemic going on too!! More than 2,500 Americans die from heart disease each day!

[lynx]

Media outlets sell panic because it sells.
Commitees, Organizations, Institutions that are charged with "Doing X" always seize on any chance to "DO x". They hype "X", teach us to fear "X", expand awareness of "X". All of this is entirely predictable given the nature of organizations.

Most congressman go to congress with good intentions. Once they arrive, they are consumed with staying.

If one wants to ensure the permanence of a problem, form a commitee.

Information can be toxic.

This continues to follow a typical media generated mass hysteria path. It always starts in some foreign country (outside Europe or the U.S.), it is not an "ordinary flu/bug" (or has a new acronym), details on who caught it and the number of fatalities is always in question, it kills healthy young people, etc... This strain of the flu could have very well started in the U.S. - tourist travel to and from Mexico is in the thousands every day. Maybe this version of the flu is something to be concerned about, but I am wary. I have seen too many "super bug" hype stories in my lifetime. Just think about how concerned everyone is, even though there is so much missing information.

1. What is the percentage of people dying from the flu in Mexico? I have heard no hard statistics. Is it 1 in 100? is it 1 in a 1,000? I heard 4 different stories reporting 4 different numbers of total fatalities today. One said it "might be 100". One said it was exactly 149. Why is everyone so scared when we don't even know whether or not the mortality rate is higher than any other flu outbreak?

2. Is it really the swine flu? One expert on ABC this morning said it wasn't exactly swine flu but some sort of mutated combination of bird flu, swine flu and regular human flu.

3. What are the case histories of those who have died and how many actually had the strain (or strains) that everyone is concerned about? Were these people REALLY in perfect health? Did they has access to proper nutrition or medical care? Any other infections? Overweight? Smokers? Drug addicts? No one outside of Mexico has died (from what I have heard so far), and yet everyone is getting wildly hysterical? 40,000 people every year die of the flu in the U.S. (approx. 500,000 around the world)

4. Do we have any stats on how many people on average contract swine flu every year and how many fatalities there are every year?

5. Why are people so quick to throw around the words epidemic and pandemic? Don't we have definitions for these terms? Holy crap...100 or so people die in Mexico, we don't have a clue what the true mortality rate is, and PANDEMIC is on every news channel. What the hell is going on here.

It is not that we shouldn't be concerned about the super bug scenario but media generated mass hysteria causes at least two problems:

a. It desensitizes populations to a real future threat.

b. It creates a serious mis-allocation of resources (this was especially true of West Nile Virus - a non-lethal virus - which followed the typical media-generated hype cycle.)

First of all, there needs to be a coordinated warning level system based on data such as what the WHO has. Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc... Here in the U.S. the Obama administration issued a public health emergency and then said "don't worry, don't panic" - kind-of a mixed message. Shouldn't an emergency be reserved for when people are dying (remember no one has died of this strain of the flu in the U.S. as of today and at least a few dozen have contracted it.

Just to close on the point I made in a couple other threads about the value of our "social immune system". In my view, it is analogous to our individual immune systems. Just as there is communication throughout our internal immune system, world travel makes sure we have communication throughout our social immune system. It has been speculated that the 1918 flu virus was more fatal because it had picked up 5 different mutations at once. Each mutation would not have been trouble by itself, but in combination they were deadly. Because of our integrated world, each virus (and bacteria) is communicated to a substantial majority of the population each year and most of us pick up immunity to them. Each year there are small mutations that might make us a little ill (or not at all), but we all mostly pick up immunity to these non-lethal forms. If we lived isolated (quarantined), then certain populations would cultivate viruses with several mutations - which in combination would be deadly outside that particular sub-group (and this did happen when Europeans first traveled to North America, is it speculated that over 90% of Native Americans died because of deadly communicable diseases). I speculate that we haven't had a major pandemic in almost 100 years precisely because the world is more integrated and continued travel makes a DEADLY pandemic LESS likely.

