Flu reaches epidemic level in U.S., says CDC

Comments (29)
gregbrew56 wrote:

LOL, flash.

Jan 11, 2013 1:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whitewidow wrote:

This girl looks like she’s being drugged, not protected against diseases.

Jan 11, 2013 1:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
brotherkenny4 wrote:

Get off the couch and get some exercise. Try to eat a healthy diet. No one can prevent you from dying, it will happen some day, but they sure can prevent you from living, and fear is one of their tactics. Fear of terrorists, fear that illegal drugs will turn you into an addict, fear of disease and fear of death. Fear that the way you live your life will result in punishment from God. You know, the God that prevents all the bad things from happening, and prevent most of you from expecting justice, since he will punish all the wrong doers after they and you are dead.

Jan 11, 2013 2:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“with 7.3 percent of deaths last week caused by pneumonia and the flu”

Over 50,000 people a week die in the US.

So that would mean that around 3,650 people of all ages died of pneumonia and flu with 20 of those being children.

Jan 11, 2013 2:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


I don’t think anyone wants the CDC to eliminated. I figure the neocons would consider that part of National Defense, at least I would hope so. There is a big difference in Big Bird, Planned Parenthood, and the CDC.

Jan 11, 2013 2:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

So… if these flu shots are so effective – why do we have more fear mongering on the flu every year with every year yet another ‘epidemic’?

I haven’t had the flu… or a flu shot for years now.

Jan 11, 2013 2:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Saristas wrote:

And just yesterday I read a crazy comment on youtube about population control, doesn’t look so crazy right now.

Jan 11, 2013 2:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

TheNewWorld: I have to mostly disagree. I’m sure you could find some Republicans who would tell you that they support keeping the CDC, but how many of those are speaking up and saying so? How many are speaking up about distinguishing between waste and any worthwhile government spending? Heck, they balked at passing relief aid for Hurricane Sandy destruction and victims. The truth is that the Republican party is mostly focused on advocating for the cutting of government spending, period. Very few, if any, are making the effort to distinguish between spending that is worth taxing the people over and spending that must be cut (with the exception of defense spending. They all seem to be of like minds on more spending for defense.) We’re talking about the party where almost every member signed a pledge to a man who wants to reduce the federal government until it’s small enough to drown in a bathtub. I don’t recall that man saying, with the exception of the Center for Disease Control. They can’t have it both ways. Do you know of any Republicans who have voiced their support for spending on the Center for Disease Control?

Jan 11, 2013 3:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stevedebi wrote:

flashrooster: Republicans and Libertarians are for smaller government spending, but I don’t personally know of anyone who does not support functions such as the CDC, along with legitimate science research. The spending that needs to be cut is in other areas, ones that do not perform any Constitutional function.

As with all political parties, there are those with extreme views, but the majority of the party will not agree with those, and they do not represent the entire membership.

Jan 11, 2013 3:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jameson4Lunch wrote:

flashrooster – It not as simple as a matter of cutting all government spending. States should be setting their policies (provided they aren’t violating constitutionally protected rights) and collecting the taxes, rather than the federal government taxing the citizens of a state, then sending it back to the state government with strings attached, and a nice chunk missing. The federal government is far too corrupt to trust with so much centralized power. It’s a bloated monstrosity, and we need to shift the power back to a state/local level. This will make it more difficult for big money to force far reaching policy changes, as well as allow for policies to be more specifically tailored to the regions they’re implemented in. Wouldn’t it be great if the state of New York could have used its state tax revenue to build protective coastal barriers to protect its economy, rather than having to go through the federal government to get that money?

Jan 11, 2013 3:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


I balked at the Sandy Aid bill. A lot of pork spending in it that has nothing to do with the Hurricane victims, but what bill doesn’t. Hurricane bills are porke laden for exactly that reason. If you vote against it you get demonized. Obama voted against a Katrina bill when he was Senator, and it was a justified vote in my opinion. Too much politics involved with those bills. You have valid points though. We don’t ever hear specifics. To me it is fair to make all government agencies do a 5% budget cut, just to tighten their belts and eliminate waste. Companies do it all the time. It fights beaurocracy and waste.

As far as eliminating programs altogether, the only things I hear Republicans talk about is stuff like Planned Parenthood and PBS, and maybe privatizing Amtrak. There is a big difference in cutting funding and wholesale elimination of a program. Most every government agency could survive with a 10% decrease in funding. Same with things like food stamps and unemployment. They just get forced to make decisions. Maybe the people who are just sitting around at home not even attempting to get a job shouldn’t be getting unemployment.

Jan 11, 2013 4:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


That is where I fall. A libertarian that wants to see more programs and power restored to the states and local governments. I think unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc can be much better administrated on the county or city level than on a state or federal level. I pretty much go with the intents of the constitution. Interstate issues are Federal issues. That covers FCC, SEC, CDC, Department of Defense, FBI, Transportation etc. Planned parenthood isn’t an interstate issue. Social Security and Medicare aren’t interstate issues, or shouldn’t have been. I am for public healthcare on the local/state level, not federal level.

