Would infection with swine flu in it's current condition be a good thing?
April 27, 2009 6:56 PM Subscribe
Would infection with swine flu in it's current condition be a good thing?
As it is now, swine flu is not a particularly strong virus, and as some CDC types have said, is milder than some more common flus. But while mild, this strain of flu has little immunity to it in the general population, and could potentially spread like wildfire. Wouldnt getting infected early be like my immunity shot?
If it becomes a pandemic, would you pay money to get infected by a local strain of it? Would you search craigslist for hosts?
This is considering that the local strain is a mild one. If it is dangerous, I might just lock myself in a food pantry.
As it is now, swine flu is not a particularly strong virus, and as some CDC types have said, is milder than some more common flus. But while mild, this strain of flu has little immunity to it in the general population, and could potentially spread like wildfire. Wouldnt getting infected early be like my immunity shot?
If it becomes a pandemic, would you pay money to get infected by a local strain of it? Would you search craigslist for hosts?
This is considering that the local strain is a mild one. If it is dangerous, I might just lock myself in a food pantry.
This post was deleted for the following reason: this is sort of a "let's talk about the flu" question - what is the problem you are trying to solve? -- jessamyn
I'm not sure that it makes a difference which strain you are hypothetically infected with. I don't think anyone can predict whether an earlier strain or one from a different location would be easier to recover from. The only viruses that I would want to be infected with on purpose are dead ones.
posted by zinfandel at 7:14 PM on April 27, 2009
posted by zinfandel at 7:14 PM on April 27, 2009
Response by poster: If it becomes pandemic, it's free.
true
The only viruses that I would want to be infected with on purpose are dead ones.
also true
Flu strains do matter though so the original question still stands. If the outbreak were widespread, wouldnt a host with a mild strain be a good preventative measure against a worse infection.
posted by chrisdab at 7:35 PM on April 27, 2009
true
The only viruses that I would want to be infected with on purpose are dead ones.
also true
Flu strains do matter though so the original question still stands. If the outbreak were widespread, wouldnt a host with a mild strain be a good preventative measure against a worse infection.
posted by chrisdab at 7:35 PM on April 27, 2009
Interesting idea, but the general rule is not to vaccinate unless the vaccine itself is safe. And the swine flu is not safe (neither are the garden variety flus, either, for that matter). Vaccines have tiny tiny chances of severe adverse effects, while the swine flu has killed over a hundred people thus far.
A severely attenuated strain would, in theory, work as a potentially effective vaccine against nastier forms of the virus. But there are no guarantees, and a virus that has killed people is most definitely not attenuated. And, as zinfandel says, nobody knows how a virus will change with time. It's just as possible that substrains that (inevitably, imho) spread through the rest of the world would be less severe than the current ones in Mexico.
posted by kisch mokusch at 7:36 PM on April 27, 2009
A severely attenuated strain would, in theory, work as a potentially effective vaccine against nastier forms of the virus. But there are no guarantees, and a virus that has killed people is most definitely not attenuated. And, as zinfandel says, nobody knows how a virus will change with time. It's just as possible that substrains that (inevitably, imho) spread through the rest of the world would be less severe than the current ones in Mexico.
posted by kisch mokusch at 7:36 PM on April 27, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
If it becomes pandemic, it's free.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 7:09 PM on April 27, 2009 [2 favorites]