WOW! Are you watching Tv lately? Because, let me say to you dude, the swine flu isn't in the South America! It's on Mexico and some others countries (including USA.). I just dont know why people always thinks that the most of the diseases are from SA. Soo, stay calm, if they come over here, they won't be infected .

ps. i'm pretty sure they will totally enjoy on our beaches . .

O RLY, South America, you say?

It has reached Australia. This swine flu has spread worldwide.
According to what I read it isn't as danger as the TV says.
(It has to do with the same influenza virus, the old and familiar flu.)

Let's pray for that. We already have the global warming to destroy the humanity. An epidemic flu certainly wouldn't be so exciting as the glaciers melting and flooding the continents .

Just kidding lol.

it's similar in that it's a virus with flu like symptoms. That's about it. The media are blowing it way out of proportion- the whole concern about the virus is its ability to mutate so it doesn't respond to treatments aimed at stopping it, unlike bacterial infections. It takes longer for the body to generate the antibodies needed to fight it. Most countries are well equipped to deal with it. Remember how the media went nuts over SARS and Bird Flu? this isn't any different: sure there's a risk, but it's not as bad as is made out.

what if u just had a bad cold and they treated u for it?that would suck

What of it? SARS has a mortality rate of 10%. Bird flu has a mortality rate of about 60%. What we know as seasonal flu has a mortality rate of about 0.6%, and the 1918 outbreak of Spanish flu that killed 50-100 million people only had about a 3-5% fatality rate. In case of pandemic it wouldn't end up very nicely so IDK why you seem to think the media attention was not at least somewhat justified.

I'm just saying that the media have one goal. Circulation: and for that reason you have to question nearly everything they write. Fear sells and it sells in droves- no matter what the subject matter be it terrorism, disease, recession or video nasties. When a swan died in Scotland, the media went f-ing nuts saying we were all going to get H5N1 and it never happened. I'm sure there is a risk, but I don't think the blatant exaggeration is justified. The WHO is one level away from announcing a pandemic, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't 1918 and we have the medical facilities to be able to control a pandemic. I've got a bit of a sore throat, a headache and a blocked nose today... am I concerned about flu? hell no.

Hey, it's been a slow news week, I won't deny that. Naturally, everybody butts in for profit as soon as opportunity arises, but that doesn't make diseases any less dangerous.


What about the Asian flu of 1958? Or the Hong Kong flu of 1969? I'm not going to go around screaming "APOCALYPSE AT THE DOOR SAVE YOURSELVES" but there is a certain danger of an outbreak and if the fear mongering makes a single person go to the hospital to have themselves checked instead of spreading the flu around I can only be slightly pissed about other news not getting on the frontpage.

I'm as concerned about getting swine flu as I am about getting The Hivvy.

I'd say vaccines have come on a long way since the 50s and 70s as well. As the media have been reporting, it just so happens that they think the vaccine for H1N1 human flu may be equally effective against H1N1 swine flu. The only people who should be visiting the hospital are the incredibly young, and the incredibly old. Everyone else should just do what any sane sick person would do, wrap up warm, stay inside, drink lots and sleep. There's fuck all else you can do because you just have to wait for your body to fight off the virus- vaccine or no vaccine. The WHO calling a pandemic means literally nothing- all it means is that the virus has spread to multiple countries and that it is being exchanged between individuals in that country- it does not mean that everyone is going to get it. I might add that H5N1 was declared a pandemic- anyone round here had that? no? thought not.

Or, y'know, die.

Was H5N1 ever declared a pandemic or just a pandemic threat? AFAIK, there's no human H5N1, only avian.

Sir Liam Donaldson- UK Gov Chief Medical Advisor "What we will see is many, many more cases, and inevitably some serious cases - but on the whole people make a good recovery from flu."

Standard boring old winter flu causes anywhere between 250,000 and half a million deaths each year... I don't remember you telling us to lock up our daughters and run for our lives then. did you? no.

stop using ridiculous anagrams- I spend half my time figuring out what they stand for! if you can't write in proper English (which I know you can!), then don't expect a serious response.

