|
|
Tonix3001
Joined: 19 Feb 2002
Posts: 61
|
CDC Flu Epidemic Report
 Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:14 pm
|
 |
|
http://www.cdc.org
INFLUENZA SUMMARY UPDATE
Week ending March 16, 2002-Week 11
The following information may be quoted:
Synopsis: During week 11 (March 10-16, 2002)*, 276 (19.8%) of 1,395 respiratory specimens tested by World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) laboratories were positive for influenza. The overall proportion of patient visits to sentinel physicians for influenza-like illness (ILI) was 2.0%, which is above the national baseline of 1.9%. The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza was 9.3%, which is above the epidemic threshold of 8.2% for week 11. Five state and territorial health departments reported widespread influenza activity, 26 reported regional activity, 18 reported sporadic activity, and 1 reported no influenza activity **.
U.S. World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory And Enteric Virus Surveillance System(NREVSS) Collaborating Laboratory Reports *: During week 11, WHO and NREVSS laboratories reported 1,395 specimens tested for influenza viruses, of which 276 (19.8%) were positive. Forty-five influenza A(H3N2) viruses, 1 influenza A(H1N1) virus, 192 unsubtyped influenza A viruses, and 38 influenza B viruses were identified. During the past 3 weeks (weeks 9-11), 34% of the specimens tested for influenza in the East North Central region were positive. In the East South Central, New England, West North Central, and South Atlantic regions the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza ranged from 24% to 32% and in the Mountain, West South Central, and Mid-Atlantic regions the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza ranged from 16% to 18%. In the Pacific region 7% of specimens tested were positive for influenza.
Since September 30, WHO and NREVSS laboratories have tested a total of 69,323 specimens for influenza viruses and 11,041 (15.9%) were positive. Of the 11,041 isolates identified, 10,741 (97%) were influenza A viruses and 300 (3%) were influenza B viruses. Three thousand eighty-four (29%) of the 10,741 influenza A viruses identified have been subtyped; 3,045 (99%) were H3 viruses and 39 (1%) were H1 viruses. Thirty-eight percent of the influenza B isolates reported this season were identified in the Mid-Atlantic region.
View WHO-NREVSS Regional Bar Charts | View Chart Data
Antigenic Characterization of Viral Isolates: CDC has antigenically characterized 328 influenza viruses collected from U.S. laboratories since October 1: 276 influenza A(H3N2) viruses, 5 influenza A H1 viruses, and 47 influenza B viruses. The influenza A (H3N2) and A H1 viruses were similar to the vaccine strains A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2) and A/New Caledonia/ 20/99 (H1N1), respectively. One of the H1 viruses is an H1N2 virus from a patient specimen collected in Wisconsin in December. Two additional H1N2 viruses have been identified from patient specimens collected during July and September in Texas and Nevada, respectively.
Click here for more information about influenza A(H1N2) viruses
Influenza B viruses currently circulating worldwide can be divided into 2 antigenically distinct lineages, B/Yamagata/16/88 and B/Victoria/2/87. Viruses of the B/Yamagata lineage have circulated widely since 1990. The B component of the current influenza vaccine belongs to the B/Yamagata lineage. Viruses of the B/Victoria lineage had not been identified outside of Asia between 1991 and March 2001. Since March 2001, B/Victoria lineage viruses have been identified in Canada, China, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Oman, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin). CDC has antigenically characterized 47 influenza B viruses received from U.S. laboratories and collected since October 1; 34 belonged to the B/Yamagata lineage and 13 belonged to the B/Victoria lineage. Of the 34 B/Yamagata lineage viruses, 12 were similar to the vaccine strain, B/Sichuan/379/99, and 22 showed somewhat reduced titers to ferret antisera produced against B/Sichuan/379/99. The B component of the current influenza vaccine is expected to provide lower levels of protection against viruses of the B/Victoria lineage.
Composition of the 2002-03 Influenza Vaccine: The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee recommended that the 2002-03 trivalent influenza vaccine for the United States contain A/New Caledonia/20/99-like (H1N1), A/Moscow/10/99-like (H3N2), and B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like viruses. The influenza B component of the 2002-03 season vaccine is a virus of the B/Victoria lineage. The A(H1N1) and A(H3N2) components are the same as those for the 2001-02 season vaccine. This recommendation was based on antigenic analyses of recently isolated influenza viruses, epidemiologic data, and postvaccination serologic studies in humans.
Pneumonia and Influenza (P&I) Mortality: During week 11, the percentage of all deaths due to pneumonia and influenza as reported by the vital statistics offices of 122 U.S. cities was 9.3%. This percentage is above the epidemic threshold of 8.2% for week 11.