It is hard not to sound extreme right wing when all anyone hears is you want to eliminate federal programs. I don’t ever suggest that states and local governments can’t decided to run their own programs. Big Federal Government = Big Inefficient Government (BIG).

Jan 11, 2013 4:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kp12 wrote:

Another scare article — interesting for the inconsistencies

“Tens of thousands of Americans die every year from flu, even in non-epidemic years. The CDC in its report did not give a total number of deaths due to flu.”

“A total of 20 children have now died from this season’s flu, up two from the previous week, the CDC said. That compares to 34 during the full 2011-2012 flu season, which was unusually mild, and 282 during the severe 2009-2010 season.”

How is it possible that tens and thousands of Americans die with only hundreds of child casualities?

Jan 11, 2013 5:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JeffreyV wrote:

Good point indeed! It seems that ever since flu vaccines have become commonplace, all we ever hear about are flu epidemics! Hmmm……

Jan 11, 2013 5:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“How is it possible that tens and thousands of Americans die with only hundreds of child casualities?”

Most of those deaths are from people over 70 years of age.

Jan 11, 2013 6:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeyLikesIt wrote:

It’s a pitty that the rational views of people like “TheNewWorld” are completely ignored when it comes to talking about cutting government.

Instead nuttyy liberals like “flashrooster” try to throw out a strawman argument that conservatives want to shut every government agency down.

I agree 100% with you TheNewWorld. So many government agencies and programs could be administered at the state, county and even city levels much more efficiently than a bloated federal government.

There will always be some things that must be national, like military or the CDC or FDA. But so much can be compartmentalized and cleaned up as well.

Jan 11, 2013 6:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MarkDonners wrote:

Sorry to disappoint the gang of profiteering quacks and pharm crooks, but forms of colloidal silver really kill flu viruses, plus there’s a host of natural CURES in vitamins and herbs. The quack industry purposely avoid those existing cures as they do the whole subject of nutrition, since illness and drugs are their salaries. Vaccines are killers.

Jan 11, 2013 7:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

stevedebi: You exemplify my complaint. Sure, it’s easy, really easy, to be for smaller government, just like it’s easy to be against taxes and regulations, but there’s no better application of the phrase ‘the devil is in the details’ then when applied to these sound good, feel good positions held by the right. Republicans always take those positions, but hardly ever specify what they would cut.

Take taxation, for example. They know they can usually get a majority of people to support the popular position of paying less in taxes. It has only been recently that a majority of Americans have recognized the need for higher taxes, but the taxes the majority support raising aren’t their own, unless you’re very wealthy. The problem is, cut taxes and the result is more debt. This couldn’t be any clearer than when George W. Bush came into office and he and the Republicans drastically cut taxes, didn’t offset those cuts with cuts in spending, and we went from surpluses to record deficits. Oddly, the Republicans were alright with that. With a Republican President, deficits didn’t matter.

You have a similar situation with deregulation. It’s easy to argue that the less we allow government to run interference the better. I don’t necessarily agree with that. I think a better approach is to distinguish between good regulations and bad, and employ the good. Powerful lobbyists pressure our government to do away with regulations for one reason only: to improve their bottom line, and the sell that to us, the citizens, as getting government out of our lives. After all, who wants big government in our lives? Unfortunately, the ones who usually suffer from over-deregulating are the citizens who don’t own a big chunk of some powerful, wealth-producing industry. To look at it another way, remove government and industry professionals will quickly and happily fill the void. Then all the decisions will be for the industry’s profits and the citizens will have zero say in the matter.

MikeyLikesIt: Who says TheNewWorld’s views are being “completely ignored”? And I’m not making a strawman argument. You’re one of those who want it both ways. Cut government, cut government, cut government–until you need it. Then you complain about ineffective government failing to do its job. You, like the politicians you support, want it both ways. It’s not a strawman argument to insist that a politician, who we pay a very high salary to, state what they want cut rather than just blowing smoke up are azes and looking real brave by demanding lower taxes and smaller government. Insist that they earn that high pay. Insist.

Jan 11, 2013 7:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Rafo1981 wrote:

@thenewworld & mikeylikesit

Really? Pork? The bill was two paragraphs long. There was no pork. Stop listening to AM radio and get real.

Jan 11, 2013 7:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gavinwca wrote:

Government and the left wing press, come out with a different epidemic or major disaster every year, no one i know believes anything the CDC has. To say anymore. They have falsified so much research they are no longer trustworthy

Jan 11, 2013 8:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gavinwca wrote:

Government and the left wing press, come out with a different epidemic or major disaster every year, no one i know believes anything the CDC has. To say anymore. They have falsified so much research they are no longer trustworthy

Jan 11, 2013 8:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

Nice PR.. three tries of my post seem to have been censored.