See, that's "standard" flu with 0.6% fatality rate. Now imagine that, let's say, SARS with the mortality rate of 10% was as wide-spread as standard flu - that would cause over 4 million deaths per year, if we take the lowest figure you've given, that's 250,000 lives.

That's why it's important to sometimes cause a bit of panic - to get people to be more careful and keep the disease from causing millions of deaths.

dude. that flu is everywere. i live in grosse pointe park and someone at my school has it so they might close for a week. its such a big deal over hear. but im not to worried about it.

I think you just said it "all" in one sentence.

gawd I've been on and off the internet for about 2 weeks and there's a huge discussion on the swine flu

gotta love the internet

anyone here caught swine flu yet?... no. thought not.

Urs, you know you love my chat.

Believe it or not, that is exactly my point. The media's most important role is to inform people that there is a risk of catching it, thus advising them to be more careful, report possible infections to the appropriate institutions more quickly, etc. I highly doubt the picture would be as rosy if everyone was left in the dark and would be merrily spreading the virus around the planet thinking it was a bit of a cold when it really is flu with unusually high mortality.

The medias most important role is to make money. fear sells! get everyone panicking, and make sure they feel the need to read day by day updates = greater profits!

Oh my god, someone somewhere is trying to make money off something they do! Alert the media!!

...Oh wait.

yeah, but when they have such liberal and barely censored freedom of expression and people rely on the media for factual honest information - as well as intelligible debate - then the media circus resulting from swine flu and the exaggeration makes freedom of expression into a joke. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Article 10, but I don't think it should be flouted to create hysteria and sales. They're barely sticking to their duties and responsibilities that afforded them that freedom.

Given the events - or lack thereof - of the past week, you can't say the panic was justified. It might be coated in 'we're aiding public health' - but their reaction has been waaay over the top.

EDIT: Wait what, how's reporting on swine flu abusing freedom of speech?

reporting in swine flu itself is clearly not an abuse of freedom of speech. That is entirely not what I said. It is the blatant exaggeration causing mass fear and hysteria for the sake of increasing circulation that does not correlate with the media's duty to present the news in a factual manner. Having freedom of speech to a degree where they are prima facie not censored carries duties and responsibilities to the public - and stirring fear and panic doesn't look very responsible, does it?

If what they had reported was sensible, honest and restrained I wouldn't mind. It's the idea that 'WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!' that I don't like, and if you want examples of that, I'll happily find them for you. It's clearly not justified, and not one paper has apologised for blowing things out of proportion that I have seen.

Just this once, and as it happens, I do have a question about the band. Do they still support PETA, and if so, ohmygod why?

And to keep the thread a bit cleaner, I've hidden the reply to tyler under a spoiler. MAGIX! The spoiler doesn't work, what is this sorcery?

Sorry, no formatting allowed, so I just bolded tyler's parts. I don't feel like reformatting, so there ya go.
"It is the blatant exaggeration causing mass fear and hysteria for the sake of increasing circulation that does not correlate with the media's duty to present the news in a factual manner."

That has nothing to do with freedom of speech, though. I have no idea why you brought it into it, really. What are you trying to say? "You're free to say whatever you want as long as it doesn't upset people"? Or that media exaggeration only happens when they are granted the right of speech? The freedom of speech is exercised too ... freely? No really, what?

I agree with you in general. However, I disagree with you on the degree of mass hysteria there supposedly was among general public. Sure, there's Speidi's ruined honeymoon (thank you for that, mass media ) and a few Republicans declaring it a punishment from God (but they say that about everything), but I haven't heard of any riots.

"Having freedom of speech to a degree where they are not censored carries duties and responsibilities to the public - and stirring fear and panic doesn't look very responsible, does it?"

I thought that *uncensored* degree of free speech was sort of the only one? But anyway, one of the freedoms covered by freedom of speech is also freedom to seek information, so instead of telling the media what to write and, y'know, censor them, perhaps we should more actively encourage people not to believe everything they read and double-check. If only we had some kind of a global network that would make information from multiple reliable sources freely accessible to willing individuals, hmmmmmmmm.

