Friday, November 13, 2009

Confusion between H1N1 and swine flu


We're writing this at an altitude of 20,000 feet, being on the road again and except for a few minutes here or there, without access to the internet most of the day. This means a lot of comments will probably go unanswered, so we'll say what we usually do in circumstances like this: talk amongst yourselves. Lots of smart people read this blog. Help each other.

A quick look at today's flu news tells me that CDC has updated its estimates, using the methodology we discussed in a previous post. And a survey at Arizona State University (ASU) released Monday shows the expected: that opting to call swine flu "H1N1" instead of swine flu has done nothing but confuse people. Predictable. Mrs. R. works in a health department and one of her colleagues was heard to say you could get H1N1 over and over again. He was wrong if he meant the swine flu H1N1 but quite correct if he meant H1N1 in general, because H1N1 is one of the seasonal flu subtypes that's been around since 1977 (and prior to 1957) and its antigenic drift every couple of years is the reason we have to change strains in the seasonal flu vaccine periodically. The confusion between seasonal H1N1 and swine flu H1N1 was quite evident in the ASU poll:

An Arizona State University survey about the H1N1 virus released Monday reveals a majority of those polled statewide are aware of the H1N1 virus or "swine flu," but fewer realize the two are the same, and one-fifth are unaware that an H1N1 vaccine is available. McClatchy-Tribune Information Services)
There was really no reason to change terminology from swine flu to H1N1 (the pandemic virus, after all, is composed of genetic pieces entirely of swine origin) -- no reason, that is, except to appease the pork industry and the national and intergovernmental agencies whose job is not public health but the promotion of agriculture. Promoting agriculture is a good thing (depending on the kind of agriculture, of course), but not at the expense of confusing people about public health.

So now there is handwringing in public health circles about public confusion. Some of it was inevitable. And some of it was avoidable.

No comments: