Warning About Swine Flu Questions
|
Mahalo Answers is a great place to start your research into Swine Flu questions, but it's not the final answer. Mahalo Answers is not a substitute for informed professional advice. If you desire or require professional advice, please consult a qualified provider who is licensed in your state or country. You should always seek independent professional advice before acting on any opinion, advice, or information available on Mahalo Answers. |
Answered Question
M$2
May 07, 2009 01:54 PM
Would you attend a Swine Flu Party?
Some people are worried that the H1N1 virus will come back in the fall in a more lethal version the way the 1918 flu did. Although health officials are saying it's not a good idea, some people feel they want to contract the flu now to develop resistance. Would you attend a Swine Flu Party, if invited?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/americas/07party.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/americas/07party.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Interesting Question?
Yes (5)
No (0)
Interesting: joyannj, interzone, bunnyphuphu, cynthiag, jasoncalacanis
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| May 07, 2009 06:10 PM |
Similarly, there is no _real_ way for the average person to know what if any strain someone has. (The only real way to know would be laboratory testing.) How does one know you're not exposing yourself to that now mutated strain that just happened to mutate in that one person?
In addition, the more people exposed, the greater the numbers of people who could potentially be exposed, exponentially.
Are people who are going to a "flu party" willing to lock themselves up in their houses and not go out at all, not have any exposure to delivery people, etc.? You may be willing to intentionally make yourself sick, but are everybody that you and your children/roommates/family/etc. consenting to be exposed?
Besides, this current strain is currently deadly or dangerous for some. Do you really want to voluntarily play russian roulette? Sure, the odds may be lower than if it comes back in a more deadly strain, but the risks are still there. Yes, the initial numbers of how many died was allegedly way over-reported, but it still has caused at least a few deaths.
| Asker's Rating: |
• Interesting point about the possibility of these parties increasing the change that the virus would mutate into something more lethal.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (11)
May 07, 2009 02:06 PM
No. Conceptually I can see where this idea is coming from, but it's the wrong idea. This would NOT be a choice for me or my family. I'm fine with existing vaccines to help boost immunity but voluntarily exposing yourself to a newer viral strain that does not yet have a vaccine is not something I'd subject myself to.
Note - Not a Doctor
Permalink | Report
Reply
May 07, 2009 02:13 PM
it would be ineffective as protection. the reason the flu can be worse when it "returns" is because it will have grown and mutated into another variation of the flu. what you catch now will not be what you can catch later.
Source(s):
personal knowledge and experience.
Helpful Answer?
(3)
(1)
Helpful: interzone, space-angel, pirate
Unhelpful: ssmacd
Tip mamakin for this answer
Reply
May 07, 2009 08:22 PM
not one time did i say it wouldn't help protect you. what i said is that it is not an effective way to deal with protecting yourself against whatever mutation this flu will take in the future.
of course, whenever exposed to a flu, healthy humans usually develop some resistance to it, which might or might not offer some immunity against a variation on the same theme, but, it would not necessarily protect against it. you'd still catch the virus and your body will still react in trying to shed it.
Report
of course, whenever exposed to a flu, healthy humans usually develop some resistance to it, which might or might not offer some immunity against a variation on the same theme, but, it would not necessarily protect against it. you'd still catch the virus and your body will still react in trying to shed it.
May 07, 2009 02:16 PM
NO, I would most definitively not attend any such party! The rationale behind it is highly questionable, to say the least... If contracting a flu virus simply results in developing resistance to it, then there would be no danger of (swine) flu at all.
Some people may argue that flu vaccine itself is a variation of the flu virus, and that exposure to it, i.e. vaccination, does result in strengthening of immune system.
However, vaccines contain an engineered strain of virus, one that's rendered harmless through removal of certain segments from its genetic code.
In other words, vaccination is not quite the same thing as contracting flu virus in a haphazard way, such as proposed parties seem to be.
Source(s):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/ReverseGeneticsFlu.jpg
Permalink | Report
Reply
May 07, 2009 02:29 PM
No. I would not attend a "flu party". The theory behind these parties are not based on any solid data. But I have some some great party ideas if you plan on throwing one anyway:
Play "spin the bottle".
Make a fun and tasty "double dip" salsa.
Get in a circle, hold hands and play "telephone".
Give party bags that include sudafed, cough drops and tissue.
You can make delicious party food from this site
http://www.familycorner.com/family/kids/recipes/halloweenparty.shtml
I love the Kitty Litter Cake and Boogers on a Stick!
Remember to kiss all your guests and don't use any napkins when eating!
Permalink | Report
Reply
May 07, 2009 02:41 PM
Most of my family has asthma. When they get sick it tends to turn into a really nasty respiratory thing. So no, I'll avoid any swine flu parties. If I didn't see my family members every day, whether or not I went to such a party would probably depend on if it was an actual party. If it was, it'd be a fun time, I think. You'd almost certainly have interesting conversations there. Plus, if swine flu turns out to be way over-hyped, pandemic wise, then you'd be one of the few people who'd actually had it.Â
The number of experts talking about it in that article makes me think it wouldn't be that bad of an idea.
Permalink | Report
Reply
May 07, 2009 02:42 PM
Not unless it was just a flu-themed party. Then we could have chocolate-covered bacon. 
Seriously. Flu mutates, and catching the mild form now would not be a help if it mutates later. Then it would be a different virus. It would be like trying to catch chicken pox to defend against a smallpox epidemic.
Permalink | Report
Reply
May 07, 2009 03:39 PM
Not only is that disgusting, but tasteless. We are doing everything we can to keep the flu from spreading, and people are contracting it purposely? I think this should be criminalized, especially if it involves children. These are viruses; they can mutate. Swine flu HAS killed people. This is completely irresponsible. There is nothing funny about it.
Permalink | Report
Reply
May 07, 2009 05:05 PM
Apart from anything else, this plan would be very hard to execute. As the NY Times points out there aren't a heck of a lot of infected people around to catch it from even if you wanted to. -- Quote
In any case, many experts noted that there was a big flaw in any self-infection plan: it is not easy to find and cuddle up to someone with swine flu. There were only 642 confirmed cases in the country as of Wednesday.
-- /Quote
The fact that people are devoting their energies to discussing a plan that is impossible to implement tells you quite a lot about the quality of their thinking.
I'd go nowhere near a Swine Flu party, and my bet is there will be no serious epidemic at all. Even now Mexico has on investigating further discovered that the survival rate from this is the same as for normal flu.
Permalink | Report
Reply
May 08, 2009 12:50 AM
A swine flu party? Really? That's the most insane thing I've ever heard--right up there with the chicken pox parties. The best thing to do with an outbreak is to CONTAIN IT. How on earth is this not obvious!??!
Tags: swinefluparties, swine, swineflu
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(0)
Helpful: tw3nz0r
Tip jasoncalacanis for this answer
Reply
May 08, 2009 10:42 AM
Chicken Pox parties made sense up until the varicella vaccine (chicken pox vaccine) was widely available. (This was 1995 in the US.)
Due to the level of severity of catching chicken pox as a child vs. as an adult, it would make sense to catch chickenpox in childhood rather than being exposed to the pain and potential complications of catching the disease in later years.
Once the vaccine was available, such things are no longer necessary to acquire immunity.
Report
Due to the level of severity of catching chicken pox as a child vs. as an adult, it would make sense to catch chickenpox in childhood rather than being exposed to the pain and potential complications of catching the disease in later years.
Once the vaccine was available, such things are no longer necessary to acquire immunity.
May 08, 2009 05:18 AM
I'd rather try to avoid getting any strain of the flu, period, to be completely honest. I really, really hate being sick, and I can't see how intentionally making myself sick with the current strain would benefit me later. Though I'm sure that getting sick now could provide SOME immunity against a mutated swine flu later, I don't see that as being worth the risk. What if I get the "super swine flu" later anyway? Why, then I'll be sick twice (or sick once and dead once, depending on how bad the mutated strain ends up being). Of course, I also don't really like parties, so that could have something to do with my response. :)
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- dj2, December 01, 2009 08:56 PM
- smzachary, December 01, 2009 08:47 PM
- drdinoprato, December 01, 2009 08:41 PM
- karenstephenson, December 01, 2009 08:38 PM
- bonehead16661, December 01, 2009 08:31 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
Here is a quote from the CDC website:
"In general, a person who is infected with an influenza virus one year will have some immunity to closely related viruses that may persist for one or more years."
Also in the flu vaccine, there are three different strains of flu. However the vaccine gives protection against other strains than the ones in the vaccine.
So it really is incorrect to say this wouldn't help protect you from the virus later.
Sources:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/disease.htm
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1835907,00.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952044