View Full Screen
Influenza Morbidity Reports from U.S. Sentinel Physicians*: During week 11, 2.0% of patient visits to U.S. sentinel physicians were due to ILI. This is above the national baseline of 1.9%. On a regional level, the percentage of visits for ILI ranged from 0.7% to 4.8%.*** Due to wide variability in regional level data, it is not possible to calculate region-specific baselines and it is not appropriate to apply the national baseline to regional level data.
View Sentinel Physician Regional Bar Charts | View Chart Data
Influenza Activity as Assessed by State and Territorial Epidemiologists**: Influenza activity was reported as widespread in 5 states (Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia), and regional in 26 states (California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming). Eighteen states, New York City, and Washington D.C. reported sporadic influenza activity, and Alaska reported no influenza activity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Reporting is incomplete for this week. Numbers may change as more reports are received.
** Influenza activity is defined as influenza-like illness and/or culture-confirmed influenza.
*** Surveillance Regions: New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island); Mid-Atlantic (New Jersey, New York City, Pennsylvania, Upstate New York); East North Central (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin); West North Central (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota); South Atlantic (Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, D.C., West Virginia); East South Central (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee); West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas); Mountain (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming); Pacific (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington)
Report prepared: March 21, 2002
>>>
Top of Page
Home | NCID Home | Contact Us
CDC Home | Search | Health Topics A-Z
Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases
National Center for Infectious Diseases
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Privacy
|
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Sat Mar 23, 2002 4:19 am
|
|
|
What is most interesting about the most recent weekly surveillance report is that data show significant DECLINING levels for positive for actual influenza:
"During week 11, WHO and NREVSS laboratories reported 1,395 specimens tested for influenza viruses, of which 276 (19.8%) were positive."
And yet during this same period, DEATHS (mortality) from pneumonia and influenza have exceeded epidemic levels for the first time in two years (even the new and "improved" elevated epidemic levels for the CDC).
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/weekly.htm
Here is the relevant quote:
"Pneumonia and Influenza (P&I) Mortality: During week 11, the percentage of all deaths due to pneumonia and influenza as reported by the vital statistics offices of 122 U.S. cities was 9.3%. This percentage is above the epidemic threshold of 8.2% for week 11."
******************************************
My question: So why now, late in the normal "flu"season are more people dying than at any other time during the past two years?
So just what is causing this elevated level of acute respiratory death?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 03-23-2002] |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Thu Mar 28, 2002 9:18 pm
|
|
|
Please note that "Epidemic" mortality continues to climb despite significant reduction in the levels of positive tests for true influenza:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/weekly.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/weeklyarchives/bigpi11.htm
Is it reasonable that the American public should be concerned about this largest increase in respiratory deaths in a two year period?
Shouldn't there be some, any, press coverage?
Remember, we are talking EPIDEMIC levels of mortality by the CDC's own recently elevated standards. |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Thu Mar 28, 2002 9:40 pm
|
|
|
Throat maybe you could describe in detail for the folks that don't have the time to read reems and reems of CDC info, the CDC's "new and improved" data as you described it, and also include the average age of the folks that fell mortal, if you could....
thanks
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Fri Mar 29, 2002 12:12 am
|
|
|
Let's see if this works. I've also wondered why the Seasonal Baseline and "Epidemic" Threshold curves trend higher and higher every year. Another question is, why is the highest peak in 1997 about 9.1% in the "old" system and about 9.9% in the "new" one? You'll have to highlight the first picture to get it to show up. Otherwise, black lines on a black background=big blank. Sorry.
[Edited 5 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 03-28-2002] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Fri Mar 29, 2002 12:21 am
|
|
|
Throat, this thread sat here for 6 days til you posted again and clearly the other posters either don't understand your inference, don't understand the data or think your a nut...
I think your a nut...
I said explain it for the folks...not I...
I don't see anything wrong with the CDC data, or in how they are presenting it...
I think it's time you made your point about the CDC...
BTW, you might pick up a copy of Pat Buchannan's latest book, seem's the great "cull" you've been dreaming about is happening all by itself without chemicals, and is the result of self-indulgent lifestyles and the lack of religion being practiced by the people...
your friend "pollyanna"
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:40 am
|
|
|
You ever notice that "seeker" is really no seeker (of Truth that is) at all.
More like a total bullsh*t artist when he isn't being a yappy lapdog.
You did notice that he didn't address the worst epidemic levels of mortality from respiratory deaths in the last two years...
...he chose to belittled it with HIS Buchannan "cull" crap.
