• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Don't put your hopes on a vaccine it might never arrive

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Ah Sai. There is already treatment for the virus. However it is not actively promoted and being demonized bcos it's an old medication no longer patented and the drug companies cant Rent seek.

The proper way is to concentrate on treatment and removed all lock downs. The vaccine is a joke and wont happen. N the powers that be want the situation to remain bcos too much has been spent on the vaccine and to ensure they wont get caught out like In SARs. They will now push the vaccines and make the world suffer more to turn a profit
remdesivir is the 1st antiviral drug that has been cleared by the fda for use in hospitals to fight ccp virus. hydroxychloroquine not cleared yet. roche’s elecsys rapid antibody test kit is the 1st of its kind that is cleared by fda. they have already started shipments in the tens of millions in anticipation of the fda greenlight. shipments will arrive next week in early may.
 
Last edited:

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
remdesivir is the 1st antiviral drug that has been cleared by the fda for use in hospitals to fight ccp virus. hydroxychloroquine not cleared yet. roche’s elecsys rapid antibody test kit is the 1st of its kind that is cleared by fda. they have already started shipments in the tens of millions in anticipation of the fda greenlight. shipments will arrive next week in early may.
So if it works. The lockdown can end?
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Ah tiong land has the vaccine. But cant test it there is no large scale infections. Is that a joke?

vaccination is a pre-emptive procedure to prevent someone from getting sick and is not meant for those who are already infected. thus no need for mass infection to happen to administer the vaccine. can administer before an outbreak or before the next wave of outbreaks.
 

nayr69sg

Super Moderator
Staff member
SuperMod
It is the same mentality that makes people not want to take flu shots as well.

Oh I am ok why should I take it?

Oh if I take it it will cause me more harm than good.

Oh why spend money on a useless vaccine?

Oh why make something nobody wants to buy?

Oh why make something that only people who have no money need?

Oh why save lives when they end up being worse than before?

Oh why go for the operation when you end up worse after?

Oh why live when you will die anyway?
 

sweetiepie

Alfrescian
Loyal
It is the same mentality that makes people not want to take flu shots as well.

Oh I am ok why should I take it?

Oh if I take it it will cause me more harm than good.

Oh why spend money on a useless vaccine?

Oh why make something nobody wants to buy?

Oh why make something that only people who have no money need?

Oh why save lives when they end up being worse than before?

Oh why go for the operation when you end up worse after?

Oh why live when you will die anyway?
KNN loctor actually from my uncle experience in sg the gp is the one that appear to discourage flu vaccine KNN whenever my uncle went to leequest yearly they will say ok you can have it but no poh kay ho and say about all the side effects and later asked my uncle you leecide KNN then when my uncle brought his parents for the jab the other gp also said the same KNN although it is the loctor duty to say the clauses but same time it sounded discouraging KNN why my uncle think is discouraging is that they only tell the negative side but not the positive KNN
 
Last edited:

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
What happens if a coronavirus vaccine is never developed?
By CNN - 4 hours ago
A drug trial in the United States is underway to find a vaccine for coronavirus.
As countries lie frozen in lockdown and billions of people lose their livelihoods, public figures are teasing a breakthrough that would mark the end of the crippling coronavirus pandemic: a vaccine.

But there is another, worst-case possibility: that no vaccine is ever developed. In this outcome, the public's hopes are repeatedly raised and then dashed, as various proposed solutions fall before the final hurdle.


A man wearing a mask walks the Brooklyn Bridge in the midst of the coronavirus outbreak on March 20, 2020 in New York City. (Getty)
Instead of wiping out COVID-19, societies may instead learn to live with it. Cities would slowly open and some freedoms will be returned, but on a short leash, if experts' recommendations are followed.


Italy is seeing more relief from the coronavirus outbreak in its jammed intensive care units, with 74 fewer beds in use over the past day nationwide. (AP)
Testing and physical tracing will become part of our lives in the short term, but in many countries, an abrupt instruction to self-isolate could come at any time.

Treatments may be developed – but outbreaks of the disease could still occur each year, and the global death toll would continue to tick upwards.

It's a path rarely publicly countenanced by politicians, who are speaking optimistically about human trials already underway to find a vaccine.

But the possibility is taken very seriously by many experts – because it's happened before. Several times.

"There are some viruses that we still do not have vaccines against," Dr David Nabarro, a professor of global health at Imperial College London said.


Social distancing and lockdowns could be reintroduced until a vaccine is found. (CNN)
Mr Nabarro also serves as a special envoy to the World Health Organisation on COVID-19.

"We can't make an absolute assumption that a vaccine will appear at all, or if it does appear, whether it will pass all the tests of efficacy and safety," Dr Nabarro said.

"It's absolutely essential that all societies everywhere get themselves into a position where they are able to defend against the coronavirus as a constant threat, and to be able to go about social life and economic activity with the virus in our midst."

Most experts remain confident that a COVID-19 vaccine will eventually be developed; in part because, unlike previous diseases like HIV and malaria, the coronavirus does not mutate rapidly.

Many, including National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr Anthony Fauci, suggest it could happen in a year to 18 months.


As countries lie frozen in lockdown and billions of people lose their livelihoods, public figures are teasing a breakthrough that would mark the end of the crippling coronavirus pandemic: a vaccine. (AP)
Other figures, like England's Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty, have veered towards the more distant end of the spectrum, suggesting that a year may be too soon.

But even if a vaccine is developed, bringing it to fruition in any of those timeframes would be a feat never achieved before.

"We've never accelerated a vaccine in a year to 18 months," Dr Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, told CNN.

"It doesn't mean it's impossible, but it will be quite a heroic achievement. We need plan A, and a plan B."

When vaccines don't work
In 1984, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler announced at a press conference in Washington, DC, that scientists had successfully identified the virus that later became known as HIV – and predicted that a preventative vaccine would be ready for testing in two years.

Nearly four decades and 32 million deaths later, the world is still waiting for an HIV vaccine.

Instead of a breakthrough, Heckler's claim was followed by the loss of much of a generation of gay men and the painful shunning of their community in Western countries.

For many years, a positive diagnosis was not only a death sentence; it ensured a person would spend their final months abandoned by their communities, while doctors debated in medical journals whether HIV patients were even worth saving.


Protester Mark Milano is arrested during an AIDS demonstration in Washington DC in 1994. (CNN)
The search didn't end in the 1980s. In 1997, President Bill Clinton challenged the US to come up with a vaccine within a decade. Fourteen years ago, scientists said we were still about 10 years away.

The difficulties in finding a vaccine began with the very nature of HIV/AIDS itself.

"Influenza is able to change itself from one year to the next so the natural infection or immunisation the previous year doesn't infect you the following year. HIV does that during a single infection," Paul Offit, a pediatrician and infectious disease specialist who co-invented the rotavirus vaccine, explained.

"It continues to mutate in you, so it's like you're infected with a thousand different HIV strands," Mr Offit told CNN.

"(And) while it is mutating, it's also crippling your immune system."


An electron microscope image of the novel coronavirus. (AP)
HIV poses very unique difficulties and COVID-19 does not possess its level of elusiveness, making experts generally more optimistic about finding a vaccine.

But there have been other diseases that have confounded both scientists and the human body. An effective vaccine for dengue fever, which infects as many as 400,000 people a year according to the WHO, has eluded doctors for decades.

In 2017, a large-scale effort to find one was suspended after it was found to worsen the symptoms of the disease.

Similarly, it's been very difficult to develop vaccines for the common rhinoviruses and adenoviruses – which, like coronaviruses, can cause cold symptoms. There's just one vaccine to prevent two strains of adenovirus, and it's not commercially available.

"You have high hopes, and then your hopes are dashed," Dr Nabarro, describing the slow and painful process of developing a vaccine, said.

