If you've already read "Plus or Minus 95%" and "Hype Disection 101", the drivel included in the below news story won't come as a surprise:
WHO warns swine flu 'unstoppable'
"The UN's top health official has opened a forum in Mexico on combating swine flu by saying that the spread of the virus worldwide is now unstoppable.
[Margaret Chan] stressed that the overwhelming majority of patients experienced mild symptoms and made a full recovery within a week, often in the absence of any form of medical treatment.
The exceptions, she said, were pregnant women and people with underlying health problems, who were at higher risk from complications from the virus and should be monitored if they fell ill." (emphasis mine)
I know I'm stupid for even asking (and no doubt a bonafide "conspiracy theory" whack-job for questioning what the WHO has fed me), but:
1) Should the terms "mild symptoms" and "unstoppable" really be associated with each other?
2) Aren't people with "underlying health problems" prone to be at higher risk from just about anything?
3) Wouldn't we all be better served if the word "pandemic" was reserved for really nasty things like smallpox, bubonic plague, and ebola, rather than something that is no more (and apparently much less) dangerous than any other flu?
I don't know. Maybe I'm the problem. Maybe I just need to drink the Kool-aid like everybody else. You know; war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, 2 +2 = 5 . . .
It does have a certain appeal, doesn't it?