It's the idea that 'WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!' that I don't like, and if you want examples of that, I'll happily find them for you.

Oh, I know all about Large Hadron Collider, thank you, and I'm not arguing that media as a whole has never exaggerated. However, I don't think swine flu is necessarily the best example to showcase that, as it is actually not a walk in the park on a Sunday afternoon. You should also note that it hasn't been just the media that have paid attention to the virus. Both WHO and CDC have expressed serious concern and people actually, y'know, died. Now, I'm of opinion we should do just about everything to stop people from dying of perfectly preventable reasons EVEN if that means that OMG! someone makes money off it, but your mileage may vary, I suppose.

Also, are we posting pictures now? Because:

Haha, I love how passionate you guys are .
Hmmm... I agree with both of you in part. I think the media has had a field day with this, but I also feel that a lot of that attention is justified. There are always going to be newspapers that will take a piece of news and sensationalise it. It's inevitable when there is a news story this big.
I agree with Ursa, the mortality is much higher than the ordinary run of the mill flu and if the virus is highly contagious - or mutates to become highly contagious - then yes there will be a pandemic unless the spread is stopped by vaccinations and quarantine.
If the worst were to happen I don't think medical facilities would be able to handle it, or at least they would be put under a great deal of strain. Public hospitals are already struggling (in Aus anyway), a large influx of sick, infectious patients that would need to be quarantined would definitely pose a significant problem. There is no treatment for the flu (sure there are anti-virals available, but they are expensive and largely ineffective against the flu), only prevention via vaccine (as long as the vaccine covers the particular strain of flu going around), so all hospitals would be able to do is offer supportive treatment (i.e. shove in a cannula and start a normal saline drip).
Ok, so millions of people aren't dying. But the 1918 flu didn't kill millions over night, the problem evolved over time as more and more became infected. Swine flu probably won't become the dooms day scenario some tabloids are shouting about - but it has the potential. Media attention puts pressure on governments to prepare for future outbreaks. I don't think that is ever a bad thing. After all, there will be another flu pandemic that will kill millions, it is only a matter of time - be that this year or in 100 years. Will the current swine flu scare be the culprit? Probably not - but I think it is better to be over vigilant and prepare, than apathetic and ignore it because in most cases the pandemic doesn't happen and by doing so miss the opportunity to halt the spread and prevent that pandemic early in it's tracks.
So yeah sure the media is selling a lot of newspapers and is making a huge deal out of this flu - but I think it would be more dangerous if it were the other way around.

One has got to be conscious about the swine flu and be well-informed to avoid panic and be better prepared.
This debate raised another question, how often this virus mutates?


I had the same thought.

Ok, I'll take your points one by one:

This has everything to do with freedom of speech: Reporting on swine flu certainly isn't a freedom of speech matter, but there certainly is 'an' argument to say that when a newspaper reports on a matter, and the truth becomes so distorted that an article is no longer based on fact, but ridiculous assumption- which leads to the ignorant masses panicking for no good reason: it is at that point you have to ask whether the media are behaving responsibly. Look at the wording of Article 10 ECHR - para 2. states that having a right to freedom of expression carries with it 'duties and responsibilities' - no exhaustive list as to what these are is given - but if you want me to go all case law on you to prove I am right- I will.

My point is that BY LAW the media have a right to freedom of expression; BY LAW it carries duties and responsibilities; and behaving in a way that is a) not in the public interest (informing them of public health issues is of course, but exaggerating those issues to the extent they have negates that useful purpose) and B ) causes unnecessary panic and c) has the actual motive of increasing circulation in a time when print media is in decline, so papers are desperately clinging to what advertising revenue they can maintain - COULD be argued to be an abuse of freedom of expression which does not uphold the duties and responsibilities they are to adhere to.

You can't be so ignorant as to think freedom of speech is 'uncensored' - I thought better of you than that. It's not censored in any obvious way - a ministry of media checking every article, every day etc - in the UK we do have a Press Complaints Commission with powers to sanction media who breach their code, if I remember rightly with powers to fine newspapers, we have Ofcom who regulate all digital media, we have the BBFC who rate films. We have obscenity, defamation, confidentiality, privacy, and contempt of court laws etc which will be present in most jurisdictions - under which any individual can bring an action either for an injunction to stop printing or once an article is published for damages (which is a deterrent which could be argued to encourage self censorship). We also have media agreements, where there is a blanket 'no reporting' zone placed over a matter.... I could go on. Freedom of speech starts to look like it is open to a form of censorship.

The problem I now have is that I have shown that there is censorship- and therefore how did swine flu slip through the net- simply put, it doesn't fall into the net of any of the above. They're all either not relevant or their requirements are too high. At this point, I think it's fair to say that we are to assume that people are intelligent enough to know what is bollocks and what is not. But not everyone is blessed with the intelligence of you and I.

I actually wasn't referring to the Hadron Collider example- I was specifically referring to headlines and articles relating to Swine Flu - take for example the Daily Express: "it could kill 750,000 people in Britain and lead to mass graves, inflatable mortuaries and 24-hour cremations." Or The Sun: "The whole of humanity is under threat." Or to stir panic among the celebrity obsessed 'stupid bregade' "Terrified 'Big Brother' babes Chanelle Hayes and Chantelle Houghton are having URGENT swine flu tests." Responsible reporting? I don't think so.

A to your last paragraph - people die - shit happens. So far, the death toll is in it's hundreds and the media claim that the outbreak is in decline (And that's before a vaccination has even been created). More people die from semi-hilarious incidents in the home per year than Swine Flu has killed since the outbreak began. This just makes the media look a laughing stock. Seeing as the statistics don't show anything like 'pandemic' - I'd say the burden of proof is on you to show that the ridiculous media reaction was warranted because most of the evidence looks to be in my favour right now.

patronising much?

Everyone needs to make money, its a given, but there are such things called ethics and responsibilities in how you go making the money!

The media are in a very powerful position, and to exploit that by exaggerating(no matter how large or small you seem to think theyve exaggerated) things like bird flu to cause panic so that people will buy their papers, read their wesbites, watch their tv shows... i seem to think is just a little unethical. Obviously you dont have the same morals....

I disagree that the threat of a pandemic is "no good reason" to be worried about.
I also think, and I think I've said this before, that you are exaggerating (not unlike the media, strangely) the panic the news supposedly caused within the population.


I don't want to accuse you of something you may not be guilty of, so I'm asking you this directly: Do you believe the coverage of world (or otherwise) events should be censored (more than they already are) and the freedom of the media restricted beyond the point of current laws?


I don't understand why you and Slash up there seem to think that the media are BAD BAD BAD because they aren't non-profit organisations. Yes, they are companies that do it for the money, it is neither a revolutionary nor an uncommon practice.


So, not only do you have medical organisations against you on the issue of whether swine flu is a serious enough threat, you also have all these organisations against you on the issue of whether the swine flu coverage was in breach of any laws and/or their respective codes of ethics.


I think you are either seriously overestimating my and your intelligence or seriously underestimating that of general public. Also, I don't understand why you are in favour of restricting information from them rather than educating them that not everything that is told to them is always entirely correct.



Okay, and this is where I stop taking you seriously. I mean, c'mon, the Daily Express? The paper in which every single article reads like "OH NOES axe murderers, queers and blacks EVERYWHERE! If only Diana was here! *wail*"? And the Sun? The paper that has an entire section dedicated to Jade Goody? The same paper that regards Daniel Radcliffe having dinner with a drag queen 'important news'?

Anyone who takes anything the Sun, the Daily Express, Big Brother contestants, the Daily Fail or any other Red Top ever say seriously is a lost cause and cannot be aided by modern science, let alone censorship. So is anyone who honestly expects resposible reporting from the freakin' Daily Express.


