posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:01 PM
Good catch for spotting this article, OP. Something tells me, though, that this is more propaganda than reality.
First, the language is sensationalist. One thing that sets my BS filter going is the use of scary words. "Widespread pandemic" is silly. A
pandemic is already a widespread illness. It means, basically, an illness that is among all the people. That's automatically widespread.
But the second part of this is that this outbreak is among 122 kids in Camden Country. An outbreak in a single county in the US is not what I'd call
a "widespread pandemic". I'd call it a "localized outbreak".
"So it begins"? So *what* begins? There's a good chance this flu won't be much worse than any other flu. But let's say the worst happens, it
turns out to be as bad as the Great Influenza Pandemic. OK. Your odds of surviving are still better than 99%. Sure, I'm not wild about having
close to a 1 in 100 chance of dying of flu (or anything else), but let's face it - almost all of us will survive, even if it goes totally nasty.
I'm certainly not trying to trivialize this problem, or to pretend it isn't important. I'm just trying to put it into perspective. We sometimes
lose sight of that, when we get a series of bad news items in a row, when it seems like the whole world is about to implode.
Almost all of us are going to make it through this flu. Keep that in mind.