Reuters working with this machine?

Jan 11, 2013 10:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

I had the flu about 20 years ago and just felt lousy. I started to get up and running too quickly (in about one week) and found I had a case of pneumonia but it wasn’t debilitating. Pneumonia just has that funny acrid taste on the tongue.

But one week ago I got it again and I was ready to go to sleep forever

Two days is due to the vaccine, I think?

But I can now see why the flu can be a killer of the very old and very young. I still feel wiped out after exactly one week since mild onset. I’m not rushing to action now because I don’t want the expense and regimen of taking amoxicillin. If you don’t complete the full routine it will show up again and all it took the last time, 20 years ago, was a little chill on an otherwise warm summer night. I’m 62 and feeling the last 20 years.

I am not at all afraid of dying in my sleep. Over the weekend in would only have had to wink at me and I would have jumped if I could have got out of bed without getting another fever. When do the fever episodes and hot/cold flashes go away? Some say it takes two weeks or more but this is so boring.

Jan 11, 2013 10:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

I meant to say – two days of high fever and it broke, drenching my sheets. I think that was due to the effects of the vaccine.

Jan 11, 2013 11:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

From Mayoclinic.com -

Most cases of flu, including H1N1 flu, need no treatment other than symptom relief.

Not all bodies can cope with flu-medication’s side-effects and be aware of the rare diseses that this medication brings – including Lou Gehrig and Guillain-Barre syndrome. Just do some search on flu + rare diseases.

One in our family is dying off of Lou Gehrig that was traced to the swine-flu strain of his flu medicine that he took about 2 years ago.

Funny, how these statistics get manipulated in stating the absolute number of fatalities of not taking flu medicine but conveniently state the percentages that appear small in number, when it comes to stating the larger number of people that die due to taking flu medicine.

With about 3 weeks of the season left, I think the rush in push seems understandable.

Jan 12, 2013 12:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
sylvan wrote:

So now the sofa dwelling trolls weigh in on flu prevention, and they obviously and loudly know so much more than the CDC’s PhD virologists. However, since most of the comments seems to indicate that they believe there is only one form of flu virus, needing only one flu shot ever, it is obvious to people who successfully passed high school science, in an actual school, that they are raving uneducated lunatics; and thankfully most Bloomberg readers didn’t get all their book learning exclusively in their momma’s kitchens. But the trolls are just performing their poor-paying, pennies-a-post jobs: spreading fallacies, propaganda and misinformation. Viruses like trolls mutate and come in multiple forms.

Jan 12, 2013 4:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
joyauto wrote:

Ask the CDC why they aren’t alarmed at the numbers killed in traffic crashes and they will tell you they only deal with “health issues.” Well, isn’t dying the worst health condition. And if dying from a traffic crash is not a health issue then why do they take the victims to a hospital? Maybe they should be taken to a casino where their luck might change.

Jan 12, 2013 6:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
theoriginal1 wrote:

What’s odd, is that I haven’t had the flu in 12 years, I haven’t had a flu shot since I was 9.

I went to the doctor’s, and they diagnosed me as “infected”, and recommended that I get the flu shot immediately.

Now I’m not 100% of which strand I’m infected with, but what I have seems like a moderate common cold. Runny nose, Flemish cough… and I want to sneeze all the time.

I would love to know of how many of these “moderate”, cases haven’t had a flu shot in 5 years, compared to severe case of those who received flu shots yearly.

Because it seems like this flu shot was ineffective at best.

Jan 12, 2013 9:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
Datadon wrote:

I’ve been thinking about the way people sneeze and cough into their arm fold now. It occurred to me that people aren’t likely to wash the fold in their arm during the day. It also occurred to me that in the cooler weather people are wearing coats and long sleeves. They are certainly not going to wash their clothes during the day. Additionally, I can see how the clothing could possibly act as an incubator.

Yes, most people don’t touch someone on the sleeve. However, they might. Also they bump or rub up against each other in crowds. People also fold theirs arms putting their hands into the fold of their arms thus contaminating their now clean hands without realizing it.

Nothing is perfect but I don’t think that using the fold in your arm in actually a better practice. Hands can be washed. Per your article, hand washing after a sneeze occurs more frequent that using a public rest room. But the fact that you nor the CDC is addressing the issue is an indication that people are not aware of this way to pass along germs and viruses. When one sneezes in their hand, they are aware of where the germs are and not hidden in some clothing being passed on without knowing. When there is a epidemic, people can opt not to shake hands. They can’t not help to rub against someone else in a crowded subway.

Something to think about and definitely share. Personally, I think that that the practice needs to stopped for the very reasons stated above.

Jan 12, 2013 10:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.