"We're dealing with biological systems, we're not dealing with mechanical systems. It really depends so much on how the body reacts."


Even if a vaccine is developed, bringing it to fruition in any of those timeframes would be a feat never achieved before. (AP)
Human trials are already underway at Oxford University in England for a coronavirus vaccine made from a chimpanzee virus, and in the US for a different vaccine, produced by Moderna.

However, it is the testing process – not the development – that holds up and often scuppers the production of vaccines, adds Dr Hotez, who worked on a vaccine to protect against SARS.

"The hard part is showing you can prove that it works and it's safe."

Plan B
If the same fate befalls a COVID-19 vaccine, the virus could remain with us for many years. But the medical response to HIV/AIDS still provides a framework for living with a disease we can't stamp out.

"In HIV, we've been able to make that a chronic disease with antivirals. We've done what we've always hoped to do with cancer," Dr Offit says.

"It's not the death sentence it was in the 1980s."


Human trials are already underway at Oxford University in England for a coronavirus vaccine made from a chimpanzee virus, and in the US for a different vaccine, produced by Moderna. (Getty)
The groundbreaking development of a daily preventative pill – pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP – has since led to hundreds of thousands of people at risk of contracting HIV being protected from the disease.

A number of treatments are likewise being tested for COVID-19, as scientists hunt for a Plan B in parallel to the ongoing vaccine trials, but all of those trials are in very early stages.

Scientists are looking at experimental anti-Ebola drug remdesivir, while blood plasma treatments are also being explored.

Hydroxychloroquine, touted as a potential "game changer" by US President Donald Trump, has so found been found not to work on very sick patients.

"The drugs they've chosen are the best candidates," Keith Neal, Emeritus Professor in the Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases at the University of Nottingham, said. The problem, he says, has been the "piecemeal approach" to testing them.

"We have to do randomised controlled trials. It's ridiculous that only recently have we managed to get that off the ground," Mr Neal, who reviews such tests for inclusion in medical journals, told CNN.

"The papers that I'm getting to look at – I'm just rejecting them on the grounds that they're not properly done."

Now those fuller trials are off the ground, and if one of those drugs works for COVID-19 the signs should emerge "within weeks", Mr Neal said.


Hospital workers hold up signs as various Seminole County police, fire and EMS agencies take part in parade thanking them for their hard work during the coronavirus pandemic at the Central Florida Regional Hospital in Sanford, Florida. (AP/AAP)
The first may already have arrived; the US Food and Drug Administration told CNN it is in talks to make remdesivir available to patients after positive signs it could speed up recovery from the coronavirus.

The knock-on effects of a successful treatment would be felt widely; if a drug can decrease a patient's average time spent in ICU even by a few days, it would free up hospital capacity and could therefore greatly increase the willingness of governments to open up society.

But how effective a treatment is would depend on which one works – remdesivir is not in high supply internationally and scaling up its production would cause problems.

And crucially, any treatment won't prevent infections occurring in society – meaning the coronavirus would be easier to manage and the pandemic would subside, but the disease could be with us many years into the future.

What life without a vaccine looks like
If a vaccine can't be produced, life will not remain as it is now. It just might not go back to normal quickly.

"The lockdown is not sustainable economically, and possibly not politically," Dr Neal said.

"So we need other things to control it."

Coronavirus
(Nine)
That means that, as countries start to creep out of their paralyses, experts would push governments to implement an awkward new way of living and interacting to buy the world time in the months, years or decades until COVID-19 can be eliminated by a vaccine.

"It is absolutely essential to work on being COVID-ready," Dr Nabarro said.

He calls for a new "social contract" in which citizens in every country, while starting to go about their normal lives, take personal responsibility to self-isolate if they show symptoms or come into contact with a potential COVID-19 case.

It means the culture of shrugging off a cough or light cold symptoms and trudging into work should be over.

Experts also predict a permanent change in attitudes towards remote working, with working from home, at least on some days, becoming a standard way of life for white collar employees.

Companies would be expected to shift their rotas so that offices are never full unnecessarily.

Australian health authorities have started to take measures to ‘flatten the curve’ and slow down the rate of COVID-19 infections. Here’s exactly what that means.
"It (must) become a way of behaving that we all ascribe to personal responsibility... treating those who are isolated as heroes rather than pariahs," Dr Nabarro said.

"A collective pact for survival and wellbeing in the face of the threat of the virus."

"It's going to be difficult to do in poorer nations," he adds, so finding ways to support developing countries will become "particularly politically tricky, but also very important".

He cites tightly packed refugee and migrant settlements as areas of especially high concern.

In the short term, Dr Nabarro says a vast program of testing and contact tracing would need to be implemented to allow life to function alongside COVID-19 – one which dwarfs any such program ever established to fight an outbreak, and which remains some time away in major countries like the US and the UK.

"Absolutely critical is going to be having a public health system in place that includes contact tracing, diagnosis in the workplace, monitoring for syndromic surveillance, early communication on whether we have to re-implement social distancing," Dr Hotez said.

Tops tips for minimizing coronavirus transmission. (9News)
"It's doable, but it's complicated and we really haven't done it before."

Those systems could allow for some social interactions to return.

"If there's minimal transmission, it may indeed be possible to open things up for sporting events" and other large gatherings, Dr Hotez said – but such a move would not be permanent and would continually be assessed by governments and public health bodies.

That means the Premier League, NFL and other mass events could go ahead with their schedules as long as athletes are getting regularly tested, and welcome in fans for weeks at a time – perhaps separated within the stands – before quickly shutting stadiums if the threat rises.

"Bars and pubs are probably last on the list as well, because they are overcrowded," Dr Neal said.

"They could reopen as restaurants, with social distancing."

Key information about the coronavirus pandemic. (9News)
Some European countries have signalled they will start allowing restaurants to serve customers at vastly reduced capacity.

Restrictions are most likely to come back over the winter, with Dr Hotez suggesting that COVID-19 peaks could occur every winter until a vaccine is introduced.

And lockdowns, many of which are in the process of gradually being lifted, could return at any moment.

"From time to time there will be outbreaks, movement will be restricted – and that may apply to parts of a country, or it may even apply to a whole country," Dr Nabarro said.

The more time passes, the more imposing becomes the hotly debated prospect of herd immunity – reached when the majority of a given population, around 70 percent to 90 percent, becomes immune to an infectious disease.

"That does to some extent limit spread," Mr Offit says, "although population immunity caused by natural infection is not the best way to provide population immunity. The best way is with a vaccine."

A look at the differences between outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics, plus other key terms, such as coronavirus, used by health authorities dealing with the spread of a virus.
Measles is the "perfect example", Mr Offit says – before vaccines became widespread, "every year two to three million people would get measles, and that would be true here too".

In other words, the amount of death and suffering from COVID-19 would be vast even if a large portion of the population is not susceptible.

All of these predictions are tempered by a general belief that a vaccine will, eventually, be developed.

"I do think there'll be vaccine – there's plenty of money, there's plenty of interest and the target is clear," Mr Offit said.

But if previous outbreaks have proven anything, it's that hunts for vaccines are unpredictable.

"I don't think any vaccine has been developed quickly," Mr Offit cautions.

"I'd be really amazed if we had something in 18 months."

Coronavirus: what you need to know
What is the difference between COVID-19 and the flu?

The symptoms of COVID-19 and the flu are very similar, as they both can cause fever and respiratory issues.

Both infections are also transmitted the same way, via coughing or sneezing, or by contact with hands, surfaces or objects contaminated with the virus.

The speed of transmission and the severity of the infection are the key differences between COVID-19 and the flu.

The time from infection to the appearance of symptoms is typically shorter with the flu. However, there are higher proportions of severe and critical COVID-19 infections.

What is social distancing?

Social distancing involved minimising contact with people and maintaining a distance of over one metre between you and others.

When practicing social distancing, you should avoid public transport, limit non-essential travel, work from home and skip large gatherings.

It is okay to go outdoors. However, when you do leave home, avoid touching your face and frequently wash your hands.

For breaking news alerts and livestreams straight to your smartphone sign up to the 9News app and set notifications to on at the App Store or Google Play. You can also get up-to-date information from the Federal Government's Coronavirus Australia app, available on the App Store, Google Play and the Government's WhatsApp channel.

Reported with CNN.
 

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
100 labs are trying to come up with the vaccine. So wat happens when the wuhan virus end up like SARs.? They will loose billions..no wonder all these over reactions to the flu.

COVID-19: European leaders push vaccine financing drive
More than 100 labs around the world are scrambling to come up with a vaccine
More than 100 labs around the world are scrambling to come up with a vaccine. (AFP/NICOLAS ASFOURI)
04 May 2020 05:42AM
(Updated: 04 May 2020 05:50AM)
Bookmark
LONDON: European leaders are backing an initiative from Brussels to raise 7.5 billion euros (US$8.3 billion) to find a vaccine to curb the global coronavirus pandemic.

The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, outlined the fund-raising plan for the scientific fight-back against COVID-19 on Friday.

An online pledging conference will take place on Monday to plug gaps in financing of research.

Italy's Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel gave their support in an open letter published in weekend newspapers.

The president of the European Council, Charles Michel, and Norway's Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, also signed and all gave their backing to the World Health Organization in the face of US criticism about its handling of the crisis.

The funds raised will "kickstart an unprecedented global cooperation between scientists and regulators, industry and governments, international organisations, foundations and healthcare professionals", the leaders said.

But they warned that more money would still be needed to manufacture and deliver "available, accessible and affordable" medicines across the world.

"If we can develop a vaccine that is produced by the world, for the whole world, this will be a unique global public good of the 21st century," they added.

URGENT ACTION

Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Saudi Arabia and the European Commission, are co-hosting the conference, which is part of a month-long international investment drive before the Global Vaccine Summit on Jun 4.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who spent three nights in intensive care with COVID-19, said finding a treatment was "the most urgent shared endeavour of our lifetimes".

He will confirm Britain's pledge of £388 million for vaccine research, tests and treatments, which is part of a wider £744 million to the global effort against the virus.

"To win this battle, we must work together to build an impregnable shield around all our people, and that can only be achieved by developing and mass producing a vaccine," he will tell delegates, according to his office.

"The more we pull together and share our expertise, the faster our scientists will succeed."

Dozens of research projects are under way around the world to find a vaccine, which the United Nations has said is the only way for a return to normal life.

On Thursday, British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca announced a partnership with Oxford University for the large-scale manufacture and potential distribution of a vaccine currently on trial.
 

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
One question. The numbers of deaths with regards to the wuhan virus is greatly exaggerated n this virus is no different a flu. Who is going to be responsible for the economic destruction? Will the ppl that advocated the lockdowns be executed for treason n crimes against humanity?

 

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
Flu deaths are higher than the wuhan virus. And now with soo much data coming in and there is a clearer picture. Why are people n gahmens still persisting on the lockdowns? The economic destruction is still not enough?

Global mortality associated with seasonal influenza epidemics: New burden estimates and predictors from the GLaMOR Project
John Paget, Peter Spreeuwenberg, [...], and for the Global Seasonal Influenza-associated Mortality Collaborator Network and GLaMOR Collaborating Teams*

Abstract
Background
Until recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated the annual mortality burden of influenza to be 250 000 to 500 000 all-cause deaths globally; however, a 2017 study indicated a substantially higher mortality burden, at 290 000-650 000 influenza-associated deaths from respiratory causes alone, and a 2019 study estimated 99 000-200 000 deaths from lower respiratory tract infections directly caused by influenza. Here we revisit global and regional estimates of influenza mortality burden and explore mortality trends over time and geography.

Methods
We compiled influenza-associated excess respiratory mortality estimates for 31 countries representing 5 WHO regions during 2002-2011. From these we extrapolated the influenza burden for all 193 countries of the world using a multiple imputation approach. We then used mixed linear regression models to identify factors associated with high seasonal influenza mortality burden, including influenza types and subtypes, health care and socio-demographic development indicators, and baseline mortality levels.

Results
We estimated an average of 389 000 (uncertainty range 294 000-518 000) respiratory deaths were associated with influenza globally each year during the study period, corresponding to ~ 2% of all annual respiratory deaths. Of these, 67% were among people 65 years and older. Global burden estimates were robust to the choice of countries included in the extrapolation model. For people <65 years, higher baseline respiratory mortality, lower level of access to health care and seasons dominated by the A(H1N1)pdm09 subtype were associated with higher influenza-associated mortality, while lower level of socio-demographic development and A(H3N2) dominance was associated with higher influenza mortality in adults ≥65 years.

Conclusions
Our global estimate of influenza-associated excess respiratory mortality is consistent with the 2017 estimate, despite a different modelling strategy, and the lower 2019 estimate which only captured deaths directly caused by influenza. Our finding that baseline respiratory mortality and access to health care are associated with influenza-related mortality in persons <65 years suggests that health care improvements in low and middle-income countries might substantially reduce seasonal influenza mortality. Our estimates add to the body of evidence on the variation in influenza burden over time and geography, and begin to address the relationship between influenza-associated mortality, health and development.

Until late 2017, WHO estimated that seasonal influenza was associated with a total of 250 000 to 500 000 deaths from all causes annually [1]. Recently, however, three different groups have provided estimates of influenza's annual mortality burden using different methods. The first to be published, from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and coordinated by WHO, estimated that influenza is associated with 290 000 to 650 000 deaths from respiratory causes alone [2]. WHO adopted this range in late 2017 as its official assessment [2]. In early 2019, a publication from the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) estimated a range of 99 000 to 200 000 annual deaths from lower respiratory tract infections directly attributable to influenza [3]. Although the burden of influenza is known to fluctuate greatly between years, neither of these estimates were broken down by year or circulating strains.

We report here a third estimate, from the Global Influenza Mortality project (GLaMOR), of 294 000 to 518 000 influenza-associated respiratory deaths annually. Our study, like the CDC study, was coordinated by WHO but our extrapolation model did not rely on the same assumptions, particularly that influenza-associated mortality scales with respiratory death rates. We used national vital statistics data to assess influenza-associated respiratory mortality in 31 countries, then used a multiple imputation approach to extrapolate those estimates to the WHO-regional and global levels. Our approach allowed us to make individual annual estimates for the period 2002-2011 (excluding the 2009 pandemic year) while stratifying by age (0-64 and 65+ years). Moreover, we identified factors associated with high seasonal influenza mortality burden, including circulation of influenza A subtypes, demography, health and development indicators.

METHODS
We used a two-stage modelling approach to estimate the global respiratory mortality burden of influenza, which we have described in detail in prior work focused on the 2009 influenza pandemic [4] and Online Supplementary Document. In Stage 1, we generate annual age-specific estimates of influenza associated deaths from respiratory causes in a subset of countries with available weekly or monthly national statistics. In Stage 2, we extrapolate these estimates to the world population, and explore virologic, geographic, and socio-demographic predictors of mortality.

Stage 1
In Stage 1, we used multi-year age-specific excess respiratory mortality rates (<65 years and ≥65 years) from 30 of the 33 countries included in a previous CDC study [2]. Annual age- and country-specific estimates were obtained from time series models applied to vital statistics data on respiratory deaths and influenza surveillance indicators, using various model forms and assumptions (Table 1). We estimated influenza-associated mortality for two additional countries (Sweden and Poland) that were not in the CDC-led study [2] and updated estimates to represent all of Brazil; for these 3 countries we ran weekly time series models including flexible seasonal baselines and influenza viral proxies (Table 1). We used 31 countries in our final Stage 1 sample, which represented 37% of the world population and included countries from five of the six WHO regions. The sample was skewed towards Europe, Western Pacific and the Americas. We conducted sensitivity analyses with a larger set of 33 countries, with the addition of India and Kenya, for which influenza-associated mortality estimates were derived from a population sample rather than national vital statistics data (see Online Supplementary Document for more details). To calculate annual excess mortality rates, we used a definition of “respiratory year” tailored to influenza circulation, representing July 1 to June 30 for countries in the Northern hemisphere, and the calendar year (January 1 to December 31) for countries in the Southern Hemisphere or countries with tropical climate.

Table 1
Stage 2
In Stage 2, we used a previously developed multiple imputation model relying on 10 country-specific indicators representing demographic, geographic and population-level health conditions (Table S1 in Online Supplementary Document) to extrapolate the mortality burden of influenza to 193 countries [4]. We applied the Stage 2 methodology to each respiratory year separately. To maintain sufficient diversity in the set of countries used (see Table 1 and Table S2 in Online Supplementary Document), we restricted the analysis to years for which we had 19 or more Stage 1 country rate estimates (similar to the 20 countries used for the 2009 pandemic extrapolation procedure [4]). We also excluded the 2009 pandemic season (years of inclusions were 2002-2008 and 2010-2011). Most Stage 1 countries contributed 5 or more data-years (the one exception was Uruguay with 3 years). To describe the variability in mortality estimates by influenza season, we present the seasonal ranges rather than 95% confidence intervals. To test whether the multiple imputation models had sufficient information to capture between-country differences in a statistically reliable manner, we calculated reliability coefficients for each year and age group, with a value of 0.8 or higher indicating high reliability [4].

As a sensitivity analysis to assess the stability of the global and regional estimates, we performed a ‘leave-one-out’ analysis, in which we removed each of the 31 Stage 1 countries one at a time [4]. To facilitate comparison of our results with those of the CDC study [2], we also conducted a sensitivity analysis in which we included subnational data from India (2 years of data) and Kenya (4 years of data for people <65 years of age only). We decided not to use these estimates in our main analysis because, unlike our other Stage 1 data, they represented less than 1% of the populations of these countries and death counts were obtained through verbal autopsy methods rather than certified death certificate coding (Table 1).

Predictors of influenza mortality
We used mixed-effects generalized linear models to identify predictors of influenza-associated excess mortality and assess the role of circulating influenza virus type and subtype, population, socio-economic development, population health status, and time trends (see Online Supplementary Document for details). Regression models were run separately for each age group, and for the set of Stage 1 (n = 31 countries) and Stage 2 countries. To assess the role of circulating influenza subtype, we used the WHO FluNET database [5] to create a categorical index based on the regionally dominant influenza subtypes in each year, defined as the subtype representing >75% of influenza specimens (A(H3N2), A(H1N1), or mixed subtypes). As there was not enough information to assess subtype dominance by country, we used WHO regions to group countries. No season was dominated by influenza B during the study period.

To assess the role of population health and socio-economic status, we compiled standard country-specific indicators from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation project, including the Healthcare Access and Quality Index (HAQI) [6], and the Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) [7]; both indicators have been used in multiple global disease burden studies eg, [6,8]. The HAQI is a measure of personal health care access and quality; it is constructed using mortality rates from 32 causes of death that are generally not fatal in the presence of effective medical care (ie, amenable mortality) [6]. The SDI is a measure of overall development, and includes information on income per person, average years of education and total fertility rate [7]. For context, we also compiled baseline total annual respiratory death rates from the Global Burden of Disease project, combining upper respiratory deaths, lower respiratory deaths, and chronic respiratory deaths [9].

In the mixed-effects regression models, we considered random effects for country, and fixed effects for other predictors such as subtype, HAQI, SDI, baseline respiratory death rates, year and region. Inclusion of a term for year allowed for modelling of putative time trends in influenza-associated respiratory mortality. Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) was used for model selection. When relevant, we repeated our analyses on the full sample of all 193 WHO countries and the 31 Stage 1 countries to check the consistency of findings. The Stage 1 estimates do not make any prior assumptions about the relationship between influenza-associated mortality and development as estimates are directly derived from vital statistics observations. Stage 2 estimates are based on an imputation method that do not make direct assumptions about this relationship, although 4 of the 10 indicators used for imputation purposes are related to socio-economic and health development.

RESULTS
Stage 1 and Stage 2
We included Stage 1 estimates from 31 countries in our main analysis, representing 37% of the world population. Although three WHO regions (Europe, the Americas and Western Pacific) were well represented with 15, 8 and 8 countries, respectively, only one country estimate of influenza-associated excess respiratory death was available from Sub-Saharan Africa (South Africa) and South-East Asia (Thailand) each, and none from the Eastern Mediterranean WHO regions (Table 1). The Stage 1 country estimates differed by WHO region and age group, with wider inter-quartile ranges in the ≥65 age group compared to the <65 age group (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Boxplot of the Stage 1 country estimates of influenza-associated excess respiratory mortality rates per 100 000 by WHO region, under 65 and over 65. Panel A. Age <65. Panel B. Age ≥65.
We estimated the average numbers and rates (per 100 000) of influenza-associated respiratory deaths globally, and by WHO region and age group (Table 2) in Stage 2. Overall, we estimated an annual mean of 389 000 influenza-associated respiratory deaths in the all-age group during the study period, with substantial annual variation, ranging from 294 000 deaths in 2002 to 518 000 in 2004 (Table 2). The magnitude of annual mortality fluctuations was quite similar for the less than and greater than 65 age groups (Figure 3). Nearly 50% of influenza-associated respiratory deaths occurred in South-East Asia and the Western Pacific and 67% occurred in individuals ≥65 years (Table 1). Age mortality patterns varied widely by WHO region, with the highest percentage of deaths in older individuals found in Europe (84%) and the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa (36%). We found that the lowest percentage of deaths occurred in older adults in 2010, at the global level and in almost all regions (ie, the year after the 2009 pandemic).

Table 2
Predictors of influenza-associated excess mortality rates per 100 000 by age group and country in the Stage 2 approach*
The mean annual global influenza-associated respiratory mortality rate per 100 000 was 5.9, with regional estimates ranging from 4.5 in Eastern Mediterranean to 6.2 in the Americas (Table 2). Globally, the excess mortality rate was on average 26 times higher in older adults than in the <65 age group (ranging from 18 times higher in Sub-Saharan Africa to 32 times higher in the Americas). The highest estimated rates were in the <65 age group in Sub-Saharan Africa and the ≥65 group in South-East Asia. Some countries experienced particularly high mortality rates in the ≥65 group, including those in the Americas (eg, Argentina), Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, South-East Asia and parts of Western Pacific (eg, China Figure 2, panel B). The WHO European region had the lowest influenza-associated respiratory mortality rates in both the <65 and ≥65 age groups.

Figure 2
World map of average seasonal influenza-associated excess mortality rate per 100 000, by country*. Panel A. Age <65. Panel B. Age ≥65. *World map of average seasonal influenza-associated excess mortality rate per 100 000, ...
Sensitivity analyses. To investigate the robustness of our global burden estimates, we conducted a sensitivity analysis which included the subnational data from smaller samples available in India (2 years) and Kenya (4 years; only <65 years age group). Including these data increased the global estimates (Figure 3), especially in the <65 age group (Panel A). A ‘leave-one-out’ analysis of the Stage 1 estimates [7] (Figure 4) revealed that the influenza-associated respiratory mortality estimates were generally stable, but that South Africa (the only Stage 1 estimate for the African region in our main analysis) had an important impact on the global estimate and some of the regional estimates (eg, the sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Mediterranean regions). The reliability coefficients for the nine annual models averaged 0.8 in the two age groups, indicating high reliability/internal consistency (see Table S3 in Online Supplementary Document).