Of course we should look for remedies to the common cold and the flu. Too many people die of the regular flu each year to not be concerned about it. Eventually I am sure we will come up with an advanced technological fix for viral and bacterial born diseases. In the meantime, I am not sure if we should try to stop every non-lethal bug in its tracks, because the transmission serves a function. It keeps our social immune system healthy. We should instead focus on helping those with weaker immune systems survive. I suspect we are living in the last decade under threat from a natural pandemic. I am much more worried about what might soon be created in a human laboratory - something that neither our individual or social immune system has seen before.

Edited by lynx, 28 April 2009 - 02:37 AM.

[rwac]

1. What is the percentage of people dying from the flu in Mexico? I have heard no hard statistics. Is it 1 in 100? is it 1 in a 1,000? I heard 4 different stories reporting 4 different numbers of total fatalities today. One said it "might be 100". One said it was exactly 149. Why is everyone so scared when we don't even know whether or not the mortality rate is higher than any other flu outbreak?

The swine flu cases are mixed in with the regular flu cases, plus the number of infections + number of fatalities in Mexico are uncertain.

WHY IS SWINE FLU MORE DEADLY IN MEXICO?
http://www.slate.com...pagenum/all/#p2


H1N1 Swine Flu - Google Maps
http://maps.google.c...amp...281&z=5);

[mike250]

http://www.foodreneg...thfields-cafos/

[wayside]

According to Bill Sardi:

Flu outbreaks in undeveloped countries, where public hygiene and nutrition are compromised, do not necessarily apply to well-fed populations that have clean food and water. This is what makes the current emergency declaration by U.S. health authorities questionable.
Many people in Mexico are infected with lung tuberculosis, making them far more prone to mortal consequences should they develop a co-infection such as Swine flu.

He's recommending vitamin D, vitamin C, resveratrol, and quercetin.

[drmz]

According to Bill Sardi:

Flu outbreaks in undeveloped countries, where public hygiene and nutrition are compromised, do not necessarily apply to well-fed populations that have clean food and water. This is what makes the current emergency declaration by U.S. health authorities questionable.
Many people in Mexico are infected with lung tuberculosis, making them far more prone to mortal consequences should they develop a co-infection such as Swine flu.

He's recommending vitamin D, vitamin C, resveratrol, and quercetin.

Yeah i would guess that he recommends resveratrol btw resveratrol is only mentioned once in this article and not in the form of a recommendation. Where did you see his recommendation?? Seems to help though

We have previously shown that the life cycles of several viruses are influenced by host-cell redox states. Reports of the antioxidant activities of the plant polyphenol resveratrol (RV) prompted us to investigate its effects on influenza virus replication in vitro and in vivo. We found that RV strongly inhibited the replication of influenza virus in MDCK cells but that this activity was not directly related to glutathione-mediated antioxidant activity. Rather, it involved the blockade of the nuclear-cytoplasmic translocation of viral ribonucleoproteins and reduced expression of late viral proteins seemingly related to the inhibition of protein kinase C activity and its dependent pathways. RV also significantly improved survival and decreased pulmonary viral titers in influenza virus-infected mice. No toxic effects were observed in vitro or in vivo. That RV acts by inhibiting a cellular, rather than a viral, function suggests that it could be a particularly valuable anti-influenza drug.

Edited by drmz, 28 April 2009 - 04:49 PM.

[mike250]

Mexico outbreak traced to 'manure lagoons' at pig farm

[Matt]

They suspect its in my own country Wales now. Which is only small. Still unsure what to think though, but I start being a bit more cautious right now/

[Mind]

From here

That alone is scary news. Roughly 7% of the people who’ve gotten this disease are already dead. That, too, is scary.

It is the first mortality rate I have heard reported, but since the source is not yet known and not all of the cases have been tested (according to media sources), it makes me wonder how 7% was calculated.

Mortality rate in Mexico - maybe 7% (would be nice to know where that figure comes from and if it is based in reality and comprehensive testing and not just hysteria).

Mortality rate in the rest of the world - 0%. Most reported cases are termed "mild".