See, I don't particularly care about the people who manage to win a Darwin award since they were pretty much too dumb to live from the get-go. I do, however, have a problem with people dying of perfectly preventable reasons just because they have a shitty immune system, especially if the reasons for it are as ridiculous as "the media are scaring me by telling me people die from diseases, we should pretend they don't exist instead!"


Obviously I am everything that there is wrong with this world and also immoral for disagreeing with you. Funny that.

meh, whatever. I'm bored of this. I could go on giving you reasons why you are wrong, but you keep missing my point. That and I really cant be arsed tonight.

Why must all our conversations end up in such an epic anti-climax?

Because unlike u.. were not all looking for a fight.

And trying to have a debate with you is like arguing with a brick wall... you dismiss and patronise everyone elses opposing views, and when they make points which flaw your argument and you can't come back at it, instead of admitting you were wrong.. you just plain ignore them and skip past it.

So i think people are just getting bored and tired of trying to have a debate with you.

(GUN)

Right, I'm going to have one last try at trying to get you to at least see my point of view.

1. Swine flu never reached pandemic and it looks doubtful if it ever will. The WHO never raised their alert to pandemic levels. All media coverage looks completely sensationalised at this point. Can't you see there is a difference even if a pandemic were to come to pass between what the media have done globally in saying we're all going to die of this horrible illness, everyone run for your lives from anyone who so much as sneezes near you! ; and saying there is a threat of a pandemic, no cause for alarm, it is completely containable if you are vigilant with your cleanliness, scientists are working on a vaccine, and any cases which come to our country will be contained and dealt with by healthcare workers who know what they are doing. Here is the proceedure for what you should do should you be worried about contracting the virus.

Edit: and I'd say mexico shutting down completely was a pretty significant example of people panicking. Up to today 42 are dead. I put money on it equally as many mexicans have died of heart disease in that time - but I don't see them shutting down every tobacco factory or red meat selling establishment, do you?

2. Although I believe in freedom of speech, I also believe in responsibility, and I believe that (ignoring swine flu for a minute) individuals have concurrent rights which ought to be treated as equally significant, not less so- ie privacy. I believe that the media is solely to blame for pointless celebrity culture and the fact that kids are growing up convinced that they have a right to fame, and they no longer want to be doctors, lawyers or professionals of any note, instead they just want to be famous... that's it. I believe that the people who are hounded by the media have a right to privacy which is sometimes disregarded in favour of a good story, and I totally disagree with that. Privacy is one example among many.

An important purpose of the media is to create accountability, to act as a voice for the masses - whether it be holding the government to account, companies or individuals etc without the media we would not have an insight into important public affairs. And this is exactly why the media have to act responsibly: this is their core duty and it should not be flouted, abused or used to sensationalise events.

The repercussions of sensationalisation can be witnessed in their reporting on the current economic recession. it is widely accepted that the media reaction to the economic downturn could well have contributed to the worstening of the economy, both in terms of the rate and depth of decline. Clearly, the media have significant power and influence, and the results of irresponsible reporting are clear to see. This is why I Article 10 states that they owe duties and responsibilities in return for having freedom of expression. Hence, breaching those responsibilities results in sanctions and impedance of freedom of expression. If the mechanisms in place to ensure that those duties and responsibilities are upheld, then there is no reason why strict censorship should be required.

3. I don't have a problem with the media making money. I think I have already made this clear. I have a problem with them exaggerating events way beyond the truth for the SAKE of making money. If you want a good story, go hit up the fiction section of your local bookstore, don't read a paper, it's not what they are for.

4. As I said to you only a paragraph after I pointed out that those organisations and laws - freedom of expression is a highly valued human right, challenging that right comes with having to satisfy hefty criteria, and for that reason, none of those laws or organisations would be in a position to challenge sensationalised reporting. Largely because they are too powerless to do so - a small fine from the PPC is going to do fuck all if you can make a tonne of cash the next day. Besides, these procedures take months, even years. There simply isn't a law that says - if you exaggerate on the facts and talk shit we'll punish you. And, as I said, people are expected to be able to think for themselves rationally and question whether what is being said is plausible. In the case of something rooted in quite complex biology, readers don't have the knowledge to question to what extent an article may be considering a plausible future scenario.

5. Like it or not, redtops are the biggest circulating papers in the country. Whether people take them seriously or not is irrelevant if they are one of the sources of information they depend on for honest dissemination of the facts on a matter that - in your view - is such a serious threat.


.... now time for brekky.

A city near me has 8 cases of the flu already.
A 26 year old woman just recently died from it...

and some how, I'm still not worried.

good point.

Are you still butthurt about that NIN song?

Look, the only reason I ever make fun of your delicate soul is because of your widely attested inability to write down a coherent sentence without whining how people (okay, me) are mean to you.

I only address points that stand out to me and/or I disagree with. If I missed anything really important, do point it out.


Of course, it isn't your problem – as you said, you aren't going to die from swine flu, your immune system is better than average, you are careful and thoughtful. So yeah, from your personal standpoint, the reporting about swine flu was completely unnecessary and annoying, it perhaps even inconvenienced you in several ways.

Thing is, not everyone is, as you said, 'blessed with the intelligence of you and I', your above-average immune system or your first world health care.
I believe that, as much as it isn't your personal problem, it's our collective problem.

There was no way of knowing how severe swine flu was at the beginning. Considering flu is fairly unpredictable and that the three pandemics of flu in the 20th century killed tens, if not hundreds of millions of people and each was caused by the appearence of a new strain of flu, the irresposible thing to do would have been to wait and see if it happened to kill another few million. Well, thank god it hasn't reached pandemic status yet and here's to hoping it never will, but would we be able to say this if people hadn't taken the threat seriously?

Mexico wasn't shut down by the people of Mexico but by the government. I highly doubt the government of Mexico decided to shut down nonessential parts of itself without any sort of data supporting that decision just because the Sun told them so.

Aside from the fact that Mexico's (and that of other coutries) current policy on smoking and the numerous food safety organisations all over the world are in place precisely in order to improve public health, there is a world of difference between voluntarily eating nothing but steak and chain-smoking for the rest of your life v. involuntarily contracting a virus and dying from it and you know it.


Privacy of individuals, the economic downturn and teenagers' role models are issues that I don't disagree with you on, but they are separate issues from the reporting on swine flu.


That's a very good point, actually. Don't like sensationalistic press? Don't read it.


I don't understand why you are tying to make this into a legal issue, then, as you said there is no law prohibiting such reporting and you are not in favour of additional censorship.

You mean that when people see a headline stating that WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE OF FLU! EVERYONE! YOUR CHILDREN! YOUR PETS! AAAAAH! they don't think twice about believing it? Maybe you should be pointing fingers at your educational system, then.

If people don't take them seriously, they don't depend on them for honest information, no? Yes? Maybe?

One, you're in the wrong genre of media entirely. Is there a single person who picks up any gutter press issue for their insightful commentary on the current affairs over the chance to laugh at Jodie Marsh? (you will notice that in the online edition, the most read article is Rihanna's nude photo scandal) Thing is, gutter press is notorious for their terribly written, terribly chosen articles, most of of which are related to wannabe celebrities. They go for their share of 'complex biology' elsewhere because paying the full price when you're only interested in a small portion of the magazine makes no sense.

Furthermore, I think it's safe to say the stupidity needed to take the Sun's word for it is virtually incompatible with the ability to read.

And lastly but perhaps most importantly; your examples are not a representative sample. Saying that all media is corrupted and sensational because the Sun is that way is like having a guy at the pub tell you that the scientists have confirmed that you can fly if you really wish for it and then, when your Peter Pan ambitions fail and you seriously injure yourself when you jump off the window, proclaim all science to be worthless.

This is what I think about this whole swine flu thing:

yehh, ive been wishing someone at my school got it. so they would shut it down. no luck yet

my parents thought i had swine flu. ive been sick for a little over a week.

when i went to the doctor i found out i didnt have it,
it was interesting though he told us that he had seen three cases of swine flu a week. thats a lot.

also I heard that Rupert Grint of Harry Potter fame contracted it as well