Figure 4
Predictors of influenza-associated respiratory mortality
Multivariate regression (Table 3) revealed that the dominant subtype circulating each season was a predictor of excess respiratory mortality, with the most severe seasons coinciding with circulation of influenza A(H3N2) in older adults, and with A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic virus in the younger age group, even outside of the 2009 pandemic season. The best model for the <65 age group included all three health and socio-economic indicators considered (HAQI, SDI and baseline respiratory mortality), indicating higher influenza burden in countries with less developed health care delivery and higher baseline respiratory mortality. In models for individuals aged ≥65 years, the only significant country-level predictor was SDI, suggesting that demographic- and socio-economic factors, rather than baseline health, drive influenza-associated respiratory mortality in this age group. The strong scaling of influenza burden with baseline respiratory mortality rates in people <65 years, but not in older adults ≥65 years of age, was consistent in Stage 1 and Stage 2 samples (Figures S2 and S3 in Online Supplementary Document).

Significant regional effects were found in all models, persisting beyond the effect of country-level predictors and regional subtype dominance. From the age-specific models we found a particularly high influenza-associated respiratory mortality rate for the <65 age group in Sub-Saharan Africa and for older individuals in South-East Asia (Table 3). In contrast, Europeans of all ages experienced lower influenza-associated respiratory mortality rates, even after controlling for socio-economic and demographic conditions experienced in this region.

To assess the overall influenza burden relative to other diseases associated with respiratory mortality, we explored the contribution of influenza-associated deaths to total respiratory deaths in our global sample. Overall, influenza-associated deaths represented a median 2.8% (IQR = 1.9-4.2%) of total respiratory deaths in people <65 and 1.8% (IQR = 2.8-4.1%) in those ≥65 years (Figure 5). The proportion of respiratory deaths attributable to influenza varied substantially between countries; however, these differences did not align with the socio-economic or health care indicators considered in this study. Estimates of the proportion of respiratory deaths due to influenza were consistent in Stage 1 (Figure S4 in the Online Supplementary Document) and Stage 2 data sets.

Figure 5
DISCUSSION
Our study of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality is one of three influenza burden projects conducted in consultation with WHO; the others were led by the US-CDC [2] and GBD project [3]. We find that 389 000 deaths from respiratory causes are associated with influenza each year on average (range 294 000 - 518 000) during 2002-2011, excluding the 2009 pandemic season, implicating influenza in roughly two percent of all annual respiratory deaths. This estimate is similar to the CDC estimate – an important result in light of the very different global extrapolation methods used. Notably, the GLaMOR and CDC estimates are 2-3 fold higher than the GBD estimate. This is in part because the GLaMOR and CDC estimates include all influenza-associated respiratory deaths, while the GBD estimates only include deaths from lower respiratory tract infections that are directly caused by influenza; differences in extrapolation approaches for data-poor countries may also have played a role.

We further found that two-thirds (67%) of seasonal influenza deaths occurred in those ≥65 years of age but with large regional variation - from 36% in Sub-Saharan Africa to 86% in Europe; these differences are likely driven by regional variation in baseline mortality, age structure and socio-demographic development. Influenza-associated mortality rates were 26 times higher in those ≥65 years compared to those <65 years, highlighting the larger burden in the elderly and importance of this age group for mitigation of seasonal influenza.

Neither the GLaMOR nor CDC estimates captures influenza-associated deaths ascribed to cardiovascular causes, indicating that the total mortality burden of influenza is likely to be substantially higher. Had we analysed cardio-respiratory or all-cause mortality outcomes, our estimates would have had higher sensitivity (ie, captured more influenza-associated deaths) but would have had lower specificity (ie, had less precision). In the GLaMOR study of the 2009 influenza pandemic, that ratio of all-cause to respiratory influenza-associated mortality was about 2:1 [4]. A recent review of 43 influenza-related mortality studies [10] found that ratio varies considerably among countries because of demographic and population health differences such as frequency of chronic conditions; what the ratio might be on a global level is unknown.

We used regression analysis to investigate the factors associated with high influenza-associated respiratory mortality and found that mortality was largest in seasons dominated by A(H3N2) subtype in people over 65 years, but largest in seasons dominated by A(H1N1) in people 65 years and younger, in agreement with other country-specific studies [4,10,11]. Our subtype dominance assessment was based on regional data from FluNet, rather than country-specific information; sampling in FluNet can be limited, especially in earlier years, and may only include a few surveillance sites not representative of large countries, but it is a unique source of information available on a global scale. Further, we could not determine whether the increased A(H3N2) burden in older adults was due to higher attack rates, greater clinical severity (case fatality), or both. Further multi-national analyses of the variation in clinical severity by influenza subtype and strain would be useful, building on earlier work from Hong-Kong combining population-level data at different levels of the severity pyramid [12,13].

Regression analysis was further used to explore the relationship between influenza-associated mortality rates and indicators of development and health at the country level; this is important because prior global influenza studies made strong assumptions about this relationship [2,14]. We found that health care access [13], socio-demographic development indicators, and baseline respiratory mortality explained more than two-thirds of the variance in influenza-associated respiratory mortality rates between countries in people <65 years. These findings, if confirmed with additional observational data from low-income settings, suggest that improvements in health care might lower influenza-associated mortality in younger age groups. Given that high-income countries are near 100% on the HAQI scale of health development, the biggest gains in global influenza mortality would be expected in low and middle-income settings. In contrast, our regression model explained about a third of the variance in influenza-associated mortality in older individuals, on whom most of the burden of seasonal epidemics falls, with the socio-demographic indicator (SDI) being a significant predictor. This suggests that influenza-related mortality among older individuals is less driven by health care development and more by demographics. Reassuringly, relationships between influenza-associated mortality, development, and demographics were consistent in Stage 1 and 2 data. Stage 1 data did not make any prior assumptions about these relationships as influenza estimates relied on direct modelling of vital statistics in data-rich countries, lending support to our findings. It is worth noting that our Stage 2 extrapolation approach included some covariates that increase with development (eg, physicians per capita and gross national income), so there is some circularity in our predictor analysis of Stage 2 data. Ultimately, these relationships should be tested with direct Stage 1 observations from a larger set of countries, especially in low-income regions. Finally, we did not have access to global influenza vaccination uptake data and thus could not include this factor in our predictor analysis. The effect of seasonal influenza vaccination and other factors such as population age structure and the prevalence of HIV and TB [15] deserve further study.

Our regression analysis suggests that general health care improvement may have less of an impact on influenza-associated mortality in older adults. These age differences should be interpreted with caution given ecological nature of this study and the collinearity of the health care and socio-demographic development indicators considered here. We speculate that chronic conditions associated with severe influenza outcomes late in life are harder to prevent or treat, possibly explaining our findings. Analyses of long-term changes in influenza-related mortality in a subset of countries with robust historical records may clarify this important question. And although we did not find evidence of nonlinear relationships between influenza excess mortality, HAQI, and SDI, as important mortality causes shift with development, further analyses with more data points would be warranted.

The CDC-led study [2] and our study relied on similar data but were methodologically distinct. Both used an overlapping set of Stage 1 estimates from data-rich countries that had detailed vital statistics information, although we did not use data from India and Kenya while including data from Sweden, Poland and Brazil. The modelling approaches used to extrapolate to the regional and global levels, however, were quite different. In line with the GLaMOR approach [4], we imputed influenza mortality in countries without national vital statistics on the basis of 10 demographic, geographic, social and other indicators. In contrast, the US CDC-led study [2] used a “multiplier” method whereby influenza mortality is assumed to scale with age- and region-specific baseline respiratory mortality, modified from Dawood et al. [16]. As previously discussed, validation of this extrapolation approach requires careful investigation of the relationship between influenza associated-mortality and baseline respiratory mortality.

While the two methods produced broadly similar global burden estimates, that similarity obscures important differences. The CDC study found that 42% of deaths occurred in people <65 years of age, while we found that only 33% (range 28%-40%) in this age group. The CDC study found the highest burden in Sub-Saharan Africa while we found the highest burden in the Americas. Additional Stage 1 data from low-income settings would be needed to settle these differences.

Sensitivity analyses indicated that our estimates increased markedly when we included the Stage 1 inputs from India and Kenya that were included in the CDC study (Figure 3), which might explain why the CDC estimated proportion of deaths in people <65 years was higher than ours. We also note that the set of countries both teams used is a convenience sample, with substantial gaps. Indeed, we had no Stage 1 countries representing the Eastern Mediterranean and just one for each Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia. For example, removing the South Africa Stage 1 estimate substantially decreased the mortality estimate for all of Sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 4); it is difficult, however, to assess the estimation error due to the lack of balanced geographic representation. Obviously, having more countries from each region would improve the mortality estimates from both studies, but that must await the collection of detailed vital statistics in more low-income countries

A recent review of Stage 1 mortality studies suggested that models that do not consider viral activity terms tend to overestimate the burden [10], and simulation analyses have shown that less robust surveillance tends to underestimate it [17]. These observations might explain why our Brazil estimate is so different from the other South American Stage 1 countries, which relied on the Serfling method that does not include viral terms (Figure 2).

The 2017 GBD mortality estimates [3] were lower (the point estimate was 145 000 deaths in all ages) than the GLaMOR and CDC estimates but this was to be expected as the GBD estimates were based on an assessment of lower respiratory tract infection deaths rather than all respiratory deaths (which include lower and upper respiratory tract deaths). Further, the GBD approach considers influenza ‘attributable’ (caused by) deaths rather than influenza associated-deaths, and would exclude, for example, a death where pneumonia is the principal cause of death and influenza was the secondary cause. Furthermore, the country-specific data from GBD indicates the highest morality burdens were found in eastern Europe (eg, Russia and Ukraine) and countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South America [3]. The latter findings are generally consistent with the GLaMOR and US CDC estimates, but the very high rates in eastern Europe are not (see Figure 2), suggesting some important methodological differences in the calculation methods (eg, local or national studies could weigh substantially on the three population attributable factions used in the GBD method) [3].

CONCLUSIONS
Going forward, proper monitoring of influenza-associated mortality requires the collection of more detailed mortality data from a larger set of countries and over a longer time period. As a case in point, while 70 countries report annual vital statistics to WHO [18], only 33 provided data at the weekly or monthly resolution needed for influenza Stage 1 burden studies. We believe most of the 70 participating countries have more detailed data at monthly or weekly time scale which, if reported and shared, would be very valuable in assessing any diseases that exhibits seasonality.

Our study highlights systematic regional variation in influenza mortality burden, in part driven by health care and socio-economic development, which should be further investigated as more data become available. Because estimation of influenza mortality is not straightforward and entails assumptions that are difficult to test, it is important to compare estimates from different modelling approaches, as we have done here. Further, our global and regional estimates will provide a useful baseline to set health priorities [19] and project the impact of new or improved intervention measures, such as universal influenza vaccines currently under development.

Table thumbnail
Figure 3. Yearly influenza-associated respiratory mortality rate per 100 000 population, with and without adding India and Kenya to the Stage 1 input data set. Panel A. Age <65. Panel B. Age ≥65. Panel C. All ages.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Julia Fitzner and Vanessa Cozza for coordinating the project at WHO. We would also like to thank Madelon Kroneman for supporting the GLaMOR team with the analysis. The members of the Seasonal Influenza-associated Mortality Collaborator Network and the GLaMOR Collaborating Teams are as follows:

Seasonal Influenza-associated Mortality Collaborator Network: Australia: David J Muscatello (University of New South Wales), Anthony T Newall, C Raina MacIntyre and James G Wood (University of New South Wales, School of Public Health and Community Medicine). Austria: Therese Popow-Kraupp and Monika Redlberger-Fritz (Department of Virology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria), Michael Kundi (Institute of Environmental Health, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria). Canada: Dena Schanzer (Infection Disease Prevention and Control Branch, Public Health Agency Canada). China: Feng Luzhao, Zheng Jiandong (Division of Infectious Disease, Key Laboratory of Surveillance and Early-Warning on Infectious Disease, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Czech Republic: Jan Kyncl (Department of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, National Institute of Public Health). Denmark: Kåre Mølbak, Jens Nielsen, Tyra Grove Krause, Laura Espenhain (Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Statens Serum Institut), Thea Kølsen Fischer, Ramona Trebbien (Department of Microbiological Diagnostics and Virology, Statens Serum Institut). Germany: Udo Buchholz, Matthias an der Heiden (Robert Koch-Institut, Department for Infectious Disease Epidemiology). Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China: Benjamin J Cowling, Peng Wu (WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong). India: Anand Krishnan, Venkatesh Narayan, (All India Institute of Medical Sciences), Mandeep Chadha (National Institute of Virology), Rohit Bhardwaj (SRS Division, Office of Registrar General of India). Israel: Zalman Kaufman, Aharona Glatman-Freedman, Michal Bromberg (Israel Center for Disease Control, Ministry of Health). Kenya: Gideon Emukule, Sandra Chaves (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Kenya Country Office), Bryan Nyawanda (Kenya Medical Research Institute – Center for Global Health Research). Netherlands: Liselotte van Asten, Wim van der Hoek, Cees C. van den Wijngaard (RIVM - National Institute for Public Health and the Environment). New Zealand: Don Bandaranayake, Sue Huang, Claire Newbern, Liza Lopez, Ange Bissielo (Institute of Environmental Science and Research), Michael Baker (Department of Public Health, University of Otago). Norway: Elmira Flem, Gry M Grøneng, Siri Hauge (Norwegian Institute of Public Health), Jon Michael Gran (Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo; Norwegian Institute of Public Health). WHO Pan American Health Organization: Federico Gerardo de Cosío, Rakhee Palekar. Chile: Viviana Sotomayor Proschle, Natalia Vergara Mallegas (Department of Epidemiology, Ministry of Health). Paraguay: Marta von Horoch, Maria Agueda Cabello (Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, Ministry of Health Paraguay). Uruguay: Natalia Goñi, Hector Chiparelli (National Influenza Reference Center, Department of Public Health Laboratory, Ministry of Health). Mexico: Maria Eugenia Jimenez Corona, Cuitláhuac Ruiz Matus (Direccion General de Epiemiologia, Secretaria de Salud), Pablo A. Kuri-Morales (Undersecretary of Prevention and Health Promotion of the Ministry of Health; School of Medicine UNAM Mexico). Portugal: Susana Pereira da Silva, Emanuel Rodrigues, Baltazar Nunes, Ana Paula Rodrigues, Ausenda Machado (Epidemiology Department, National Health Institute Doutor Ricardo Jorge). Romania: Cristian Calomfirescu, Odette Popovici, Rodica Popescu (National Institute of Public Health, Romania-National Centre for Communicable Diseases Surveillance and Control), Emilia Lupulescu (National Research Institute “Dr. Ioan Cantacuzino”). Serbia: Dragan Bogdanovic, Konstansa Lazarevic (State University of Novi Pazar), Zoran Milosevic, Branislav Tiodorovic (University of Nis Medical School), Marina Kostic (Public Health Institute Nis). Singapore: Stefan Ma, Li Wei Ang, Jeffery Cutter, Raymond Lin, Vernon Lee (Ministry of Health, Singapore), Mark Chen (National University of Singapore). South Africa: Cheryl Cohen, Florette Treurnicht (Centre for Respiratory Diseases and Meningitis, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service), Adam L Cohen (Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Strategic Information Group, Expanded Programme on Immunization, Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, World Health Organization), Stefano Tempia (Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). South Korea: Minah Park (WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China), Woo Joo Kim (Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine). Spain: Amparo Larrauri, Salvador de Mateo Ontañón, Fernando Vallejo, Inmaculada León, Concha Delgado-Sanz (CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), National Centre of Epidemiology, Carlos III Health Institute). Switzerland: Christoph Junker (Federal Statistical Office), Daniel Koch, Rita Born (Federal Office of Public Health). Thailand: Kanitta Bundhamcharoen Suchunya Aungkulanon (International Health Policy Program, Malinee Chittaganpitch (Thai National Institute of Health). United Kingdom: Richard Pebody, Helen Green (Public Health England). USA: Desiree Mustaquim, Lynnette Brammer (Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

