Beanie wrote: 
So a travel-sized bottle of purell sounds like a good travel addition!  :thumbsup:

 samiyam wrote: 

Nothing over 100ml.

Track the spread of the flu on Google Maps

 Beanie wrote: 
  I just purchased some today... (and some anti-pyretic pills)  I wonder if they still have that "no liquids" BS going on the airliners?

 oldslabsides wrote: 
I would normally say no, but OK is one of the states that has cases of swine flu present, so better be safe than sorry.

 Beanie wrote: 
 
Thank you Beanie, not something we've heard over here yet, although I did wonder a little at the quiet yet firm messages we've been getting from the gov't today. With our recent history in the UK (BSE, Foot'n'mouth, avian flu) and being a hub for worldwide aviation we're apparently world leaders in this kind of situation alongside your CDC, the French and the Germans.
 
 

 samiyam wrote: 

OK, you do have a point.  But I'll still submit you're more likely to catch it off the seat backs that others have touched than something airborne.  But I guess the mask can't hurt.  And you still need hand sanitizer. 

 oldslabsides wrote: 
I'm not sure Beanie is quite so accurate.  The air in an airliner has been known to transmit many germs.  You might consider putting a mask on but only once you're seated so that you don't freak the security wonks.

Remember that a mask is only good as long as it doesn't clog up with your breath moisture, so you need to change it every three hours or so.

 Beanie wrote: 
Thank you.

So, the only person I'm likely to catch it from is P - who's currently running a fever.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

No.

CDC says it's spread by *close* contact:  shaking hands or coughing on each other.  Leave the mask home and take hand sanitizer.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

      It depends.   Are you buying a ticket or hijacking?

 Beanie wrote: 
I'll trust your opinion on this, Miss Bean: should I wear a mask in the airport and on the plane tomorrow?

 exotraxx wrote: 
I think you're absolutely right.  This looks like panic for no good reason.

Except for one nasty little detail that no one is talking about.

The vast majority of the Mexicans who have died of this flu are young, healthy adults.  Now, if you think about it, this doesn't make sense.  Why should those in the population with the strongest immune systems doe of the flu?  Flu is supposed to kill sickly babies and people with AIDS and little old ladies with emphysema.  So why would healthy young people die of the flu?

Because they *aren't* dying of the flu.  They're dying of a hyper-immune response to the flu.  Something called a cytokine storm.  It basically makes the body turn on itself, causing (among other things) severe high fevers and pneumonia. 

We've seen this once before:  the pandemic of 1918.  That flu (the "Spanish Flu") killed almost 100 million people.

Is this flu going to be like that?  Probably not.  But because of the disease etiology, they're keeping a super-close eye on it.

 Welly wrote: 
I thought about this book yesterday when I told M to watch out  for bears and Canadians.

 I should have added "And don't shake anyones hand who has been to Mexico recently and if you do for God's sake don't spread the plague to Alaska. "
 

 hippiechick wrote: 

  

Funny, but true!  A friend just got sent home from work at a plasma center.  He's fine but his temperature is 100 degrees.

  I wonder if he will get paid sick time - he just started working there two weeks ago...

 Welly wrote: 
My favorite Stephen King.

......reminds me of a book I read in the 80s.....

 exotraxx wrote: 
Because fear sells pharmaceuticals.

Shocks over such issues are created with the intention of being able to push through unpopular reforms in the wake of the crisis.

"should we give up individual's rights for the good of the state?"

 exotraxx wrote: 
We're a nervous bunch.