He attempted to distract, attributing such theories to me...
...and yet because he is a bullsh*t artist he cannot find a SINGLE POST of mine that discusses a "cull" theory.
He doesn't see a problem with the CDC raising "epidemic" levels.
Big surprise.
He doesn't see any problem with our skies either.
Like I said...
a TOTAL Bullsh*t artist.
|
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Fri Mar 29, 2002 6:01 am
|
|
|
Moving right along, does anybody know why the Seasonal Baseline and the "Epidemic" Threshold have been moved so that the graph for the year 2001 now falls right between those two curves, instead of falling below both of them, as it did in the week ending 05/19/01?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 03-28-2002] |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Fri Mar 29, 2002 7:41 am
|
|
|
Here's the reference to the CDC "doctored" data seeker.
You're not very good at "seeking" are you?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/weeklyarchives2000-2001/weekly40.htm
"Prior to the 1999-2000 season, a new case definition for a pneumonia and influenza death was introduced in the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System. It was recognized that one potential effect of using this case definition was to increase P&I mortality measurement levels in comparison to previous seasons. During the summer of 2000, the P&I mortality data were analyzed to determine if the modified case definition had affected mortality estimates. On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that there was an approximately 0.8% upward shift in 1999-2000 mortality estimates. The 0.8% shift does not represent a true increase in mortality. To adjust for this upward shift in mortality estimates, the 122 cities P&I mortality baseline and epidemic threshold for the 2000-01 season have been adjusted upward as well."
Remember that folks...
No "true" increase in mortality. We'll just massage the data a little, raise the levels considered epidemic...and voila!
Now, don't you feel better.
Sorry about your dead friends and relatives.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 03-29-2002] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Fri Mar 29, 2002 7:49 am
|
|
|
You ever notice that "seeker" is really no seeker (of Truth that is) at all.
sure I am...
You did notice that he didn't address the worst epidemic levels of mortality from respiratory deaths in the last two years...
death happens throat...get over it...
He attempted to distract, attributing such theories to me...
throat you have posted on the cull theory many many times...by constantly bringing up "mortality rates" you still are doing it indirectly, and I can't believe that you are running from what has driven you all these years...amazing...
He doesn't see a problem with the CDC raising "epidemic" levels.
nope I sure don't...but I'll ask you again to explain why you think it is wrong....
He doesn't see any problem with our skies either.
what are you going to do throat...shut down air traffic, and start using more semi-trucks and trains ?
that would put all that s!@# down here...and that would be a big problem...so leave it up there...I say...the sunsets are wonderful....
I have avoided you because your arguments are circular...either start discussing why you think things are wrong and cut the *abusive nature* of your posts, or this is our last conversation on the matter...
I addressed all your *relevant* statements...now address mine and grow up...
good evening
------------------
T/S
[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 03-29-2002] |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:34 pm
|
|
|
Prior to the 1999-2000 season, a new case definition for a pneumonia and influenza death was introduced in the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System. It was recognized that one potential effect of using this case definition was to increase P&I mortality measurement levels in comparison to previous seasons.
I don't see why this is so sinister, Sore Throat. The CDC didn't go out and kill these people--they simply redefined who is classified as having died of pneumonia and influenza. If there was some political agenda at work (e.g. the ever-expanding definition of who has AIDS so that more and more money can be obtained), please let us know about it. If they were simply refining their criteria for scientific reasons, it's no big deal.
Obviously you're interested in this issue, Sore Throat. Could you please provide a point-by-point summary of what you see as significant aspects and include references with your points? I'd like to know what's going on here, but right now I don't have the time to research it myself. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Sat Mar 30, 2002 3:14 am
|
|
|
Perhaps I have a higher expectation for the integrity of scientific data, especially when they deal with the lives and deaths of my fellow Americans.
Am I the only one who has personally experienced a significant increase in the frequency and severity of respiratory illness since 1999, which coincidentially is the same period that thousands began observing a dramatic difference in the skies above them?
Do I think this is an operation intended to "cull" the population? No, I don't. You do notice that the seeker could not provide a single quote of mine which remotely suggests such. Like I said, a TOTAL BS artist.
What I have said is that ChemTrails are a new and ongoing occurance in the skies of America...that this operation began in 1999 in a dramatic fashion, and has continued since then.
This is a black project...completely hidden by our own government from the very people who are paying for it, and are being affected by it.
Do I think that people are getting sick, and in some cases dying, from ChemTrail spraying?
You BET!
Again, this doesn't mean that I believe that this is a program directed at "culling" the population. From my point of view these lives are being treated as just so much expendable collateral damage. Tough luck.
