Swine Flu Pandemic in 2009 was WAY worse than Ebola now....Proof right here!! The numbers don't lie

So the Swine Flu pandemic of 2009, was by the numbers worse than ebola is. Have a look at the numbers.

The 2009 flu pandemic in the United States was a pandemic experienced in the United States of a novel strain of the Influenza A/H1N1 virus, commonly referred to as 'swine flu', that began in the spring of 2009. The virus had spread to the US from an outbreak in Mexico.[117]
As of mid-March 2010, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that about 59 million Americans contracted the H1N1 virus, 265,000 were hospitalized as a result, and 12,000 died.[118]

Now I know they say the death rate is higher for ebola, but this was a huge amount of deaths for a flu virus. And ebola is harder to catch than the common flu. All I have seen so far is a lot of Africans dead, and promises of a million cases by 2015, and a whole lot of fear mongering by the MSM. en.wikipedia.org...
I dont know about you, but the 2009 swine flu pandemic seemed a lot deadlier did it not? With the lack of travel restriction in place, and the fact that in the last month, only 2 people on american soil have tested positive, this does not seem to be anything but MSM propaganda to me.
I remember during the pandemic, people around the world were walking around wearing surgical masks, and it seemed like a lot more people were genuinely more concerned than they are now. I dont know, the numbers do not lie. Even if you throw all the deaths in Africa, which is about 4,000 this year, that is only a third..plus I have one more question...I keep hearing 1.4 million cases by jan. 2015. How could they claim that it is that far out of control when there is so much aid and medical efforts going on in Africa right now? Shouldnt the cases be going down? I mean think about it, three full weeks, in america and only TWO reported cases? Just doesnt sit right with me.

All I can see in that is that 50 million were infected but only 12,000 died. If that was ebola then it could be 25 million dead at the most conservative estimate. That for me is what makes it such a big deal. Yes it's harder to catch, but still.... the mortality rate is just so much higher that in my opinion it makes it so much more intimidating.

ETA: plus those are the final numbers for swine flu.. no one knows what numbers we will get to with Ebola... hoping that it stays at 1 honestly

There is not "so much aid" in Africa. It was underwhelming at the outset, and the response since is also underwhelming, and not nearly what is needed to contain it.

With a 50 yo 70% mortality rate, had the swine flu had the same results, 30 to 40 MILLION people would have died.. not 12k. A massive difference. You can say it's hard to catch, but it's a bit worrying when in our FIRST CASE in the U.S., a protected worker was infected. While panic should not be any anyone's menu, extreme concern I don't think is going too far.

If this reaches the level of swine flu, you won't be singing the same tune. At the outset of the swine flu, it was pretty much a nil worry. By the end of it, it was more than a little worry. For Ebola, it could be catastrophic.

For professionals and governments at least, I don't think they are nearly taking this serious enough.

a reply to: thesmokingman

I agree that so far, that pandemic was worse. The thing to keep in mind is that swine flu was truly airborne, and airborne illnesses spread much more quickly and efficiently.

So far, this outbreak in Africa has been burning since late January early February. It has only touched three countries and brushed Nigeria in that time. We are just now seeing it become a widespread enough problem that it's started to spill over into the other nations of the world ... and it shows no signs of slowing down.

It won't be until this epidemic really burns itself out that we'll really be able to pat ourselves on the back and point at the swine flu pandemic and really say it's worse. This Ebola thing is still very much a work in progress and we still don't know just exactly how far it will go.

However, I would say that swine flu is a bit scarier in terms of my being able to catch it because it's truly airborne. With Ebola, if I can manage to avoid coming into direct contact with sick people and stay away from the places they've been, I should be fine.

originally posted by: gman1972
All I can see in that is that 50 million were infected but only 12,000 died. If that was ebola then it could be 25 million dead at the most conservative estimate. That for me is what makes it such a big deal. Yes it's harder to catch, but still.... the mortality rate is just so much higher that in my opinion it makes it so much more intimidating.

Well, considering that the most recent outbreak started in December of 2013, only 4,000 deaths so far, I dont think it is possible that ebola gets anywhere close to their projected numbers. Can you explain how it might be possible that it get to those numbers?

originally posted by: gman1972
All I can see in that is that 50 million were infected but only 12,000 died. If that was ebola then it could be 25 million dead at the most conservative estimate. That for me is what makes it such a big deal. Yes it's harder to catch, but still.... the mortality rate is just so much higher that in my opinion it makes it so much more intimidating.

ETA: plus those are the final numbers for swine flu.. no one knows what numbers we will get to with Ebola... hoping that it stays at 1 honestly

But with it being harder to catch than the flu, and with the very high awareness about it going on and precautions being taken, how could it get that big so fast? They are claiming over ONE MILLION cases within the next 2 and a half months! Again, in the last YEAR there have only been 4,000 deaths so far. So, again, with all the precautions and everything going on right now, how could it even be possible to jump that high in such a short amount of time? It is not possible unless it is being injected into people to get anywhere close to that number. Can you explain how it would get so much higher so quickly?

Yeah but that was then, and this is now. And now is always far more serious and important than then.

Ebola since the start of the outbreak in December 2013: 8,914 total cases-4,447 deaths. That is in 10 months.
2009 swine flu pandemic;(just in America mind you)59,000,000 cases-12,000 deaths in the same amount of time pretty much.

a reply to: thesmokingman

Im sorry what numbers are you referring to? I'm not claiming that ebola will kill 25 million people, nor am I claiming that it will kill 25,000. I'm saying that we don't know how many ebola will infect, it's not like it's under control or anything. And the fact that the mortality rate is so much higher.... well that's my point.

Here's one explanation...

Since the number of known cases so far is only around 7,500, that suggests that the number of new cases is doubling approximately every two weeks. This is called exponential growth: not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... but 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32.... If you put one grain of wheat on the first square of a chess-board, two on the second, and keep doubling the grains every square, there are not enough grains of wheat in the world to get you to the 64th square. [Source]

Also, ebola is a BSL4, the protocols for which, by many examples, is not being following...H1N1 was classified down to a BSL2.

ETA: You may also want to take a look here: Ebola - my visual charts & projections based on WHO data

Diseases like this can be slow to start but once they do.....

originally posted by: gman1972
a reply to: thesmokingman

Im sorry what numbers are you referring to? I'm not claiming that ebola will kill 25 million people, nor am I claiming that it will kill 25,000. I'm saying that we don't know how many ebola will infect, it's not like it's under control or anything. And the fact that the mortality rate is so much higher.... well that's my point.

These numbers. Claiming that 10,0000 cases a week.
news.yahoo.com...

LONDON (AP) — West Africa could face up to 10,000 new Ebola cases a week within two months, the World Health Organization warned Tuesday, adding that the death rate in the current outbreak has risen to 70 percent.

a reply to: thesmokingman

Well hopefully Ebola, never gets as bad as the swine flu. Yet its like comparing apples to oranges.. It is getting spread easier in Afrika, now so the numbers can and will continue to go up. Sure I get the point allot of hype on a REAL human drama, but it is real, it really is and people are dying from it, and it is happening in the TWENTY FIRST century which should be a very humbling notion for mankind to acknowledge, if we do not then in my opinion this can and will get much worse..

The Swine flu drama, was over the top by the way, I remember that when it was happening more chicken little's on ats than I had ever seen..

Point and case In my opinion Ebola, is no joke, it can kill and is spreading. Let people dramatize it to hell, at least they are becoming aware of their surroundings..

a reply to: thesmokingman

Oh, okay sorry, i thought you were talking about the numbers I had in my post. It seems Ebola is kind of like that old shampoo comercial, you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on and, so on..... while swine flu was more like, cough cough, everyone in the room is sick.

