On May 1, 8:55*am, hal wrote:

Wow, you say some pretty stupid **** but this takes the cake. *So you
conclusion is H1N1 is not as lethal because SO FAR it has only killed
200 people? *Are you even considering the number of deaths in
proportion to the number of infections?

This is why I believe that Mexico has vastly under-reported the number
of infections. The mortality rate is too high.

-Mike K.

On Fri, 01 May 2009 08:55:25 -0700, mkornecki2000 wrote:

On May 1, 8:55*am, hal wrote:

Wow, you say some pretty stupid **** but this takes the cake. *So you
conclusion is H1N1 is not as lethal because SO FAR it has only killed
200 people? *Are you even considering the number of deaths in
proportion to the number of infections?

This is why I believe that Mexico has vastly under-reported the number
of infections. The mortality rate is too high.

-Mike K.

A few examples. Note how it seems to be not as bad as the media driven
hysteria:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090430/D97T2ALO1.html

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090501/D97TCOO00.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103698986
3,000 people, 60% infection rate (1,800 infections), and how many deaths?
None to mention? Out of 1,800 infections? Wow, practically the 4th
Horseman, this Swine Flu is. :P

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

Wow, you say some pretty stupid **** but this takes the cake. *So you
conclusion is H1N1 is not as lethal because SO FAR it has only killed
200 people? *Are you even considering the number of deaths in
proportion to the number of infections?

This is why I believe that Mexico has vastly under-reported the number
of infections. The mortality rate is too high.

More likely it's just the fact that Mexico had the initial infections;
a brand new virus combined with barely-adequate care skewing the
numbers. It's not uncommon to see a higher fatality rate at the
outset of a new strain.