There is absolutely no way that I would begin to underestimate the sheer incompetence of our government to carry out such an operation, especially when it is held in such secrecy, with NO discussion, NO scientific review, NO consent by those affected.
Their reasons for this program are know to them alone. Presumably they feel justified with the ultimate costs.
As far as the CDC baseline mortality data goes, I resent greatly the following statements:
"It was recognized that one potential effect of using this case definition was to increase P&I mortality measurement levels in comparison to previous seasons."
Please carefully note their use of the word "POTENTIAL" (look it up in the dictionary seeker). Even they admit that this is but one POSSIBLE explination for the increases in mortality.
"we estimate that there was an approximately 0.8% upward shift in 1999-2000 mortality estimates." We ESTIMATE (look it up seeker).
Not only that, but they refer to the 1999-2000 mortality data as "estimates".
Again, BULLSH*T.
This is supposed to be real data, people that lived, went to a hospital and died. Why are data this important referred to as "estimates"?
But then again, if you feel free to play with, to massage, to approximate, to CHANGE data...maybe they are no better than "estimates".
I will point out that if they did feel justified in an abrupt 0.8% rise in the baseline and epidemic levels of mortality from pneumonia and influenza, then there should have been a discrete abrupt upward change in these curves at the same time these reporting procedures went into effect. These elevated curves should not have been extended back into previous years' data.
And no seeker, I don't expect YOU to understand this.
This is a guy that's on the boards daily, hourly, saying the same damn thing..."Everything is OK, Everything is NORMAL".
Hopefully people have figured out that along with a multi-billion dollar black project, our governemnt would certainly cover their asses any way they could. Don't for a minute think that they wouldn't hire perverts of Truth...and that these people would be working full time...
daily....hourly.
And they might constantly claim that they are nothing more than a housewife.
[Edited 7 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 03-29-2002] |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Sat Mar 30, 2002 4:57 am
|
|
|
I can see where you may have a point about increased deaths from chemtrails, Sore Throat. But the more I look at these graphs, the more they look like unmitigated crap.
The shapes of the plotted curves are the same from graph to graph. But check out their corresponding values on the Y axis. The value of a particular point on the curve can change by almost a whole percentage point from one graph to the next. In addition, the positions of the Seasonal Baseline and the "Epidemic" Threshold seem to migrate up and down at the whim of the plotter. If I ever tried to plot my data in this fashion, I'd be laughed out of the lab meeting. I can't imagine what these people think they are doing. |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Sat Mar 30, 2002 8:16 am
|
|
|
Perhaps I have a higher expectation for the integrity of scientific data, especially when they deal with the lives and deaths of my fellow Americans.
now that's B/S, strictly interpreted *they* don't deal with it at all, *they* gather info from doctors...your a vulgarian aren't you ?
I will point out that if they did feel justified in an abrupt 0.8% rise in the baseline and epidemic levels of mortality from pneumonia and influenza, then there should have been a discrete abrupt upward change in these curves at the same time these reporting procedures went into effect. These elevated curves should not have been extended back into previous years' data.
And no seeker, I don't expect YOU to understand this.
your right, I don't understand your thoughts at all...for some reason you extrapolate data to serve your own convoluted (over lapping) liberal view of things...however, I do understand this below quite well...
from the 99'2000 summary :
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/WeeklyArchives1999-2000/99-00summary2.htm
Whether the higher-than-expected percentage of P&I deaths was due to influenza activity, respiratory illness due to some other pathogen, or reporting changes in the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System is unknown. Because of changes in the reporting case definition that occurred just prior to the start of the 1999-2000 season, the current increase in P&I mortality should be interpreted with caution.
so throat they changed somethings and the data was possibly skewed, by their own admission...
what don't you understand about this statement ?
I would like to see a copy of the e-mail you sent the CDC complaining about their reporting procedures and changes in the 99' / 2000 season...
There is absolutely no way that I would begin to underestimate the sheer incompetence of our government to carry out such an operation, especially when it is held in such secrecy, with NO discussion, NO scientific review, NO consent by those affected.
possibly the dumbest statement you've ever made throat, take note of the words of yours in bold....since when can an incompetent person or government for that matter keep a secret...lol...
now the definitions you wanted me to look up...
potential = Capable of being but not yet in existence (maybe, could, possibly)
estimate = calculating approximatly (a guess)
especially the last one, is what you have been doing for 3 years old man...
thanks for the laugh throat...
3t3, maybe toxdoc could comment on why the graphs look like lie detector tape...I'd ask him but he has not spoke to me since I beat him at horse shoes at the *agency picnic* last year...
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 1:19 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