So it starts off slower, then keeps doubling. I am however no expert on either of these viruses... not by a long shot

a reply to: thesmokingman

the difference is, as you mentioned, the lethality of it.....ebola kills everyone...including healthy people...

the flu spreads easier but kills off weaker people in general

2 things....one imagine if ebola spread that easy and two if we don't stop ebola we are gonna have a constant trickle of one case here...one case there...and because it is so lethal we are going to see law suits like crazy ( because there are so many conflicting statements even by doctors on ebola) and permanent fear of the disease as well as a permanent tool for governments to use against us for more tracking/information etc.

itll be the new terrorism which is constantly sitting there lingering over us at best case and at worse case it blows into a full blown epidemic

Too much fearmongering...
At ATS of all places.
I agree so I'll give a star & flag even if others won't!

originally posted by: gman1972
a reply to: thesmokingman

Oh, okay sorry, i thought you were talking about the numbers I had in my post. It seems Ebola is kind of like that old shampoo comercial, you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on and, so on..... while swine flu was more like, cough cough, everyone in the room is sick.

So it starts off slower, then keeps doubling. I am however no expert on either of these viruses... not by a long shot

How many people are traveling in and out of West Africa per day? I will go on record as saying that this is eugenics what is going on here. Clear cut eugenics. I really cant believe how brainwashed everyone seems to be on this whole thing. Again, the ACTUAL numbers do not lie. You can all say how bad it COULD get, but in the last year, 8,000 cases is not even CLOSE to the numbers of even the regular old influenza virus, that kills and spreads a lot easier than this ebola.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Too much fearmongering...
At ATS of all places.
I agree so I'll give a star & flag even if others won't!

I swear to you I really feel like I am in the twilight zone right now, and everyone around me are zombies and brainwashed or programmed or something...it really is quite an eerie feeling.

a reply to: thesmokingman

I can sympathize with where you're coming from in providing both the numbers and comparison. That said, and while mass panic could be more dangerous than most any health threat, I see no reason in attempting to downplay the very valid threat posed by Ebola. One case alone is one too many--if that case is us or an individual we care about. Reason and common sense I feel is--for now at least--defense enough both against Ebola and any mass disinformation in circulation. Needless to say really I suppose, but my hackles are up over this situation. Then again, they're always up so no harm done (yet) to me and those who inhabit my backyard here on the East Coast. However, we're all watching this thing closely. Overall, I see no benefit in attempts to dilute the danger of Ebola in the United States. Mass panic: no good; hands over eyes (regardless of whose hands--the government's, media's, etc.): even worse.

originally posted by: AphoticJoe
a reply to: thesmokingman

I can sympathize with where you're coming from in providing both the numbers and comparison. That said, and while mass panic could be more dangerous than most any health threat, I see no reason in attempting to downplay the very valid threat posed by Ebola. One case alone is one too many--if that case is us or an individual we care about. Reason and common sense I feel is--for now at least--defense enough both against Ebola and any mass disinformation in circulation. Needless to say really I suppose, but my hackles are up over this situation. Then again, they're always up so no harm done (yet) to me and those who inhabit my backyard here on the East Coast. However, we're all watching this thing closely. Overall, I see no benefit in attempts to dilute the danger of Ebola in the United States. Mass panic: no good; hands over eyes (regardless of whose hands--the government's, media's, etc.): even worse.

I am by no means trying to say it is a nothing virus. I am saying that it is being WAY to overblown, even being used in political ads now!! I guarantee you that IF this was a valid threat that is as bad as they say, I promise you there would be no further flights in or out of Africa until it was contained. Im not saying to put your head in the sand, but it is NOT even close to what they are leading everyone to believe. It is all playing out just like a movie plot....

a reply to: thesmokingman

For real...

It's like most members have lost the plot when it comes to Ebola...
They seem their usual selves in other threads!!!