GLaMOR Collaborating Teams: Brazil: Francisco José de Paula Júnior, Walquiria Aparecida Ferreira de Almeida (Surveillance Department of Transmitted Diseases, Secretariat for Health Surveillance, Ministry of Health). Poland: Bogdan J Wojtyniak (National Institute of Public Health – National Institute of Hygiene). Sweden: Annasara Carnahan, Mia Brytting (The Public Health Agency of Sweden).

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the National Institutes of Health, USA.

Footnotes
Funding: This study was supported by the WHO on a contract with NIVEL (APW 201497873) and the MISMS influenza program led by in-house research division of the Fogarty International Center of the US NIH.

Authors’ contributions: Conceived and designed the experiments: JP, PS, ADI, CV. Performed the experiments: PS, VC, ADI, CV. Analysed the data: PS, VC, ADI, CV. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: JP, PS, LS, RJT, CV. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: JP, PS, VC, RJT, ADI, JB, LS, CV. ICMJE criteria for authorship read and met: JP, PS, VC, RJT, ADI, JB, LS, CV. Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: JP, PS, VC, RJT, ADI, JB, LS, CV.

Competing interests: The authors completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no conflicts of interest.

Article information
J Glob Health. 2019 Dec; 9(2): 020421.
Published online 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.7189/jogh.09.020421
PMCID: PMC6815659
PMID: 31673337
1Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, the Netherlands
2Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
3Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
4Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
5Sage Analytica, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
6George Washington University, Washington, D.C., USA
7Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark
*Members of the Global Seasonal Influenza-associated Mortality Collaborator Network and the GLaMOR Collaborating Teams are listed in the Acknowledgements
Correspondence to:
John Paget, BSc, MSc, PhD
Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL)
Otterstraat 118-124
3513 CR Utrecht
The Netherlands
[email protected]
Copyright © 2019 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Articles from Journal of Global Health are provided here courtesy of International Society for Global Health
REFERENCES
1. World Health Organization. Up to 650 000 people die of respiratory diseases linked to seasonal flu each year. Available: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/seasonal-flu/en/. Accessed: 1 March 2018.
2. Iuliano AD, Roguski KM, Chang HH, Muscatello DJ, Palekar R, Tempia S, et al. Estimates of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality: a modelling study. Lancet. 2018;391:1285-300. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33293-2 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. GBD 2017 Influenza Collaborators Mortality, morbidity, and hospitalisations due to influenza lower respiratory tract infections, 2017: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:69-89. 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30496-X [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Simonsen L, Spreeuwenberg P, Lustig R, Taylor RJ, Fleming DM, Kroneman M, et al. Global Mortality Estimates for the 2009 Influenza Pandemic from the GLaMOR Project: A Modeling Study. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001558. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001558 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. World Health Organization. WHO FluNet. Available: http://www.who.int/influenza/gisrs_laboratory/flunet/en/ Accessed: 4 October 2017.
6. GBD 2015 Healthcare Access and Quality Collaborators Healthcare Access and Quality Index based on mortality from causes amenable to personal health care in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2015: a novel analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2017;390:231-66. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30818-8 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (GBD 2015) Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) 1980–2015. Available: http://ghdx.healthdata.org/record/g...bd-2015-socio-demographic-index-sdi-1980–2015. Accessed: 1 March 2018.
8. Global Burden of Disease. Lancet. Available: http://www.thelancet.com/gbd. Accessed: 1 March 2018.
9. Global Burden of Disease. GBD Results Tool. Available: http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool. Accessed: 1 March 2018.
10. Li L, Wong JY, Wu P, Bond HS, Lau EHY, Sullivan SG, et al. Heterogeneity in Estimates of the Impact of Influenza on Population Mortality: A Systematic Review. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187:378-88. 10.1093/aje/kwx270 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Green HK, Andrews N, Fleming D, Zambon M, Pebody R.Mortality Attributable to Influenza in England and Wales Prior to, during and after the 2009 Pandemic. PLoS One. 2013;8:e79360. 10.1371/journal.pone.0079360 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Wu P, Presanis AM, Bond HS, Lau EHY, Fang VJ, Cowling BJ.A joint analysis of influenza-associated hospitalizations and mortality in Hong Kong, 1998–2013. Sci Rep. 2017;7:929. 10.1038/s41598-017-01021-x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Wong JY, Wu P, Goldstein E, Lau EH, Ip DK, Wu JT, et al. Analysis of potential changes in seriousness of influenza A and B viruses in Hong Kong from 2001 to 2011. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143:766-71. 10.1017/S0950268814001472 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. GBD 2017 Influenza Collaborators Mortality, morbidity, and hospitalisations due to influenza lower respiratory tract infections, 2017: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:69-89. 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30496-X [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Morales KF, Paget J, Spreeuwenberg P.Possible explanations for why some countries were harder hit by the pandemic influenza virus in 2009 - a global mortality impact modeling study. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17:642. 10.1186/s12879-017-2730-0 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Dawood FS, Iuliano AD, Reed C, Meltzer MI, Shay DK, Cheng PY, et al. Estimated global mortality associated with the first 12 months of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus circulation: A modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:687-95. 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70121-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Charu V, Paget WJ, Alonso WJ, Wojtyniak B, Taylor RJ, Lustig RL, et al. What is the true mortality burden of influenza? Sensitivity of influenza-related excess mortality estimates to model specification and surveillance sampling. Poster presented at the ESWI Influenza Conference, 2017 September 10-13, Riga, Latvia. [Google Scholar]
18. World Health Organization. WHO Mortality Database 2014. Available: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/mortality_data/en/. Accessed: 30 March 2018.
19. Bresee J, Fitzner J, Campbell H, Cohen C, Cozza V, Jara J, et al. Progress and Remaining Gaps in Estimating the Global Disease Burden of Influenza. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018;24:1173-7. 10.3201/eid2407.171270 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
theguardian.com

Number of deaths in England and Wales hits 12-year high
David Batty

4-5 minutes



This article is more than 4 years old
Public Health England says less effective flu vaccine may have contributed to largest percentage rise in deaths since 1968
People walk across London Bridge

An additional 28,189 people died in 2015 compared with 2014, the highest number since 2003 and the largest year-on-year rise since 1967-68.


The failure to provide an effective flu vaccine last year may have contributed to the largest rise in deaths in England and Wales for 12 years, the government’s public health agency has admitted.

An additional 28,189 people died in 2015 compared with 2014, the largest percentage increase since 1968, according to figures published by the Office for National Statistics. The majority (24,201) of the excess deaths were people aged 75 and over, many of whom died from flu or dementia.

The flu vaccine issued last winter only provided low protection against the main strain of the virus then affecting the UK, Public Health England (PHE) said.

