Printable View
Well your source clearly stated:Quote:
Originally Posted by Voiding
"This strain resulted in deaths only in people between the ages of 25 and 50."
I'm not sure what's more worrying, the fact they presumed that the strain of influenza only kills 25-50 year olds without knowing it's completely unbiased to age, or the fact it came from a "World Health Organisation" which should know better not to make unjust presumptions...
Well it seems to be affecting the age region from scientific data...Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
Your theory is wrong, but the outcome is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
The immune system relys on identifying the virus before it can kill it, and creating the correct method takes time. If you've had the virus before. The immune system remembers what to do, and how to destroy the virus, and can do so alot faster, and you won't feel the symptoms. It's why you only present the chicken pox symptoms once, even though you make have contracted it alot more than that.
The reason the flu virus is not always prevented, is because the virus mutates once in a while, so the body's readied method of destroying the virus is ineffective (this is why HIV/AIDS is so difficult to deal with, it mutates alot more often than flu). It's why elderly people need a flu jab once, or twice, a year. Younger people have stronger immune systems, so can deal with it without it being lethal.
I'm not entirely sure how much this differs with swine flu.
Note resultedQuote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
Not results, they were saying the only people who had died were between that age, they weren't presuming anything.
Ah but that's when you consider that the virus is still going around. They shouldn't make up "results" for something that is still going on, they should make claims to judge the future rather than make the past write the future What I mean is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeyseph
They should claim that, although 25-50 year olds have died of this virus, it is still possible for anyone of any age can get it. What they did in that article/sentence, was make it seem that the virus is dead and gone, "resulted" usually refering to past events while "has resulted" infers that the virus is still around, but so far has killed xxx. What I'm getting at is that it makes it look like anyone around those ages is immune to it and that the virus will not effect anyone, aswell as making it look like the virus no longer exists by the dreadful use of wording.
Yes, it killed 25-50 year olds, but there is still the risk of others getting the virus. That's like saying "So far, only 18-21 year olds have died of aids. (obviously I've made up that fact :P)" But the risk of a 17 year old getting it or a 22 year old getting it is about the same. The claim in that source suggests all of us using this forum are going to be fine, because the past "proves" only people older than 25 are going to get it.
It's an invalid source, purely because it's referring to the past and not a claim to a theory that it can effect any age group :)
Well in the last 1918 big outbreak it killed millions mainly the healthy and ages 15–34.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
That means very little though, it killed anyone. Look at your wording, you said it too - by using the word "mainly." Mainly doesn't mean only, so it did kill people outside of those margins too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voiding
Ok, the healthy and middle aged were the people affected the most, where young and elderly seemed to be THAT affected by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
Which basically means, everyone is vulnerable. There are just some groups of people that are more vulnerable than others :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Voiding
k we're all gnna die of swine flu