[shuffleup]

Not sure about the mortality rates either. Swines only die at between 1% and 4% of the time they get it.

[Dmitri]

From here

That alone is scary news. Roughly 7% of the people who’ve gotten this disease are already dead. That, too, is scary.

It is the first mortality rate I have heard reported, but since the source is not yet known and not all of the cases have been tested (according to media sources), it makes me wonder how 7% was calculated.

Mortality rate in Mexico - maybe 7% (would be nice to know where that figure comes from and if it is based in reality and comprehensive testing and not just hysteria).

Mortality rate in the rest of the world - 0%. Most reported cases are termed "mild".

But has it infected the target group in the U.S. (those between the ages of 20-50)? MSN mentioned that five people are hospitalized in the U.S., one is an adult while another is a child, but there's no mention of the age of the other 3. So, far 68 are infected in the U.S.

[Dmitri]

Not sure about the mortality rates either. Swines only die at between 1% and 4% of the time they get it.

But this new strain is a combination between human, avian and swine virus? The reason it's called Swine is because most of it's genetic material is still mostly from the Swine virus.

[Dmitri]

They suspect its in my own country Wales now. Which is only small. Still unsure what to think though, but I start being a bit more cautious right now/

One of my nephews who lives in San Antonio came down with the flu yesterday and he was tested and now they've confirmed that he has Swine Flu. The doctors gave him anti-viral medication and asked his mother to monitor him for the next 48 hours. The good thing is that he's not in the age group that has seen the more severe cases though his mother and father are.

[sUper GeNius]

What would be the recommended dose of resveratrol?

[PWAIN]

From here

That alone is scary news. Roughly 7% of the people who’ve gotten this disease are already dead. That, too, is scary.

It is the first mortality rate I have heard reported, but since the source is not yet known and not all of the cases have been tested (according to media sources), it makes me wonder how 7% was calculated.

Mortality rate in Mexico - maybe 7% (would be nice to know where that figure comes from and if it is based in reality and comprehensive testing and not just hysteria).

Mortality rate in the rest of the world - 0%. Most reported cases are termed "mild".

Reporting is that approx 2000 people in Mexico confirmed or suspected of infection.
Reporting is that 152 people have died from this so far.

152/2000 = 7.6%

It takes money and time to confirm cases so Mexico figures are sometimes a bit fuzzy, but not likely to be fuzzy enough to distract from the obvious high fatality rate. The mortality rate of Spanish Flu was 2.5 - 5% ( http://en.wikipedia....iki/Spanish_flu ) so even if they are a bit off in their figures, they still have a bad bug on their hands.

I read today that the US should expect to see a few deaths with 2 or 3 people in hospital in serious condition. If this is trus, it seems that the whole only deaths in Mexico will be out the window. It may be that the rest of the world has fallen out of the probability curve. Just because a 7% mortality exists, doesn't mean that it has to be consistent eg. In a group of 100 people, 0 may die and then in another group of 100 people, 14 people could die, overall average is still 7%.

Most of your questions are long since answered, you just need to read what is out there. Figures are hard to nail down because the situation is constantly changing and someone suspected of bhaving swine flu may have been cleared just hours before. Human to human has already happened in the US. More will be revealed as the days pass. Those sitting on the sides waiting for exact figures will be the ones that go on a last minute mad scramble only to find that everything is sold out.

What does it really hurt to have a months worth of food in your pantry? 20 Gallons of water? A plan to work from home? Half a dozen face masks? A bit of cash on hand? If it turns out to be nothing, you have lost little and if it turns out to be as bad as feared by some, you are at least a bit more ready and able to cope. That is not panic, it is just a bit of preparedness.

The media is a central and integral part of our society and if your description of a social organism is correct, then the media is an important part of it. The current resposne to the media is also a part of it. Don't belittle the media for trying to geet an extreemly apathetic people to pay attention. They do not have all the facts but what they have has given them cause for alarm - we should listen and evaluate for ourselves.