The vaccine was estimated to work in just 34% of cases in lab tests, compared with a more typical past effectiveness of 50%, due to genetic “drift” in the flu virus.
Dr Richard Pebody, head of flu surveillance for PHE, said the problem was caused by a mismatch between the A(H3N2) influenza strain used to make the vaccine and the main strain that spread in the UK last winter.

He said: “Although in most winters, the vaccine is well matched, winter 2014-15 saw the circulation of a drifted H3 flu strain, making the vaccine less effective than the typical 50% we had seen in recent previous years. It is possible that this contributed to the increase in excess mortality.”

The data from the ONS showed a rise of 28,189 deaths in 2015 (5.6%), from 501,424 in 2014 to 529,613 in 2015. This is the highest number since 2003, when there were 539,151 deaths. The percentage increase in 2015 is the largest year-on-year rise since 1967 to 1968 (6.3%).

The rise in the number of deaths lowered life expectancy for boys born in 2014-2015 by 0.2 years to 79.3 and for girls by 0.3 years to 82.9.

The report showed there was also a rise in the number of people whose death certificate said the underlying cause was dementia or Alzheimer’s, accounting for 41% of extra deaths among over-75s, although a third of these also had a respiratory disease, such as flu.

Jeremy Hughes, chief executive of the Alzheimer’s Society, said: “With one in six deaths in England and Wales of people over the age of 75 now attributed to dementia, these findings serve as a stark reminder of the need for good community care to support the most vulnerable.

“People living with dementia often have a lowered immune system and so are at a greater risk of contracting flu viruses. The condition also makes it harder for people to look after themselves and in the cold winter months this can become a real danger.”

Overall, 31% of death certificates said there was an underlying cause of respiratory disease, although the ONS said flu was generally underreported and so the figure was likely to be higher.

Claudia Wells, head of mortality analysis at ONS, said: “The majority of the increase in deaths in 2015 happened during the first few months of the year, coinciding with an increase in hospital admissions for flu and reports of numerous outbreaks of the virus in care homes.”

Professor John Newton, chief knowledge officer at Public Health England, which worked on the analysis, said: “An outbreak of flu can have a big impact, especially on those who are most vulnerable or experiencing other illnesses, such as dementia.”

PHE said at this stage the flu vaccine for this season was well matched to the circulating strains of the virus.
 

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
theguardian.com

Number of deaths in England and Wales hits 12-year high
David Batty

4-5 minutes



This article is more than 4 years old
Public Health England says less effective flu vaccine may have contributed to largest percentage rise in deaths since 1968
People walk across London Bridge

An additional 28,189 people died in 2015 compared with 2014, the highest number since 2003 and the largest year-on-year rise since 1967-68.


The failure to provide an effective flu vaccine last year may have contributed to the largest rise in deaths in England and Wales for 12 years, the government’s public health agency has admitted.

An additional 28,189 people died in 2015 compared with 2014, the largest percentage increase since 1968, according to figures published by the Office for National Statistics. The majority (24,201) of the excess deaths were people aged 75 and over, many of whom died from flu or dementia.

The flu vaccine issued last winter only provided low protection against the main strain of the virus then affecting the UK, Public Health England (PHE) said.

The vaccine was estimated to work in just 34% of cases in lab tests, compared with a more typical past effectiveness of 50%, due to genetic “drift” in the flu virus.
Dr Richard Pebody, head of flu surveillance for PHE, said the problem was caused by a mismatch between the A(H3N2) influenza strain used to make the vaccine and the main strain that spread in the UK last winter.

He said: “Although in most winters, the vaccine is well matched, winter 2014-15 saw the circulation of a drifted H3 flu strain, making the vaccine less effective than the typical 50% we had seen in recent previous years. It is possible that this contributed to the increase in excess mortality.”

The data from the ONS showed a rise of 28,189 deaths in 2015 (5.6%), from 501,424 in 2014 to 529,613 in 2015. This is the highest number since 2003, when there were 539,151 deaths. The percentage increase in 2015 is the largest year-on-year rise since 1967 to 1968 (6.3%).

The rise in the number of deaths lowered life expectancy for boys born in 2014-2015 by 0.2 years to 79.3 and for girls by 0.3 years to 82.9.

The report showed there was also a rise in the number of people whose death certificate said the underlying cause was dementia or Alzheimer’s, accounting for 41% of extra deaths among over-75s, although a third of these also had a respiratory disease, such as flu.

Jeremy Hughes, chief executive of the Alzheimer’s Society, said: “With one in six deaths in England and Wales of people over the age of 75 now attributed to dementia, these findings serve as a stark reminder of the need for good community care to support the most vulnerable.

“People living with dementia often have a lowered immune system and so are at a greater risk of contracting flu viruses. The condition also makes it harder for people to look after themselves and in the cold winter months this can become a real danger.”

Overall, 31% of death certificates said there was an underlying cause of respiratory disease, although the ONS said flu was generally underreported and so the figure was likely to be higher.

Claudia Wells, head of mortality analysis at ONS, said: “The majority of the increase in deaths in 2015 happened during the first few months of the year, coinciding with an increase in hospital admissions for flu and reports of numerous outbreaks of the virus in care homes.”

Professor John Newton, chief knowledge officer at Public Health England, which worked on the analysis, said: “An outbreak of flu can have a big impact, especially on those who are most vulnerable or experiencing other illnesses, such as dementia.”

PHE said at this stage the flu vaccine for this season was well matched to the circulating strains of the virus.
So there is definitely something wrong with the world when a virus is played up in such a manner and not the flu..
 

nayr69sg

Super Moderator
Staff member
SuperMod
KNN loctor actually from my uncle experience in sg the gp is the one that appear to discourage flu vaccine KNN whenever my uncle went to leequest yearly they will say ok you can have it but no poh kay ho and say about all the side effects and later asked my uncle you leecide KNN then when my uncle brought his parents for the jab the other gp also said the same KNN although it is the loctor duty to say the clauses but same time it sounded discouraging KNN why my uncle think is discouraging is that they only tell the negative side but not the positive KNN
That's because in sinkieland there have been cases where patient complain to SMC about GP never explain the 1 in 1 million risk of guillain barre syndrome.

So make all the GP scared and will explain solid solid about GBS.

It isn't discouraging. It is just the facts.
 

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
That's because in sinkieland there have been cases where patient complain to SMC about GP never explain the 1 in 1 million risk of guillain barre syndrome.

So make all the GP scared and will explain solid solid about GBS.

It isn't discouraging. It is just the facts.
Didn't the MOH stop giving BCG vaccinations some time ago? Wats the reason? The virus burnt itself out?
 

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
the author missed another "t", albeit he mentioned the importance of "testing" and "tracing". that "t" is treatment through therapeutics. instead of waiting (god knows when) for a vaccine, treating severe cases with therapeutics such as drugs and injections or iv drips that are proving to be effective for majority of those in icu will be the game changer. the whole idea of lockdowns is to protect the healthcare system, especially hospitals with their respective er's and icu's, as capacities in these sections are limited, not originally designed for surges with thousands of cases in a single day.

Couple of points-

1. The most important T the author missed is this: Tantric sex is the best!!!

2. Yes, the lockdown was to preserve the operational capabilities of our healthcare system, and I think we did extremely well thus far! GOLD Standards hokay? :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
 

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
Couple of points-

1. The most important T the author missed is this: Tantric sex is the best!!!

2. Yes, the lockdown was to preserve the operational capabilities of our healthcare system, and I think we did extremely well thus far! GOLD Standards hokay? :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
So isnt the operational capabilities preserved enough? N the elephant in the room that no one is addressing is why are icus etc not flooded? Wht are the infection rates climbing and mortality rates barely moving? Why are the infected not dead? Did not the authorities say it is deadly? The answer is it's no different to the flu.
 
Top