At best, the risks for younger folks is about equal to any flu, whereas the risks in that 20-40 range are astronomically higher than normal.
Mexico on edge as reports of swine flu cases climb - washingtonpost.com
The stats speak for themselves.Those teams noticed something strange: The flu was killing people aged 20 to 40. Flu victims are usually either infants or the elderly...
...Asked why there were so many deaths in Mexico, and none so far among the U.S. cases, Cordova noted that the U.S. cases involved children _ who haven't been among the fatal cases in Mexico, either.
Part of the reasoning for this is that the problems are caused by an over response of the immune system to the new illness. The weaker the immune system, the less likely it will be that there will be an over response.
I think the problem here is that most people are not capable of thinking long-term. They see the hype, and expect immediate impact. If they don't see immediate impact, they tend to ignore the hype.I know that some people may do it for about a week and that a few die hards will do it for longer but natural human ticks over rule eventually.
If I get it, I'd probably go to the doctor to if I'm sure I could die.
So far I've seen a frenzy of panic mongers who only influence people to do things that won't make a difference.
They might as well tell them to stop, drop, and roll or to duck and cover to prevent the flu.
Remember, just because the boy who cried wolf is telling you that there is a wolf standing outside the town, it doesn't mean that he's not telling the truth this time.
The problem is not that this flu is not a potential threat -because it is- it is that the media has hyped illegitimate threats in teh past so often. They didn't wait until sustained human to human transmission was observed before going over the deep end.
I'm not saying it's time to panic, but I am saying the threat should be taken seriously, even if the people telling you about it are known for being sensationalist assholes.